House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Dec 1996 (pt 10)

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the last point. If a Conservative Government were to decide to go into a single European currency, there would have to be a referendum on that for all electors in the country. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about that. He is also right to point to the concerns that exist in some member states, but I must tell him that the matter was not specifically raised in our discussions.

Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle): May I warmly commend my right hon. Friend's espousal of a market-driven common currency, rather than a politically driven single currency? Can he confirm that our partners will be demanding a decision from us on a single currency by the end of the coming year? Was there any discussion, informally or formally, about Italy and Belgium's debt being 120 per cent. of GDP? In the circumstances, will my right hon. Friend consider in the early summer ruling out the prospect of our joining a single currency, on the basis that the economic convergence criteria are not so much being fiddled or fudged, but trampled on in the Gadarene rush towards a disastrous single currency that Europe cannot sustain?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right about what would happen if the criteria are wrong, whether it happens to be the debt criteria or any of the other convergence criteria, for that matter. I do not foresee any real likelihood that most member states will not reach the inflation criteria--I think it overwhelmingly likely that they will--but whether they will meet the 3 per cent. deficit criteria or the debt criteria is a different matter. I think that over the next few months we shall see a number of projections from individual member states about the likely deficits that they foresee for next year, which will add to our knowledge. There should also be some international examinations of international currencies, which will add a great deal to the assessment of whether the criteria will be met. I expect that, in some cases, the position will become clearer in the months ahead.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): As the greatest danger to the sustainability of the 3 per cent. borrowing requirement for the single currency is the 18 million people who are unemployed in Europe--2 million of whom are in this country, which is in fact more than when the Prime Minister took office--is it not ludicrous to oppose the idea of co-ordinating employment policies in Europe by adhering to an employment chapter in the Maastricht treaty, which would enable this country to work with our partners at the heart of Europe?

The Prime Minister: The EU agreed in 1994 at Essen a way in which it was felt at the time we could all best tackle unemployment. That was largely by supply-side measures, of the sort with which the House has become

16 Dec 1996 : Column 631

familiar over recent years, which are generally putting people back to work. Those decisions are taken in nation states and self-evidently could not be taken at the centre. We find ourselves opposed to the prospect of Community communal decisions--almost certainly expenditure decisions--leading to larger contributions from each nation state, with the intention of creating short-term jobs. That is not the way in which to create jobs and remain competitive for the future. Although we are perfectly happy to co-ordinate, we are not prepared to have decisions taken in Brussels which will impact on the domestic decisions that we are taking to bring down unemployment.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne): Will my right hon. Friend reflect on opinion in my constituency? I judge that there is a majority who want to stay in a Common Market and a majority who are against a single currency. I sense that every step taken closer to a single currency enlarges the minority of my constituents who want to pull out altogether, which I believe would be a disaster. Does he therefore accept that the best way in which to ensure that we stay in a Common Market is to review our policy on a single currency now?

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's feeling and entirely agree with him that a very large majority of people in this country believe that we should stay in the EU, but share some of the unease that I, he and others have expressed about the direction and drift of some elements of European policy. I do not, however, believe that the right thing to do would be to determine that we should effectively disengage from the most important decision that Europe will take. Our input into that decision may have a material impact on whether the whole prospect goes ahead or does not if the criteria are wrong. If it went ahead in the wrong circumstances, the damage to our membership of the EU and to the EU itself might well be fatal. I share my hon. Friend's view; we are best in the EU, but not in what I called an embryo super-state. I believe that we should keep open that middle road in the interests of the UK.

Several hon. Members rose--

Madam Speaker: Thank you. We must now move to the second statement.

16 Dec 1996 : Column 632

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy

4.27 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With permission, I should like to make a statement on our follow-up to the Florence agreement on BSE and the additional steps that the Government intend to take towards the eventual lifting of the ban on exports of beef from the United Kingdom.

The agreement that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister negotiated at Florence defined five general preconditions for the lifting of the ban. Since that agreement was made, we have succeeded in fulfilling four of them, which are as follows.

