| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. [Interruption.] Order.
Mr. Blair: We are entitled to ask questions about the Government's handling of the issue. These are the questions that are being asked outside this House. The Prime Minister has embarked on a new initiative today.
I assume that he has a clear understanding of what it will mean in practice. I certainly hope so, because otherwise he will make a serious situation even worse.
The Prime Minister: The leader of the Labour party has a great gift for hindsight, but very little for foresight. In all of that long, rambling address, he did not express a single opinion on how to handle the matter in any respect. In that, he was consistent with the approach of the Labour party from the outset of this national problem.
Let me answer those of the right hon. Gemtleman's questions that were clear. We are seeking a plan for a progressive lifting, and have already been discussing that with the Commission--starting with the beef derivatives and moving on progressively through herds that are clear of BSE, with a stepped lifting of the ban. That is under detailed discussion with the Commission.
On what I had in mind when I spoke about us not being able to reciprocate if we were not receiving good will and co-operation from Europe, I will be quite specific with the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
I do not believe that we will be able to agree any matters requiring unanimity until such time as we are able to agree on how to deal with this crisis with our European partners. I do not believe that we will be able to make progress at the intergovernmental conference, and any agreement that may be reached against our wishes at that stage we would reopen at the point at which we were again in a position to reach agreement with our partners. We will certainly take the issue to Florence and ensure that it dominates the proceedings at the Florence Council. There will not be co-operation with Europe until our partners in Europe are prepared to sit down and co-operate with us.
Mr. Blair:
What does this mean?
The Prime Minister:
I have just explained to the right hon. Gentleman. If he reads Hansard, he will find it perfectly clear. I am sorry that he is being quite so slow on this occasion.
As to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about 20 March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture did speak to Commissioner Fischler before the statements in the House. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the question was leaked in a Labour-supporting newspaper on the morning of 12 March. We spent hours that morning discussing the matter with scientists, before doing what he would have condemned us for if we had not done--coming straight to the House to report on precisely what was happening. He tries to suggest at this stage that we should not have come to the House, but should have gone outside and tried to fix deals. I wonder what he would have had to say this afternoon about us ignoring the House if we had done so.
Right from the beginning of the affair, we have followed the scientific advice on public health that we have been given--followed it as any responsible Government must and should. What is so frustrating is that the right hon. Gentleman asks what we are discussing with our European partners, but in the discussions it has
not yet proved possible to persuade some of those partners to engage seriously in debate on the decisions that need to be taken.
We are ready for that debate; some of our European partners are not. That is why we are taking the approach that we have taken this afternoon. It is necessary that they consider the problem seriously so that we can find a way through. Until they consider this problem, we shall be unable to consider other matters that are of interest and concern to them.
Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham):
Since beef consumption has been affected to a greater degree in the European Union than in this country, does it not make sense that it is in the interests of the EU countries to lift the ban as soon as possible, and that, above all, a decision should be based on scientific evidence and not on populism to do with their national electorates? That being the case, does it not make sense that any progress must be made through hard negotiation, and that nothing whatever will be achieved by threats of our leaving the EU?
The Prime Minister:
Yes, there is no suggestion of our leaving the European Union, or, indeed, of indulging in actions that would be illegal before the British courts or the European Court. That is not what we are seeking to do. We need to continue with the negotiations, but it is essential that we are able to persuade our partners properly to negotiate on the details of how we proceed, and that, as yet, we have been unable to persuade all of them to do. Some of our European partners and the Commission have been, in many respects, extremely understanding and helpful, but we need to ensure that that extends right across the European Union, so that we can reach an agreed way forward.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil):
Does the Prime Minister find any irony in the fact that the Government's hopes now rest in the operation of the majority voting system--something that they are determined to get rid of, or diminish, in the forthcoming IGC? Does he find any irony in the fact that the Government's first action in this matter is to run to the European Court of Justice--something that his Back Benchers want to get rid of and whose power some of his Cabinet Ministers want to diminish? Having listened to the Prime Minister's statement today, most people will conclude that the Euro-sceptic minority on his Back Benches has taken control of the Government's foreign policy, and that this has much more to do with appeasing them than restoring confidence in the beef market.
Does the Prime Minister realise that one reason why our European partners have so little confidence in the operation of the BSE eradication scheme is that it has sunk into disorder, confusion, chaos, farce and fiasco? Abattoirs across the country have been ringing me and my hon. Friends this morning to say that they are withdrawing from it.
As a specific example, St. Merryn Meat in Cornwall last week killed one fifth of the national cull under the BSE eradication scheme. Its operational viability has been on the basis of 1,750 head of cattle every week. Yesterday, that was reduced to 800, without compensation, notice or consultation. In consequence, the abattoir is liable to become economically non-viable and
close down, which would make 400 people redundant--and perhaps another 200 in two or three weeks' time. That is the direct result of the chaos that the Government have inflicted on agriculture, and it is one of the reasons why Europe has no confidence in them.
The Prime Minister:
I can only say, after listening to his question, that, if abattoirs are ringing the right hon. Gentleman, I dare say they were soliciting for custom.
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the European Court show vividly how little he understands about either the policy we have set out or the European Court. We support the European Court and its proper responsibility in applying the single market; it is essential. What we oppose is the reinterpretation of laws by the European Court and its extension of laws, as in the Advocate-General's recent opinion on the working time directive. It is those matters that we are seeking to change.
The right hon. Gentleman may wish for a progressive determination of law by the European Court outside this country, but it is our wish for it to interpret laws that this House has agreed, not to determine laws by the extension of previous case law, which is what it has been doing. If he does not understand that, it explains why he is in favour of a federal Europe, which very few people in this country would wish to see.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement merits strong support throughout the House? Is he confident that his fellow Heads of State and Heads of Government, especially Chancellor Kohl, understand fully the tremendous political damage that has been done by their intemperate actions over the past eight weeks?
The Prime Minister:
I very much hope that that point will be clear. I am seeking a proper dialogue and agreement: I am not seeking confrontation. I wish to find a way through that enables the British beef industry to return to what it was--one of the healthiest and best beef industries in the world. To ensure that there is proper negotiation, it is necessary to tell our partners that we no longer believe that the way in which the negotiations have been proceeding is satisfactory. That is the purpose of this statement. I shall certainly emphasise my hon. Friend's points to my fellow Heads of Government, although I think that it will be apparent to them from the statement.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East):
In disregard of the cackling of the chappies behind him on this serious issue, and, of course, with requisite respect, does the Prime Minister not realise that his handling of this matter is not going to achieve the aims that he thinks? Does he realise that the tactic of the empty chair, in his person, will not achieve the stature of the action that a de Gaulle might have achieved?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |