European Council (Hansard, 1 April 1996)

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major)
With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on the meeting of the European Council in Turin on 29 March which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
The purpose of the meeting was to launch the intergovernmental conference aimed at preparing the European Union for the next phase of enlargement. The Council conclusions, which I have placed in the Library, set out the main areas of the IGC' s agenda. We have ensured that the conclusions do not prejudice the actual negotiations in any way, nor do they contain an exhaustive list of the issues for negotiation. We shall pursue our objectives for the development of Europe as a partnership of nations, as set out in the Government's recent White Paper.
The negotiations themselves will now begin. They may well last for a year or perhaps longer. Foreign Ministers will meet every month. Their personal representatives will meet every week. I outlined to the European Council the Government's approach to the intergovernmental conference. I made it clear that our vision of Europe is built around the bedrock of the nation state. I also set out some of the areas where the United Kingdom will be putting forward proposals, and those where we have strong views.
For example, I underlined the need for the principle of subsidiarity to be enshrined in the treaty; the value of a greater role for national Parliaments; our desire to see Europe's common foreign and security policy work better while preserving its basis of unanimity; the need for further progress in co-operation in justice and home affairs without undermining its essential intergovernmental character; our opposition to any further extension of qualified majority voting; and our insistence on reforms for the working of the European Court of Justice.
I also made plain to the European Council my particular concern about the recent opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice on the working time directive and its implications for the intergovernmental conference. I said that I was not prepared to see the social chapter opt-out undermined as a result of an expansive and unreasonable interpretation of the health and safety article of the treaty. I made it clear that I would be looking in the intergovernmental conference for changes to that article to reflect our earlier understanding of its limited scope.
The European Council also held a brief discussion on employment and competitiveness. This subject will rightly be high on the agenda of its meeting in Florence in June and I set out the Government's views.
Europe has to be globally competitive. Jobs are not created by Governments—and still fewer are created by the European Union. Jobs come from the decisions of businesses in the marketplace. Job creation needs less regulation, not more; and there must be lower financial and other burdens on business, not extra impositions arising from ill-conceived European directives. There is increasing understanding of these realities among some of our European partners. I was encouraged by the 22 discussion, but I will continue to resist strongly any suggestion that the treaty be amended to cover employment issues. Action in those areas is overwhelmingly for individual countries, not for the European Union collectively.
All the Heads of State and Government in Turin were acutely conscious of the Europewide crisis in the beef market. This is, and was treated as, an entirely separate issue from the intergovernmental conference agenda. There was no question in anyone's mind of trading help in one area against co-operation in another. I told my colleagues of the impact in this country of the ban on British beef decided in Brussels last week—particularly as it was taken on the basis of considerations other than the scientific advice.
I suggested to my colleagues that three things were now needed. First, the conditions should be created as speedily as possible to allow the ban on British beef exports to be lifted. Secondly, the specific problems of the United Kingdom beef market had to be addressed. I looked to the Union for sympathetic and speedy support for the measures necessary to return confidence and stability to the market. Thirdly, it should be recognised that this was a European, not just a British, problem.
The response of my European colleagues was, without exception, one of support. There was universal agreement that this was a Europewide problem and that a European solution was required. All Heads of State and Government who spoke expressed readiness to see the European Union bear a share of the financial burden and recalled the European Union help in the swine fever epidemic a few years ago. This was a welcome response, in tone as well as in substance, but we still have some way to go.
Negotiations continue with the Commission on the measures needed to restore confidence. My right hon and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture is in Luxembourg today to take this forward and to attend a meeting of European Ministers of Agriculture, which is now under way.
I emphasised to my European colleagues that, with the measures we have taken, British beef is—on any normal definition of the term—safe. No one disputed this. Everyone recognised that the present crisis came not from a real health risk but from unnecessary hysteria across Europe.
At Turin the intergovernmental conference was launched with an agenda that enables us to pursue our objectives in a non-prejudicial climate. I was able to make clear to my European colleagues our strong views on certain key issues, including what is needed to tackle unemployment across Europe as well as in Britain. We achieved a notable measure of understanding and support over the beef crisis that we and our European partners face together. The need now is to turn this support into action, particularly the lifting of the export ban on British beef and beef products. That is our immediate objective. It is important and we are pursuing it urgently.

§ Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield)
I shall deal with the statement in two parts: the beef issue and the intergovernmental conference proper. In relation to beef, will the Prime Minister assure us that once the Government have alighted on a package of measures, they will widely consult the farmers, the food retailers, the consumers' organisations and others to ensure that they 23 can command the widest possible basis of consent? I refer to the measures already announced to improve the situation in abattoirs in particular. Is this at least already agreed among the members of the European Union?
In relation to the proposals that we have seen discussed for selective slaughter, am I right in saying that, in effect, should such a proposal be proceeded with, the choice will be between slaughtering cattle above a certain age and slaughtering cattle from particular herds? At this point, do the Government have a view on these options? Given that we agree at least on this—that whatever is done should have some basis in scientific evidence—is there a particular course that that evidence suggests?
May I ask the Prime Minister in particular what is the estimated cost of any of these options; what will be the contribution of the European Union to it; whether such a contribution will simply be a deduction from the British rebate; and when he expects a package to be agreed and the ban lifted?
May I also join the Prime Minister in endorsing the spirit of partnership shown in Turin towards Britain? He was quoted in The Daily Telegraph as saying to the summit: I wish the Eurosceptics back in Britain could be in this room now to see how European solidarity works in practice.

§ The Prime Minister
indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Blair
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman denies it. I would endorse such comments, but would not it be better if he repeated those sentiments more often here in Britain to the faces of the sceptics?
On the IGC specifically, can the Prime Minister tell us what are the prospects now for reweighting the existing system of voting, which is discriminatory against the larger countries? Is he seriously saying, and will he maintain throughout, that there should be no extension of qualified majority voting in any area, not merely in areas such as defence, tax or immigration, with which we would agree, but in any area, such as industry or environment? Is it not manifestly in Britain's interests for there to be some extension of QMV in certain areas, otherwise—especially as the EU enlarges—small countries can block any progress?
The Prime Minister will note that his long statement after the summit contained no mention of the common fisheries policy. Is reform of that policy on the agenda, as he did say, I think, that he would put it on the agenda for Turin? Perhaps he will comment on that.
We welcome the Council's decision to make fighting unemployment a priority for the European Union, and believe that such action can be taken individually and collectively within Europe. Is not Britain's interest in this clear given the massive job insecurity here with 9 million people having suffered at least one spell of unemployment since the last election and with unemployment—particularly long-term and male unemployment rates—still higher than in many of our competitor countries? Does the Prime Minister not agree with President Chirac today that laissez-faire and more deregulation are not sufficient for job creation?
Will the Prime Minister tell us just what is the Government's position on a referendum for a single currency? First, the Cabinet meeting two weeks ago was 24 supposed to resolve it, then it was to be announced at Harrogate. What is happening apart from the daily combat in newspaper briefings between the respective combatants? If it is true—apparently it is—that, in any referendum, the Prime Minister will enforce Cabinet collective responsibility, will he tell us now, with a straight face, whether in any circumstances his Chancellor and Defence Secretary, to name but two, would ever agree? If Sir James Goldsmith demands more concessions, will they be forthcoming?
Is not the lesson of the weekend that Britain gains most from Europe by a spirit not of perpetual isolationism but constructive co-operation, and that that is the only way for Britain to lead in Europe and to be a source of strength to itself and to others?

§ The Prime Minister
I shall seek to deal with the matters covered by the IGC, although I notice that a number of the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman had nothing whatever to do with it. They were not discussed in the IGC and, from the broad smile on his face, it seems that the right hon. Gentleman knows that very well. I hope that he enjoyed his mischief.
I deal first with beef. When we have concluded, of course we shall wish to consult on a package. By that I do not mean a long period of formal consultation. We need to move speedily. Of course we shall consult speedily with the people who are predominantly interested in this, but it is in the interests of everybody in the beef industry to reach an agreement with our European partners which we and they think will restore confidence in the beef industry. Confidence is the point. It is not so much a question of public health but confidence that now needs to be addressed, and clearly we need to do that speedily in everyone's interests.
On the measures previously announced, of course they are agreed with our European partners.
Selective slaughter may prove necessary. Two elements are involved. First, there is the need to ensure that milking herds that have finished their milking lives—that are spent—do not then enter the food chain. That does, of course, involve slaughter. Secondly, there is the question of whether any further selective slaughter should take place. Clearly, we need to base that decision on science as far as is practicable. We are looking at some novel ways of ensuring that we find the right beasts if it is deemed necessary to proceed.
It is impossible to give an estimate of the resources until the determination of the right method is concluded. As soon as that is known, I shall be able to give the right hon. Gentleman an estimate.
We have made it clear that we need the ban to be lifted as speedily as possible, not only in the interests of the United Kingdom. Beyond Europe, many countries are interpreting the ban on British beef as an unwillingness to import any European beef at all. A number of our European competitors are also finding that their beef is not being exported. It is a European problem, and those countries, as well as us, will need to consider the question speedily.
The quotation that the right hon. Gentleman used was amusing, but not accurate.

§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)
Share it with us.

§ The Prime Minister
If I wasted my time responding to every inaccuracy that appears either in the House or 25 beyond, I would have the pleasure of a 24-hour-a-day sojourn at the Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] As for the intergovernmental conference—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Speaker
Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would stop shouting from a sedentary position and listen to what the Prime Minister has to say.

§ The Prime Minister
As for the intergovernmental conference, we are pursuing the question of reweighting the voting, and I anticipate that we shall have the support of a number of other states in achieving that. Britain is not likely to be isolated in this regard. It will be a matter of some importance, especially as the Community enlarges. I anticipate success. I do not anticipate any significant extension of qualified majority voting, and it is possible that there will be no single extension at all. We are not seeking to accept any. What may turn up in negotiations lies ahead; at present, we do not intend to accept any extension of QMV whatever. I hope that that is clear enough for the right hon. Gentleman: no extension of qualified majority voting.
As for fisheries, I said earlier that the list of matters to be dealt with in the IGC—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would listen, he might know the answer.
I said in my statement that the list was not exhaustive. We will be looking for changes in the common fisheries policy, particularly to deal with quota hopping. I have set that out in the past. There may well be other matters, not yet identified either by us or by other nations, that will be dealt with at the conference. The list of matters set out at Turin is in no sense necessarily exhaustive either for us or for others.
Of course, by co-operation, there are things that the European countries can do collectively in regard to unemployment. We have no objection to that; what we strongly object to is the suggestion that this should become a European competence with legislation taken—perhaps by qualified majority vote—as part of the treaty. We are not prepared to have employment measures inserted in the treaty. Of course we will co-operate when it is reasonable and sensible to do so, but overwhelmingly we think that that is a matter for individual countries, not for the Community as a whole.

§ Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)
You have not been very successful, have you?

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman says that we are not very successful. We are a good deal more successful than any other major European country in bringing down unemployment. No other major European country has had unemployment falling as steadily as we have over the past two and a half years; no other major European country has had unemployment as low as ours over the past two and a half years; and no other major European country has had a higher proportion of its population in work as ours over the past two and a half years. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to compare employment records, I am happy to do so, because ours is undoubtedly a good deal better than anyone else's—especially those of the socialist Governments across Europe that we have seen operating in the economic climate of the past few years.
26 As for matters related to a referendum, I will let the right hon. Gentleman know as soon as I am in a position to do so and I will not be diverted on that point now.
One point I missed—as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) reminded me from a sedentary position with his usual compulsive charm—was the question of the cost. The cost is a net position between the total that we pay in and the total that we get out. Where the European Union provides us with assistance, in the convoluted system that the European Union works, a portion of that finds itself deducted from our rebate, but there is a net significant advantage to the United Kingdom and any help from the European Union in that sense will of course be welcomed.

§ Sir Peter Hordern (Horsham)
In dealing with the employment aspect of the intergovernmental conference, has my right hon. Friend read the latest report from the Bundesbank review, which refers to the need for differentiation of wages in the German economy and to the high level of social costs and taxes in Germany being the reason for high unemployment levels? Will he give an undertaking that Britain will continue to have the lowest social costs in the European Union and that the future of the single market and of the European Union depends on having low social costs, which are necessary for it to be competitive both with the United States of America and with the far east? If that is not done, the single market will not succeed.
As for taking advice from the Opposition on matters of beef, does my right hon. Friend agree that they have been much more interested in playing party politics than in the livelihood of thousands of people throughout this country?

§ The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. On his last point, it is a matter not so much of my having noticed that, but of the 650,000 people who work in the beef industry having noticed it.
On my right hon. Friend's earlier point, clearly he is right about the relationship between employers' total costs and employment. He referred to differentiation of wages in Germany, but I should make the point that this is largely to do with other non-social costs. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development pointed out, in terms of net wage levels after tax, the UK compares favourably with all our European Union partners. The UK worker's net pay and what it will buy are good value compared with such pay in other European countries, which have become increasingly uncompetitive because of the amount of money over and above wages that every job costs employers. For every £100 in wages, an employer in this country faces extra on-costs of £18, but in some European countries, that figure goes up to as much as £44. On that basis, it is unsurprising that, in many European countries, there are fewer jobs than here.
As for the single market, my right hon. Friend is entirely right. The single market is immensely important for prosperity both here and throughout Europe. In many areas, it is not yet completed. We must ensure that it is completed. We shall continue to work for it to be so.

§ Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil)
When the Prime Minister told us that success always derived from less regulation, did he have in mind as an example the 27 origins of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis? He knows that we disagree with the Government's policy on Europe. We believe that Britain is paying—including in the BSE crisis—a high price for that policy.
If the Government have spent the past 17 years making enemies in Europe, it is not surprising that, when they are in difficulties, friends are initially difficult to find, but the Prime Minister will understand why, at this stage, the nation will be concentrating in particular on the impact of the BSE crisis. It is greatly to be welcomed that the European Community has now understood that this is a problem for all of Europe, not just Britain. This is one of those issues in which Europe is not the problem, as many of his Euro-sceptics would suggest, but the solution. The fact that there is now European support does not absolve the Government from taking action.
As the Government have, in my view, misjudged the extent of the action necessary last Monday, there is now grave danger in every single day's delay inflicted on those who are waiting for word from the Government about what to do next. Having spent the weekend listening to them, I am especially concerned about the position of the owners of small abattoirs and small cattle hauliers. Carcases are now backed up in cold storage, and there is nothing further that can be done unless the Government will act. Will the Prime Minister at least give us an undertaking that, whatever Europe may or may not do, the Government will announce what they are going to do before the House rises?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman tells us in one moment that Europe is the answer and then advises us not to discuss matters with Europe but perhaps to act unilaterally and make an agreement more difficult. He really needs to make up his mind which of his two European hats he is going to wear.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about deregulation, they are just plainly wrong. He is plain wrong on that point. That argument is based on a totally false premise. The right hon. Gentleman is flatly wrong—

§ Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
He is not wrong.

§ The Prime Minister
There is no point in the hon. Gentleman shouting like a parrot, "He is not wrong." The right hon. Gentleman happens to be wrong. That is the fact of the matter, and there is nothing whatever that one can do about it.
As for Europe, it is not a question of our having enemies in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman does not see this matter in the right light. People in Europe do not expect us to agree with them on every issue. They know that we are a Conservative, not Liberal, Government. They know that we will fight for the national interest and that we shall stick to that. Being in a kindly mode, I shall spare the right hon. Gentleman a list of quotes which shows that the European policy of the Liberal party has shifted from pillar to post almost on a daily basis, or almost between member and member. The right hon. Gentleman has the grace to blush, so I shall spare him on that account—[Laughter.] By popular acclaim, I shall spare the right hon. Gentleman.
28 We are well aware of the difficulties faced by abattoirs and others, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that, for reasons that are important for abattoirs too, it is necessary to reach these agreements with our European partners; otherwise the meat passed through the abattoirs would not be acceptable to our European partners. If we cannot reach agreement before the House rises, it is not possible for us sensibly and credibly to announce an agreement to the House. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend is doing in Luxembourg at the moment. There will be no delay—as soon as we can reach an agreement, we shall make an announcement, but it has to be reached with our partners and we all have to be satisfied with it.

§ Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)
Given the daily damage being done to the fishing industry, when will the Government table proposals, how will they go about winning support for them from our partners, and would they consider unilateral action in the absence of any support?

§ The Prime Minister
I said a few moments ago that we intend to raise the common fisheries policy at the intergovernmental conference. I do not share the view that opting out of the common fisheries policy would be in the interests of the fishing industry in this country. The great danger of that would be that, in a measurably short period of years, stocks would be so over-fished that there would be no fishing industry left. We need to address the grievances thrown up in the past few years—especially quota-hopping. I told the House that we shall most certainly raise those matters at the intergovernmental conference and seek to reach an agreement. It will be very difficult to reach such an agreement, but I believe that we shall be successful because unanimity is necessary for an outcome to this conference.

§ Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney)
The IGC is a revision conference for the Maastricht treaty. Is it not therefore extraordinary that the most controversial, unsatisfactory and job-destroying features of that treaty—I refer to economic and monetary union and the convergence criteria for a single currency—are not on the conference's agenda? Is not it even odder that the problem of unemployment, which is on the agenda and which the Prime Minister says is of the highest priority, should be considered although the direct relevance of the convergence criteria to the creation of unemployment in Europe is not being considered at the same time?

§ The Prime Minister
I noticed restrained enthusiasm among Opposition Front-Bench Members for what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. Let me deal with each of his points in turn. The IGC is primarily not a revision conference for Maastricht but a preparation for enlargement of the Community. That is the essential reason for having the IGC. Economic and monetary union is of course vital and the decision made on that will be very important for a whole range of economic matters, including, in my judgment, employment. The fact that that is not being addressed at the IGC is because of the conference's character. It is being discussed in parallel and will continually be discussed in parallel as the IGC proceeds. So there is no question of final decisions having 29 being made on it; there is no question of it not being revisited as events move forward. We have to make our decisions on whether it is appropriate to go ahead or not, but it is not appropriate to the fresh set of negotiations at the conference. The matter will be seen as being carried on in parallel.

§ Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)
On enlargement and the reweighting of qualified majority voting, will my right hon. Friend confirm that our Ministers will continue to work towards ensuring that those countries collectively that are net beneficiaries from the European budget will not be able to out-vote countries that are net contributors to the budget, such as Britain, because if they did there would be no way of controlling the growth of that budget?

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend touches upon a most important point. I can confirm that that will be one of our objectives as we seek the reweighting of voting weights for decision making in the European Union. One of the problems in the early 1980s was that with so few net contributors, there was a very real risk—in weight of numbers, and often it seemed in weight of votes as well—that provided that one of the major countries abstained, a minority view was able to prevail. That is not a satisfactory way in which to run the European Union, and that is why we need reweighting.

§ Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)
I hope that tomorrow's agriculture statement will contain a series of measures that will result in the immediate lifting of the European ban on beef exports. Such a measure is absolutely essential for the meat industry in Northern Ireland, which is so heavily dependent on exports. Does the Prime Minister agree that such a measure, while necessary, is not sufficient, because there is no guarantee that when the ban is lifted the markets that we had in Europe and elsewhere will return immediately? Will not it therefore be necessary to follow matters up with a drive on marketing beef, and especially a scheme that will emphasise the undoubted quality of so much of the beef production in Ulster and Scotland? Will that not be absolutely essential after tomorrow?

§ The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the beef industry to Northern Ireland. It is clearly critical to Northern Ireland's economy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I are acutely aware of that fact and the possible need for assistance. We too are seeking the earliest possible lifting of the ban. I would not like to indicate to the House today that I think that it is likely to be achieved by tomorrow, because we first need a Commission proposal to the standing veterinary committee, then a positive decision by member states' representatives on that committee, and then endorsement of the decision by the full Commission. We need that as soon as possible and we shall be pressing for it as soon as possible. As the hon. Gentleman realises, we need that agreement across Europe or there will be very real difficulty. We are seeking it as speedily as possible. It is not something that we can obtain unilaterally. Any indication that the hon. Gentleman cares to give directly 30 to the European Commission and others of the importance of the matter will obviously be very welcome. We shall certainly press it very hard.

§ Mr. Graham Riddick (Colne Valley)
Is not it quite clear that there is a great desire among the British people that the Government should not hand over any further powers to the European Union and its institutions at the IGC? Will he confirm that that is indeed the Government's approach? Is not the reason why a number of continental Governments want the IGC to last for more than a year that they hope—it is a forlorn hope—that the Labour party will be elected? In those circumstances, a socialist Government would undoubtedly hand over more power to Brussels and the European institutions.

§ The Prime Minister
I saw written in one of our great newspapers this morning—it may or may not be accurate—that one of the federalist Prime Ministers indicated that he would like to be dealing with a Labour Government because they too would be federalist, in the sense that we do not wish to see, and centralist, and would not stand up for the interests of the United Kingdom. That was allegedly said by one of the Prime Ministers whom the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) or his nominee would meet on occasions when socialists across Europe meet to decide policy. If that is the case, one wonders what private promises may have been given about Labour's negotiating position. We know that the manifesto agreements signed by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) some time ago would be an absolute disaster if they became the policy of any British Government.
We seek to ensure that we remain a Europe of nation states, that we accommodate the enlargement of the European Union, which is the most important matter that lies in front of the European Union at the moment, and that we do so while maintaining the robust independence of parliamentary procedures that we have traditionally enjoyed.

§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)
Is it not grotesquely unfair that some poor old cow, who has given a life of service to human beings in terms of delivering milk, ends up with a bolt through her head and is chucked into a fire? I know that one can think of a recent political equivalent, but the situation is no better for that.
Is there any chance during the IGC that we can change the definition of the word "animal" so that we can extend animal welfare provisions to farm animals and treat them as sentient beings, not just as any other agricultural product?

§ The Prime Minister
We are seeking some changes in animal welfare in the intergovernmental conference, as the hon. Gentleman may be, but not, perhaps, the change that he has in mind. I am prepared to consider his suggestion, but not for very long—and, having considered it, I reject his proposal. None the less, we are certainly seeking improvements in animal welfare generally.

§ Sir Michael Spicer (South Worcestershire)
While warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend's commitment for further federalism in Europe, may I ask him what specific proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I should 31 have said "against". [HON. MEMBERS: "You didn't."] I apologise. It would be out of keeping with four years of speeches if I had not said "against".
What specific proposals has my right hon. Friend tabled against the repatriation of powers—[Interruption.] I seem to be getting it all wrong today. What proposals has he tabled in favour of the repatriation of powers to Parliament, bearing in mind the fact that the Turin communiqué—I will get this bit right—reaffirms the aquis communautaire?

§ The Prime Minister
We set out our negotiating position in the White Paper that the House saw a few days ago and my hon. Friend will know what it is. In the negotiations, we can take further measures if we choose to, but for the moment, the measures we have decided on are those set out in the White Paper.

§ Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)
Since the Prime Minister's return from Turin, has he, like me, had an opportunity to study the report compiled by the Trustee Savings bank of Scotland on the significance of agriculture and the impact that the BSE problem is having on about 21,500 jobs? Agriculture is a fundamental part of our economy. Obviously, the Prime Minister has not had an opportunity to study the report, but I will ensure that he has a copy of it.
Given the comments already made, will the Prime Minister recognise the importance of the quality assurance scheme that applies to BSE-free herds? In this context, will he expand on his comment to a reporter from The Herald at the weekend in Turin that there was a possibility of looking at a preferential scheme that would enable herds that were already BSE-free to make an early return into the competitive market?

§ The Prime Minister
That is not precisely what I said, but it is fairly close. The point I was making—a general point, and not specifically to anyone from The Herald—is that some herds across the United Kingdom have never had a case of BSE, and we will be examining whether there is a way in which we can take account of that in the decisions that may have to be reached in the next few days. Clearly that is important, and we believe that we should take account of that fact. We are discussing the matter with the Commission and with our partners at the moment. I have not seen the TSB report to which the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) refers, but I am aware of the importance of the beef industry to Scotland, as well as to Northern Ireland and elsewhere. That is why we are seeking a comprehensive outcome that will assist in a return of confidence as speedily as we can.

§ Sir Wyn Roberts (Conwy)
While complimenting my right hon. Friend on the progress made in Turin, may I ask whether he detected during his discussions on unemployment any sign of our European partners embracing the policies that have brought unemployment down in this country while it has risen in so many European countries? Did he detect any sign that they would stop handicapping competitiveness—as, I believe, the French were proposing?

§ The Prime Minister
There were mixed views on the issue among our European partners. There would have 32 been a single collective view a year or so ago in favour of more social expenditure of one sort or another, but that is no longer the case. There are those who still hold to that proposition, but a number of others who have seen what has happened to unemployment in the past two years here and elsewhere realise that they must hold down the levels of social expenditure over and above wages. That will be absolutely necessary if Europe is to reduce the 18 million adults currently unemployed within the EU.

§ Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)
In accountancy matters, proportions can be worked out exactly and precisely. Can we therefore be told what amount of our own money will be returned to us by the EU in connection with its assistance on BSE?

§ The Prime Minister
As soon as we know precisely the areas in which the aid will be and its quantum, the answer will be yes. But in the absence of that, it is difficult to be precise in what is a complex system. Although there will be a substantial contribution by the EU, there are areas—for example, if there were to be a selective culling programme—where some of the overall costs would be borne by the United Kingdom. Some of the EU contribution would be netted off against the rebate, but it is not possible to be precise until we know the scale and terms of the contribution, and I would not wish to mislead the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)
In relation to qualified majority voting—against which the Government have resolutely set their face—will my right hon. Friend seek a modification of QMV as regards fisheries policy? When the EU is enlarged—as we hope it will be—will not the fishing fleets of, for example, Poland seek access to the common resource of the British fishing grounds to the potential detriment of British fishermen?

§ The Prime Minister
A lot may depend on precisely what negotiated changes we may be able to make in the common fisheries policy, but for the moment we have proposed not to withdraw QMV from where it presently exists, but to ensure that it is not extended to areas in which it has not yet been present.

§ Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)
If the Prime Minister is so opposed to moves towards a single European currency, why has he signed up to a statement that commits all members of the EU to the full implementation of the treaties, and states that all new member states that come in following enlargement will be subjected to the aquis communautaire, which will apply to all members equally—including a commitment to a single currency?

§ The Prime Minister
Very simply. If the hon. Gentleman had observed what had happened in the European Union in the past few years, he would have noticed that Britain is not committed to joining economic and monetary union. We have an opt-out, as indeed now does Denmark. Our position is different from that of the rest of the European Union. For that reason, we find ourselves in a wholly better position than anyone else. If the hon. Gentleman understands that, he will see that it precisely meets his point.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
My right hon. Friend referred in the IGC to questions of principle. Given that 33 the presidency conclusions, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) said, refer to economic and monetary union, and given that in our own White Paper it is stated that we will not press ideas that will not gain general acceptance from the other member states, does my right hon. Friend intend to reject the single currency and to ensure that it is not inflicted on the United Kingdom?

§ The Prime Minister
The single currency will not be a matter of discussion, as I said to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) some time ago, in the intergovernmental conference itself. It will be a matter for discussion in parallel with the IGC. Member states will have first to determine whether they meet the criteria to join and then indicate some time before 1999—if that is the date on which people proceed—whether they propose to join. At this stage, no one yet knows whether that date of 1999 can be achieved. Many people, myself included, doubt that it can satisfactorily and safely be achieved.
At a later stage, a decision will need to be made as to which countries qualify and which countries, having qualified, decide whether or not to proceed. We are in the unique position that if we qualify, we do not have to proceed. Other countries are in the position that if they qualify they are committed to proceeding by the Maastricht treaty. That is not our case. So it will not be discussed in the IGC, as my hon. Friend surmises, but outside it, and we are free to leave making the decision until a very late stage whether or not we think it is right for this country to take part.

§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
What action is the Prime Minister taking to urge a co-ordinated European approach to arms export controls? Does he agree that that would be the first step towards international control of arms exports and to preventing any country in future from supplying Saddam Husseins?

§ The Prime Minister
I do not think that that is a matter for the European Union. It is a matter for individual Governments.

§ Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that all those in farming and the processing industry were very glad indeed that he was able to make the beef crisis the top priority in his visit to Turin? Could he keep the momentum going? If we are able to get firm decisions by Tuesday or Wednesday, will he make an 34 announcement, even during the recess, because every day counts in terms of bringing confidence back to the industry and the consumer?

§ The Prime Minister
I assure my right hon. Friend and the House that the moment we have a conclusion, we will announce that conclusion. If it is in the recess, it will be open to the House to demand a statement from Ministers upon the return of the House. I think that everyone will accept that it is in the interests of the industry to make an announcement as soon as a conclusion is reached. That is our intention.

§ Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn)
The Prime Minister has recognised the importance of the livestock sector to Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am sure that he is also aware of the importance of that sector to Wales, where more than 90 per cent. of agricultural activity is involved in the livestock sector. He has already understood the need for urgent action in teens of a compensation package with our European partners, but can I urge him to do something urgently this week to assist the abattoir owners? He will know that they are laying off workers almost daily. Some of them face enormous financial costs. Is there something that he can do immediately to assist their plight?

§ The Prime Minister
One of the matters under discussion this morning—I have not yet had a report of how far the discussions have reached, as they are still proceeding—was the allied industries such as the slaughtering industry and abattoirs. I cannot yet tell the hon. Gentleman what has been decided in those discussions. I have not yet heard. But I assure him that the problems of that particular industry have not been overlooked.

§ Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing discussed at Turin could conceivably be made part of a referendum in this country? Will he further confirm his disinclination ever to hold a referendum, which he said earlier was not at all part of robust parliamentary procedures? Will he take it from me that many Conservative Members support his initial and present position that no decision has to be taken for many years to come?

§ The Prime Minister
I do not think that anything is remotely likely to come out that could possibly justify a referendum. We have said that on a number of occasions and I still believe it to be the case. The one area in which there might be a case for a referendum is in any decision taken to join a single currency, since that clearly is not a matter that is likely to be determined before a general election. I can conceive of nothing in the intergovernmental conference that would require a referendum.