The first precondition was an improved system of animal identification and movement recording. Cattle passports are now issued to all cattle born since 1 July, recording details of each animal's identity and movement. We have so far issued 751,000 such passports. As I announced on 10 December, we are also pressing ahead with proposals for a computerised cattle-tracing system in Great Britain. The second was the removal of meat and bonemeal from farms and feed mills. Action was taken during the summer to retrieve the last remaining stocks of meat and bonemeal from the animal feed chain. A total ban on possessing MBM where animal feed is handled came into force on 1 August.

The third general precondition was the removal of specified bovine material in slaughterhouses. The rules on removal of those parts of the carcase that can harbour the infective agent are being enforced with great rigour. More than 450 additional inspectors have been taken on. Statistics show that the rules are now being fully complied with. The fourth was the slaughter and destruction of cattle aged over 30 months. Since 1 May, more than 1 million cattle aged over 30 months have been killed and removed from the human food chain.

As the House will know, the last precondition, as yet not implemented, is the selective cull of animals judged to be most at risk of BSE. On 19 September, the Government postponed the cull while we considered the implications of the latest scientific evidence not known at the time of the Florence agreement and the range of cull options put to us. We also wanted further to explore the possibility of securing a lifting of the export ban in respect of meat from animals from certified herds and we judged it necessary to clear the backlog of cattle awaiting slaughter under the over-30-months scheme before proceeding to any selective cull.

I am glad to say that we have now cleared the backlog in Great Britain and will very shortly do so in Northern Ireland. That has been a considerable achievement. Slaughtering and disposing of well over 1 million animals in seven months has been an enormous logistical exercise, and I pay tribute to the crucial role played by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, by all my noble and hon. Friends in the Agriculture Departments and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The over-30-months scheme backlog is no longer an impediment to the selective cull.

We have concluded that the scientific evidence is unlikely to change decisively the basis of the selective cull as agreed in Florence. Moreover, opinion within the industry has changed: for example, the National Farmers

16 Dec 1996 : Column 633

Union, formerly hostile to the selective cull, is now, together with the other farming unions, strongly in favour of carrying out the cull agreed at Florence. Against that background, we have decided that now is the time to bring forward our proposals for a selective cull in accordance with the terms of the Florence agreement, and I shall be so informing the Agriculture Council tomorrow.

Furthermore, we are now ready with proposals for a United Kingdom certified herd scheme, which we will table as a basis for negotiating the first step in relaxing the ban. We have issued our proposals today for consultation and I have placed a copy in the Library of the House. I shall submit the paper formally to the Commission early in the new year and press for discussions in the Standing Veterinary Committee to begin as soon as possible. Again, I shall inform the Agriculture Council tomorrow.

We cannot be certain how many animals will be affected by the cull, not least because many beasts from the cohorts in question will have gone out already under the over-30-months scheme. However, it is certain that implementing the cull will be a complex business. We need to act expeditiously. My intention is that the necessary orders should be signed before the recess, together with the appropriate statutory rules for Northern Ireland. Should the House so desire--that is to say, should the relevant order be prayed against--there will be a debate before any compulsory slaughter of exposed animals is carried out in Great Britain.

The Exchequer cost of the programme will self-evidently depend on the number of animals to be slaughtered. Our original estimate of 128,000 is clearly out of date. Many of those animals will already have been slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme, although we cannot at the moment be certain of the exact number. If, for example, we were required to deal with about 100,000 animals, the gross cost would be about £150 million and the net cost about £90 million. The difference is accounted for by contributions from European Union funds and by corresponding savings under the over-30-months scheme.

The House will know that we have been researching whether there is any maternal transmission of BSE. As yet, we have not received conclusive advice on the point. I hope that by March next year I shall be in a better position to advise the House. In the mean time, the Government have concluded that uncertainty on that point is not a reason for delaying the start of the cull, but we are ready to modify the cull if the advice that we receive provides a proper justification for so doing.