§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair)Together with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. I attended a special meeting of the European Council from 14 to 16 October in Tampere, Finland. The main purpose of the meeting was to agree the priorities for action by the European Union and member states in justice and home affairs.
We agreed action in three areas. First, on asylum and immigration we agreed: a common approach to the way in which member states deal with applications for asylum, to remove the incentive for asylum seekers to shop around, and to ensure that asylum seekers are dealt with in the first European Union member state that they enter; effective action against illegal immigration, especially against trafficking in people; and a commitment by all EU member states to treat third-country nationals who are legally resident in their countries fairly and without discrimination. All EU countries are now committed to providing equal access to education, health care and other benefits, as we do already for long-term residents in the United Kingdom. Action was also agreed in relation to the six countries of concern studied by the high-level working group, set up last year. Those countries were Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Morocco, Albania and Iraq. We are using a broad approach involving all available policy instruments to tackle poverty and other root causes of migration.
Secondly, on judicial co-operation, we agreed that there were important areas where court decisions in one jurisdiction should be recognised elsewhere in the EU. This is needed to provide legal redress for individuals and companies when their problems, in business or leisure, originate in another member state and to co-operate better in bringing criminals to justice.
The British proposal that the cornerstone of policy in this area should be mutual recognition of court decisions, rather than the harmonisation of laws, was adopted unanimously. The European Council agreed that there must be drastic simplification of the present, slow and laborious arrangements for giving effect in one member state to the decisions of a court in another member state.
The European Council also decided that practical steps should be taken—for example, agreeing on common procedures for making small claims across internal European borders, together with making better information available to the public—in order to improve the access of all member states' citizens to justice throughout the European Union.
Thirdly, the European Council decided on a series of measures on combating cross-border crime. At our suggestion, there is to be a new task force of European police chiefs working alongside Europol, to plan and organise joint police operations across Europe. There was also agreement on our proposal to set up a European police college. A new body will be established, consisting of national prosecutors, magistrates and police officers, to assist and support investigation of organised crime and the prosecution of those involved. The principle of mutual recognition that was agreed should apply to judicial decisions in criminal cases, particularly those required to secure evidence and seize assets.
254 Action will be taken in due course to replace extradition with a simplified system for convicted criminals. We will also develop a fast-track extradition process for those accused of a serious crime. In addition, we agreed on a new focus among member states on youth crime, crime prevention and the protection of the victims of crime.
A comprehensive list of the action agreed by the European Council is to be found in the Council's conclusions, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
In addition to its main business, the Council discussed the situation in Pakistan, following the military takeover there. It also had a preliminary discussion of the prospects for EU enlargement, an issue that will be a major topic for the Helsinki European Council in December. It was unanimously agreed that our commitment to enlargement must proceed.
In the margins of the European Council, I made it clear to the Prime Minister of France and the President of the European Commission that France's failure to permit the sale of British beef was unacceptable, and that the French Government had to implement EU decisions.
The EU Scientific Steering Committee is due to complete its review of the French advisory committee's report before the end of this month. If there is no new scientific evidence, the President of the Commission has agreed with me that he will insist that France implements the earlier ruling, and will take legal action if the French Government fail to do so.
We will pursue every available avenue to ensure that British farmers can exercise their right under European law to sell beef throughout the European Union and, of course, it is only because of European law that we are able to do this with the backing of the law.
At the Tampere Council, we restated and safeguarded essential British national interests on asylum and immigration. We reached agreements with our European partners on law and order issues, which of their nature do not respect national boundaries, and on which international co-operation is vital. We restated the overwhelming scientific evidence on the safety of British beef and the fundamental importance of swift observance by the French Government of European Union law. In short, it was, I believe, a successful Council in which we engaged constructively with our European partners in support of British national interests.
§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)We welcome the progress made at Tampere on co-operation between EU member states in the fight against drug trafficking, organised crime, money laundering, fraud and theft. Clearly, progress was also made on improving co-operation on asylum procedures and the creation of a European police chiefs task force. Where such co-operation takes place between nation states within the European Union, we welcome it. The mutual recognition of court decisions agreed at Tampere obviously has merits and we await further details of that.
Is it not important to ensure that, with such co-operation, we do not give away the right of this country to make its own decisions? The Home Secretary tells us that we are not moving towards a single system of justice, but, these days, when the Home Secretary has been to visit, we all start counting the spoons. In the light of this, can the Government guarantee that none of the 255 measures to which they have signed up will undermine our own system of justice or lead to a corpus juris in Europe—something to which we should be implacably opposed?
The Prime Minister referred to the continuing ban on British beef in France. Can we ask him to try a new tactic to get France to lift the ban? Why does he not show his confidence in British beef by lifting his ban on beef on the bone here in Britain? What does he say to the French Prime Minister? "Please lift the ban on our beef? Mind you, I don't touch it myself if it has a bone attached to it." What a stupid position to be in.
We welcome the commitment to enlargement. Everyone acknowledges that this will require changes in the way in which Europe operates. The important question is what those changes will be. Is it not in the interests of Britain and of Europe to argue the case for a more flexible Europe of nation states co-operating together? Government committed to that vision would be pressing for treaty amendments at the next intergovernmental conference that would allow nations greater flexibility. Is that not necessary to make an enlarged Europe work? Is it not necessary to protect the great strength that nation states bring to Europe?
Is it not Britain's responsibility to stand firm for this vision of a flexible Europe? Is not the truth that, instead, our Prime Minister is going along with, and encouraging, a more centralised, more bureaucratic, more interfering Europe? Did we not see yesterday that agenda unfolding as his so-called wise men, including his own former Minister and current adviser Lord Simon of Highbury, published their report? It included a massive increase in qualified majority voting, the abolition of the national veto in key areas including even changes to existing treaties, a separate European defence capability, a written constitution for Europe, and substantial new powers to be taken from national Governments and given to the unelected Commission.
Is it not the right position for the Prime Minister of this country, in the interests of Britain and Europe as a whole, to put forward the alternative to those ideas rather than welcoming them and persisting with his fraudulent insistence that the advancement of any alternative proposals means withdrawal from the European Union? He would have told anyone arguing for the British rebate, for opt-outs from the single currency or for the social chapter that they wanted to withdraw from the European Union. Perhaps we should remind the Prime Minister that the only one of the two of us ever to have fought an election on a platform of withdrawal from Europe is him.
Does the Prime Minister recall that Romano Prodi was meant to concentrate on the heroic task of cleaning up the Commission? Now, he is spending his time saying that, for the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire, we have the opportunity to unite Europe. Talk about delusions of grandeur—from hero to Nero in a few short months. Why is the Prime Minister so content to be carried along with the tide to a single European state? What the great majority of the British public want from Europe is very straightforward. They want co-operation with other European nations on issues such as fighting drugs and many of the other issues rightly discussed at Tampere, but what they do not want is for ever more rights and powers of this country to be taken away slice by slice with our own Prime Minister wielding the knife. That is why the party that stands for being in Europe, 256 not run by Europe, defeated his party at the European elections a few months ago. Is it not time that he listened to that majority? He is not listening to the British people, so it falls to us to speak with clarity and consistency, and to speak up for the people of Britain.
§ The Prime MinisterIt is no wonder that Norman Tebbit said that he had never felt happier in the Conservative party than today. The Thatcherites have won, have they not? They have taken it over. Not the back-seat driver any more, she has kicked the right hon. Gentleman out of the front seat. Now, she is going to be driving that flat-back lorry as it goes around the country. The only chance that the right hon. Gentleman will get to have a spin is when his L-plates are on.
I shall come back to that rant in a moment. First of all, in so far as the right hon. Gentleman had any substantial points on Tampere, let me answer those points. Will the agreement undermine— [Interruption.] Calm down. Will the agreement undermine the justice system of Great Britain? No, of course it will not; it is a very sensible set of proposals. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he actually opposed all those proposals when we negotiated this at Amsterdam. He opposed the very things that we have now agreed at Tampere, but I thank him for his welcome.
In relation to enlargement, and the wise men's report, let me point out, as the right hon. Gentleman attacks the President of the Commission, that the President was talking about uniting Europe and about enlargement. He was saying how good it was that eastern Europe, which used to be divided from western Europe, is now part of the European family of nations again. I would have thought that Conservatives could welcome that.
The report itself is an advisory report to the President of the European Commission, not a statement of the European Council. As we enlarge the European Union, from 15 to 20, or to 25, we shall have to look at the ways in which we take decisions in the European Union to make it more streamlined.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]— There is no hidden agenda. It is a sensible debate to have. The experts on qualified majority voting are the Conservatives in power. They agreed 42 different changes, allowing qualified majority voting. I do not criticise them for that. We could not even argue that the ban on British beef should be lifted were it not for qualified majority voting. We shall not agree to any lifting of the veto in areas such as tax, defence, or our border controls—again, something that we secured at Amsterdam, but I am perfectly prepared to look at it in other areas, if it is in the country's interest. That is a sensible position—not the sort of hysterical rant that we got from the right hon. Gentleman a moment or two ago.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's actual policy, there are two points. First, he is saying that he will renegotiate the terms of entry for Britain into the European Union, and will block—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—Oh, yes. He is saying that, unless he is allowed to choose which areas he agrees to—other than free trade, or the internal market—he will block all European Union change. That is his policy; it cannot have changed just in the past two weeks. If the rest of Europe says no, then he will have no option but to leave. That is why his policy puts us on a conveyor 257 belt to withdrawal. [Interruption.] Do not take my word for it. This is what the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), said. He said:
The Eurosceptics in my party have been given a free rein. They have taken advantage of that to try and force the Conservative party to take more extreme anti-European views.The former Deputy Prime Minister—
§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)Who is he?
§ The Prime MinisterWho is he? Well, some of us are not going to airbrush the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) out of history. He said that the Conservative party
is being taken down a road where the Eurosceptics have got a hidden agenda, which is beginning to emerge, called 'Britain Out'.Chris Patten said:The Conservative policy now appears to stop enlargement unless we get our own way on opt-outs from everything that moves. I just don't understand where we have got to.The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said:The acid test of whether we go into the euro will, at the end of the day, be an economic test: are we being damaged by staying out?He called the sceptics policy "politically crazy". Douglas Hurd said:Judging from last week's speeches in Blackpool, Conservative policy in Europe is increasingly based on caricature, not on reality.Malcolm Rifkind said that the Conservative policy isa call which is little more than a euphemism for us to quit Europe.The Conservatives do not agree with any of those remarks, so let me tell the House what they do agree with—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is the new Conservative spokesman on education and employment shouts, but this is what he said previously:
Renegotiation should start from the premise that we will stay in the European Union if we can strike a deal that is in our interests and pull out if we cannot.As someone once said, "game, set and match".The truth of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition has turned his party into a single-issue pressure group that is anti-Europe. He has turned his leadership over to the far-right Thatcherites. He might save his leadership and get some media backing, but he is playing a dangerous game of politics with the fundamental interests of Britain. The party that now represents mainstream sensible thinking on Britain in Europe is the Labour party.
§ Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West)It is easy to agree to a great extent with the Prime Minister's sentiments—apart from the last one, with which some of us might take issue.
This European statement gives me my first opportunity to contribute from my new, lowly vantage point—my elders and betters are all behind me; I look no further than the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) when I say that. I beg your indulgence, Madam Speaker, in the hope that the Prime Minister and the House will take this moment to pay tribute to the consistent, coherent and principled 258 contribution made by my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), not least on matters European.
§ Mr. KennedyOn European issues, no is the only word that the Conservatives have.
Does the Prime Minister agree that much of the detail of the summit, especially in respect of crime and judicial matters, deals with issues that know no borders and respect no frontiers? If ever there were a classic reason why Britain should be in Europe and should be influencing Europe, it is that we cannot pull up a theoretical drawbridge and make ourselves immune from what goes on around us elsewhere in the Community and beyond its boundaries.
The difference between the real world and the unreal world on the other side of the Gangway is that there are those of us across parties and in all parties—including the Conservative party—who recognise that we have to make Europe work for us as a country, as well as for the broader interests and issues affecting Europe as a whole. In the more detailed discussions at the summit, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary were trying to influence the agenda towards improvement, rather than isolation, which is not an answer to anything.
I have some specific questions about judicial matters. There is a genuine citizens' issue regarding Europol, its accountability and Europol members' immunity from prosecution. Does the Prime Minister believe that there is scope to press further to try to ensure that that state of affairs is in the interests of individual European citizens rather than simply in the interests of the members of that force?
Finally, I refer the Prime Minister to the accursed issue of the French attitude to British beef. Can he give us some idea of the scope and time scale involved in pushing the issue hard? Being good Europeans means that, when another member state—in this case, France—flagrantly disregards the jurisdiction of the European Union, we can be in a stronger position to prosecute our case. Let us do so sooner rather than later.
§ The Prime MinisterI welcome the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) to his new position and I agree entirely with his comments about his predecessor. As to his elders, at least the right hon. Gentleman gets on with them.
As for the summit, cross-border crime is an area where we need greater co-operation. We must deal also with illegal immigration and try to iron out some of the inconsistencies in asylum rules that cause havoc across the European Union. That task will become even more important as enlargement takes place. As the borders of the European Union are pushed further eastward, it will be very important to have proper controls in place.
Europol will remain subject to ordinary judicial rules and principles. Europol is primarily an intelligence-gathering operation, but it will be subject to strict safeguards to ensure that citizens' liberties are protected properly. We think that it is important that Europol, together with the new police chiefs' task force, draws up an agenda of the changes that can be made within the European Union to try to tackle organised crime.
259 As to beef and the time scales involved, I think that the Scientific Steering Committee of the European Union will meet on 28 October. We will expect to receive a European Commission statement straight after that meeting and we will obviously progress the matter through the courts as quickly as possible. We have made that quite clear. I have told the French Government that, if the Commission and the Scientific Steering Committee decide, as I believe that they will, that there is no fresh evidence that casts doubt on the safety of British beef—all the evidence submitted recently was available previously to the committee—I hope that the French Government will abide by the decision.
§ Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield)Is the Prime Minister aware that the long-term question of our relations with Europe is a political matter and not something that should be viewed as simply meeting Treasury criteria? Is he aware also that the "patriotic alliance"—which gives the impression of being a shadow national Government—is being grossly inaccurate and deeply offensive in attempting to characterise those who take a different view as Conservative or extreme in their character? Many people, including me, who are good Europeans do not want to see the people of any European country—let alone those in Britain—denied the right to elect and remove those who make the laws and decide economic policy. European co-operation will not be durable unless it is refreshed continually through popular consent and support for those who govern Europe in the general elections of every country, including Britain.
§ The Prime MinisterI accept entirely that people who hold the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) are perfectly sincere. I have read some of the comments made by both Conservative Members and the press and I believe that those who have joined the Britain in Europe campaign get as much abuse as those who oppose Britain's participation in Europe.
As for my right hon. Friend's comments—which enjoyed great support from the Conservative party, as he would have seen—he proposes that nobody should make laws other than those whom we elect directly and whom we can remove from office. Being a part of the European Union means pooling our sovereignty with that of other countries. Those who object in principle to any such pooling of sovereignty also object in principle to the European Union. We might as well be honest about it: that is the debate. Those who oppose this idea because they believe it to be fundamentally undemocratic—I do not happen to share their view—should state their argument openly. They should say what a large part of today's Conservative party wants: they want out of Europe. I am afraid that that follows logically from the position that my right hon. Friend has adopted from his perspective, and that many Conservatives adopt from theirs. That is a perfectly sensible debate to have, but I happen to be on the other side of it.
§ Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent)The Prime Minister will know, I am sure, that, all over the country, people are pleased to think that the processing of asylum applications will be speeded up. However, is he aware that many of my constituents are increasingly 260 disturbed by the fact that, although we are spending much time and effort on new procedures to speed up asylum applications, law-abiding citizens are having to wait seven, eight or even nine months for a passport—if, that is, the passport has not been lost. This week, I have had the humiliation of having to write to a foreign embassy asking it to intervene because the passport of one of my constituents had been lost by our people, and only an intervention by the Turkish ambassador could allow that person to get back to Istanbul to see deprived and anxious relatives, who had suffered in the earthquake. That is no way to go into a negotiation with Europe, with disgraceful incompetence in our procedures.
§ The Prime MinisterWe are reforming our procedures, precisely because we have a huge backlog of claims. I understand that the casework is now back to normal, but I accept that things have been very difficult for people. However, that does not detract from the fact that it is in our interests to ensure that there are common asylum procedures across Europe. As for our asylum procedures, and our ability to make our asylum system more efficient, the changes that we propose will achieve precisely that. In relation to the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised in connection with his constituents, we have been working extremely hard, and we believe that the casework is now back to normal—but we keep the situation under constant review.
§ Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow)I warmly welcome what the Prime Minister has said about our stance on the lifting of the French beef ban. Anyone who believes in the European Union also believes that everyone should abide by the rules. Clearly, the French are not doing that, so it is important that we are challenging the French Government. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that the very fact that we have a legal framework within the European Union, setting out rights and responsibilities, means that we have a method of legal redress against the French Government? If we had followed the advice of the Conservative party, which increasingly seems to suggest withdrawal from the EU, we would have no legal right of redress whatever.
§ The Prime MinisterIt is true that it is only because we are part of the European Union that we can pursue legal redress. It is also true that opting out of everything, which is now the Conservative party's policy, would include opting out of aspects that were nothing to do with the issue. The shadow Foreign Secretary said that Community law should be concerned only with free markets and free trade. That would mean that, in respect of the environment, agriculture and a whole range of other things, countries could simply pick and choose, and do whatever they wanted. That would be used against us, to our detriment; that is what is so crazy about Conservative policy. As the European Union enlarges and more countries come in, it will be in our interests to ensure that a small country cannot block change that we want in the European Union—change that would be in our interests.
§ Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton)My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to welcome the developments at Tampere, and to encourage the Prime Minister to be tougher with the French by using the Commission and the European Court of Justice in the 261 proper way, in Britain's national interests. He was also right to welcome the enlargement measures. However, will the Prime Minister acknowledge the fact that one consistent Conservative policy has always been that, within the European Union, to overcome the protectionist instincts of any one member country, we need qualified majority voting? That is the principle behind the Single European Act, and it will become more important as the EU enlarges.
Did the Prime Minister have time to discuss with his fellow leaders at Tampere the forthcoming world trade talks in Seattle? Again, there is evidence that, because decisions are not taken by qualified majority voting, it may be difficult to reach a common position for negotiating on behalf of European Union interests in those talks, at a time when the Americans are showing more and more protectionist instincts.
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman is right about qualified majority voting, which is why I do not criticise the Conservative Government for negotiating to have many matters decided by QMV. If they had not done so, a series of changes could never have been put through in Europe.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman about the World Trade Organisation talks in Seattle. We take the forward end of the free trade position. There are varying degrees of enthusiasm for that in the European Union. It is important that Britain has a leadership position in the European Union, so that we can help to push the EU towards the most open policy that it can possibly have at Seattle. The hon. Gentleman is also right about protectionist sentiments in the United States. The worst thing that we could do from a European perspective would be to echo those sentiments rather than to confront them.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)I was the leader of the Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation to Peru, and we were told that Peru produced more coca leaves and raw material for drugs than any other country in the world. President Fujimori and many others in a position to know, including the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, said to us that Peru was doing its best—"look, you have seen our gunboats on the Amazon and the dogs that smell every bit of luggage"—but, as long as the west has anonymous, numbered bank accounts, drugs operators will get away with it. What can be done about anonymous, numbered, drugs accounts or the suspicion that such accounts exist? It is not easy.
§ The Prime MinisterThat is a good point. It is precisely for that reason that, at Tampere, we discussed the problem of money laundering. We agreed to draw up a list of action to take against secrecy and illegality that make it difficult to trace where much of the drug money goes.
I should point out to my hon. Friend that, as a result of Europol intelligence gathering and the co-operation that we have now established between police forces across the European Union, we have a better chance of taking action in those areas. However, it would be foolish to pretend that we have anything other than a long way to go.
§ Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe)The presidency conclusions refer to a new agreement to give 262 residents of European Union member states, as well as their citizens, the right to move to, and work in, any other member state. How is that new right consistent with keeping control of our own borders?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is not correct. Residents will get the same rights as they do in the member state: their rights will not be pushed beyond that, so we will be able protect our borders. I should also point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, under the Amsterdam agreement, we still have an exclusive right to protect our own borders. Whatever issues are raised in the legislation that is agreed, we will be able to protect our own borders.
§ Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove)That is an opt-out.
§ The Prime MinisterThat is absolutely right. As a result, even were the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) right, that would not affect our border controls, because we would still have the right to protect the integrity of our borders.
§ Mr. HowardI am referring to what the presidency conclusions say.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, they do not say that. They refer to residents having the same rights as in the member state. That does not mean that they have the freedom that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.
§ Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough)May I build on the drawbridge analogy made by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy)? Some of us do not believe that we should construct a new Hadrian's wall across the English channel. In his discussions on the margins, did my right hon. Friend tell his colleagues in the European Council that 57 per cent. of our trade is with the European Union, that 3.5 million jobs in this country, including many on Teesside, are because of our participation in the European Union, that the Government have no intention of renegotiating the treaties or withdrawing from the EU, and that they have majority support in the House and in the country?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is right, and that is why it is important for Britain not just to remain in the European Union, but to be positively engaged in Europe. Some 3.5 million jobs are dependent on our membership of the EU, 800,000 jobs are as a result of inward investment, and 30 per cent. of such investment in European Union countries comes to Britain. Every day, we put and sell into the European Union £320 million worth of goods and services. That is why it is important for Britain to remain part of the European Union. More than that, however, all the decisions that are made in Europe affect our own ability to operate these rules successfully. If we end up without influence in Europe, or sidelined in Europe, or marginalised in Europe, we end up being unable to defend this country's proper national interests.
§ Mr. John Butterfill (Bournemouth, West)I am sure that we would all agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is entirely desirable for us to have a system whereby the law can be enforced across the Community, and we can 263 work together to prevent drug smuggling, the dissemination of pornography and other awful things; but can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the system of common judicial authority will work, particularly in the absence of a common system of law? For example, what is an offence in Greece may not be an offence in this country. Does the right hon. Gentleman envisage circumstances in which a Greek judge could require the arrest of a British citizen, and require that citizen to face trial in Greece, for something that would not constitute an offence here?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. The proposal is in respect of serious crimes that are recognised across Europe. The purpose is to ensure that judgments can be enforced quickly, without there being, as there are now, great delays and problems in the courts. It is a perfectly sensible idea.
§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston)Many will welcome the discussion that the Prime Minister said had taken place about the serious situation in Pakistan. Will he give us some more information about that discussion? Will he also confirm that his Government, like the rest of the Commonwealth and the vast majority of the international community, will do everything possible to ensure that that country returns to democracy as speedily possible?
§ The Prime MinisterWe will do all that we can—independently, through the Commonwealth and through the European Union—to try to ensure a return to stability and democracy in Pakistan. The discussion around the table of the European Union showed total unanimity on that point.
§ Sir Michael Spicer (West Worcestershire)Will the Prime Minister veto any attempt to introduce corpus juris?
§ The Prime MinisterAs far as I am aware, no one has suggested that we have a corpus juris, and I have made it absolutely clear that we do not want a corpus juris across the whole of Europe. There is not even a proposal for that. We will always oppose anything that we believe to be contrary to this country's national interest, and trying to introduce one legal system across Europe would be. [Interruption.] I have already said that we would oppose any such attempt; what is more, no such attempt has ever been made. Why do these people raise these scare stories? They do it because they are so obsessed with being anti-Europe that they allow their dogma to blind them to the proper interest of this country, which is to be in Europe—and not just to be in Europe, but to be constructive, to engage and to lead in Europe, rather than being at the margins of Europe, which is where we found Britain two years ago.
§ Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow)Could a common approach on asylum mean that, in the future, applicants arriving in this country via another EU country will have no rights in the United Kingdom under the United Nations convention on refugees, even when courts in this country have taken a different view and rejected the view taken by the country from which the applicants have come? If the Prime Minister regards that as undesirable, does he agree that we need common approaches not just on 264 procedures but on standards, and that we must avoid establishing common standards across Europe by sinking to the level of the lowest common denominators?
§ The Prime MinisterWe are trying to achieve proper standards, but it is important for countries to protect their own boundaries, and to protect themselves against illegal immigration—and, indeed, unlawful asylum. What is required is a balance. We want to establish proper standards in regard to the way in which people are treated and received, but we do not favour harmonisation. What we favour is the adoption of some common procedures, and the introduction of proper minimum standards; but, as a result of what we negotiated at Amsterdam, we retain integrity over our own borders.
§ Mr. William Thompson (West Tyrone)I welcome the Prime Minister's initiative to try to get France to take in British beef, but does he recognise that its refusal to do so is strictly against the spirit of the European Common Market? Furthermore, such action turns people away from wanting to be closer to Europe.
When the Prime Minister raised France's refusal to accept not only beef into France, but lorry transit through the country, did he also raise the severe allegation that France is subsidising its pig farmers behind the back door and is giving other subsidies to its farmers?
Why have we to wait for another meeting of the Scientific Committee before France takes in British beef? If it can get away with that, why cannot another country raise another objection, which would mean that we would have to wait further?
§ The Prime MinisterThe only proper recourse is through the law. The hon. Gentleman has said that the French action is against the spirit of the law. It is against the letter of the law. That is why we are taking the action that we are taking. As I said earlier, it is only because we are part of the European Union that we have any power to take action against the French.
In respect of transit, as a result of the temporary agreement that we have secured with the French, transit is now allowed, so that obstacle has been cleared, but that does not alter the fact that we still do not have clearance of British beef in Europe. We will carry on fighting the case until we win it.
§ Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli)In view of the Prime Minister's fairly recent answer on that pompously named project the corpus juris, I hesitate to ask another question, but will he please tell me whether, during the deliberations on crime and justice, the corpus juris was discussed at all and whether the recommendation by those who wrote the project that there should be a European public prosecutor was discussed?
§ The Prime MinisterNo is the short answer on corpus juris. There are people who talk about having a European public prosecutor. That is essentially to root out fraud in the European Union, but we have not agreed to that and there is no active proposal on it.
§ Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle)When the Prime Minister was at the European Council, did anyone draw to his attention the fact that, since he told the House 265 last summer that he was planning to sell more than half Britain's gold reserves because so many other countries were planning to do the same thing, 15 European central banks, supported by the United States Treasury and the Bank of Japan, have pledged not to sell any gold for the next five years or longer, with the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sold the first two tranches of British gold at an all-time low price at the end of a long bear market, involving the British taxpayer in heavy losses?
As Germany holds 3,400 tonnes of gold and has said that it will not sell any of it, will the Prime Minister now abandon his Government's plan to reduce Britain's gold reserves to less than one tenth of that amount?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman is back to the old gold conspiracy again. We took the decision for sensible reasons. As for selling Britain's reserves, the one party that I will not take lessons from in the matter is the party that gave us the exchange rate mechanism debacle, where we lost more reserves in one day than this country has ever known.
§ Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South)It was reported in the press that, during a break in the proceedings at Tampere, some of the Heads of State and Government visited the Lenin museum in Tampere. Is the Prime Minister aware that that museum contains one of the few surviving documents—the treaty of Brest Litovsk—that was signed by Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky? Can he think of any three Conservative politicians who will be able to sign any document jointly?
§ The Prime MinisterNo is the answer to that. I should also say that I was not one of those who visited the Lenin museum.
§ Madam SpeakerOn that note, we shall move on to the next statement.