| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Fireworks
13. Mr. Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw): What recent discussion he has had with fireworks manufacturers in relation to the sale of fireworks in the period up to 31 December. [100538]
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): Following discussions with my Department, the British Pyrotechnists Association agreed that it will advise retailers that fireworks should be displayed for sale only from 27 December. My hon. Friend has taken that on board and done a sterling job in his constituency. Many of his retailers did not know about the agreement. He brought 37 of them together and they have agreed to come on board and abide by the voluntary code. The House should applaud the work that he has done in his constituency.
Mr. Roy: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome words. Those retailers took on board what I had said in my letter and showed their social responsibility to the people of Motherwell and Wishaw, who have suffered from the misuse of fireworks. None of them knew about an agreement between the British Pyrotechnists Association and the Department of Trade and Industry. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that retailers who have already bought their stock of fireworks know about any future agreements?
Mr. Caborn: In the light of my hon. Friend's question and a debate that my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce responded to yesterday, I have been discussing the issue with departmental officials this morning. I intend to write this afternoon to the local authorities' co-ordinating bodies for trading standards, asking them to inform the Department of any breaches that they have had to deal with recently. I shall pass that on to the British Pyrotechnists Association to ensure that it is able to enforce its voluntary code with the retailers. I hope that there will be action today.
Post Office Network
14. Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): What plans he has to safeguard the future of rural sub-post offices. [100540]
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The Government are fully committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices and will, for the first time, publish access criteria, which the new regulator will have a duty to monitor. The criteria will aim to ensure that everyone in the UK has reasonable access to post office counter services. The Government are making a substantial contribution to the costs of automating the counters network to strengthen its longer-term viability and the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office is carrying out an urgent study on the Post Office network. Various rate relief schemes apply to many rural post offices.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister says that he is carrying out an urgent study. The Government have decided that all benefit claimants will have to have their benefits paid into a bank account by 2003. Given that 33 per cent. of the work of sub-post offices is related to the Benefits Agency and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters estimates that 100 of my 201 sub-post offices are likely to close as a result of the measure, how will the Government reassure my sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses that their businesses are secure?
Mr. Johnson: Perhaps by avoiding the risible hyperbole that we hear from the Conservatives. In government, the Conservatives suggested that the way forward for the Post Office was to split the counters network from the rest of the network, even though it accounts for 40 per cent. of the work. The Conservatives now come forward as the defenders of rural post offices. We are not making the payment of benefits through automated credit transfer compulsory. We have said that the migration to ACT between 2003 and 2005 will happen along with the establishment of an automated counters network that will ensure that we can bring network banking back to rural areas.
The Conservatives have expressed concern about how benefits are paid. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is one of their Front-Bench spokesmen, had a novel solution to the problem. He was not so concerned about how benefits are paid. In a pamphlet for the no turning up group or the no turning back group or whatever it is, he said:
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow):
I thank the Minister for his support for a nationwide network of post offices, which stands in stark contrast to what happened under the previous Government. In my constituency, the post office in the village of Sheering has closed and has yet to be replaced. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in those circumstances, it is essential that the Post Office should
Mr. Johnson:
My hon. Friend raises an important point. If he writes to me, I shall make sure that the Post
"One Parent Benefit, Guardian's Allowance and Child's Special Allowance should be abolished".
One of the many damaging effects of that would be to reduce work over post office counters.
Beef Ban
12.31 pm
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown) rose--
Mr. Brown: The catcalls should come after the statement.
With permission, Madam Speaker, although there has been no change in this Government's policy on beef exports, in view of the statement made by the French Government last night I think it right to inform the House where matters now stand. Late last night, just after 11 pm in Paris, the French Prime Minister announced his Government's decision on how they intend to proceed in the light of the new advice from the French food safety agency, AFSSA, which they received on Monday 6 December.
The French statement said, in effect, that even though the risk is no more than hypothetical, the French Government are not ready to lift their ban now, but wish instead to press for further work on testing for BSE and on the labelling of British beef and beef products on the basis of European Union regulations, so that consumers can make an informed choice.
Her Majesty's Government are surprised and deeply disappointed that the French have chosen to take this position. It comes after many weeks of intensive talks, from which we received the impression that we had answered all the questions and met all the concerns from the French side. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister immediately spoke to the French Prime Minister, Mr. Jospin, last night, and said that he believed that the position that the French were taking up was totally wrong, flew in the face of science and was against the law. I wholly endorse that view.
I have spoken to the Commissioner, David Byrne, and called on him now to proceed immediately with the court action against the French. Mr. Byrne has confirmed that he will do so. He will ask next Tuesday's meeting of the full Commission to issue the legal opinion, which is the last step before the court case commences. Mr. Byrne has already stated publicly that he finds the French Government's refusal to lift the ban deeply disappointing. The Commission has worked as hard as we have to resolve this matter through rational discussion. Mr. Byrne sees no alternative now but court action.
Some are suggesting that we were wrong to think that we would make progress with the approach that we adopted when the problem first arose in October. I profoundly disagree. I have no doubt that we were right to engage in discussion, as we did. I believe, too, that through the clarification and assurances that we gave about how we are operating the date-based export scheme, we responded in full to the points that the French Government raised with us and gave them the basis they needed for lifting the ban.
I well understand the anger that British farmers feel at this impasse. It is a poor reward for the massive efforts that British beef farmers and traders have been making to rebuild the industry and to rebuild public confidence in their product. British beef is as safe as beef from
anywhere else in Europe. That is not just my view: it is the unanimous view of the Commission's senior scientific advisers. I can understand the frustration felt more widely around the country.
The French action is astonishing. They have delivered a blow to the credibility of European Union law, but the French are on their own in taking this defiant approach. I assure the House that the Government are working by all means possible to ensure that the French Government honour their Community obligations and lift the ban.
Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk):
I thank the Minister for his statement, which he made available to me about 20 minutes ago. Does he accept that last night's news is bad for Britain's beef farmers, bad for the European single market and bad for this Labour Government, whose handling of the issue from start to finish has been weak and incompetent? Will he admit that he should have asked the European Commission to start legal action much sooner after France imposed its illegal ban? Does he now accept that our advice that the legal process should run alongside continued political pressure was right from the start?
Does the Minister realise that by not even raising the beef issue at the Anglo-French summit two weeks ago, the Prime Minister kicked Britain's farmers in the teeth and let the French Government completely off the hook? Was not beef far and away the most important issue at that time between Britain and France? Does the Minister understand that each time the Government allow France to reopen issues that have been settled by the scientists, they are letting down British farmers and encouraging French intransigence? Will the Prime Minister now ensure that beef is at the top of the agenda at tomorrow's summit meeting in Helsinki? Does he realise that the very working of the single market could be damaged if the Heads of Government fail to address this urgent issue?
What help will the Government give British farmers who wish to seek compensation from France through the courts? Given that on 8 November the Prime Minister said that an official end to the ban could be delivered within days, will the Minister now tell us how many more days, weeks or months Britain will have to wait? Is it not the truth that after four months of conceding every French demand, however unreasonable, and of raising false hopes among British farmers time and again, the Government have made no progress towards solving this problem? How much longer must Britain tolerate the humiliating spectacle of our Prime Minister dancing like a puppet to Mr. Jospin's tune?
Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister's statement in this House on 14 July, when he said that
"it is another example of new Labour working"?--[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 402.]
The time has come for the Minister to stop making excuses, to stop blaming other people for his Government's failures and to start standing up for Britain and Britain's farmers.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |