To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to press for reform of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement. [21601]

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for reform of the common agricultural policy. [21604]

I shall seek to build on the European Commission's acceptance of our view that the common agricultural policy must change by continuing to press for progressive reductions in production-linked support and the eventual removal of artificial restrictions on production.

Is not the Government's credibility in question in view of yesterday's export ban on British beef? What are the Minister's plans for rebuilding confidence in British beef? Will he implement the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and the National Farmers Union, which would regain the credibility of British beef? More important, any reform of the common agricultural policy would be helped if the Government made sure that they put the interests of British people first.

I certainly think that the decision by the European Union to ban, or temporarily suspend, the importation of British beef is not founded on the scientific evidence, and is therefore wrong. As our advisory committee has made absolutely plain, provided the controls are fully implemented, the risk from eating beef is extremely small or, to use ordinary language, British beef is safe.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any reform of the CAP must look closely at beef production and include long-term reassurance to the British and continental public that British beef is safe? Does he share my view that the collapse in confidence in British beef is due in part to the quite disgraceful and irresponsible scaremongering of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)?

Much of the hysterical reaction to the contents of the scientific committee's report has contributed to the lack of public confidence. I deeply regret that, and those who have been party to it should be ashamed of themselves.

Is the Minister aware that rural Wales faces devastation from the prospective loss of as many as 20,000 jobs because of the beef crisis? Will he confirm that it is within the Government's power to bring in an intervention scheme and that it would be possible to have a British aid scheme on that basis? Will he make an announcement about selective culling to restore confidence? When, oh when, will the Government do something? People are losing their livelihoods and the farms that they have built up over a generation while the Government seem mesmerised, like chickens in the headlights of a car.

There is unquestionably a lack of consumer confidence at the moment. I do not believe that it is justified because it is quite plain from what the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee—SEAC—has said that, to use ordinary language, British beef is safe. There is a debate later today in which I shall set out our further thoughts. I think that they will be of assistance to the House.

Is not the situation with respect to British beef and the CAP that either British beef and British beef producers will be supported through intervention buying through the CAP or we shall have to go it alone through some form of national deficiency payments? Would not that begin to spell the end of the CAP as we know it?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to focus on the existing intervention scheme. The European Union, through its policies within the agricultural policy, should play a full part in supporting the British meat industry at this time.

May I suggest to the Minister that, from the start, a more constructive approach should have been taken to the inevitable concern in Europe following last week's announcement on BSE and CID? Will he agree to a change in his position today? Will he assure us that his officials are talking with European Commission officials about measures that aim to get rid of BSE? Does he agree that it would be valuable to agree a package that has European support and European funding?

The hon. Gentleman has called for a more constructive attitude. I assume that that is an implied rebuke for the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). As to the substantive part of his question relating to talks with the European Union, I confirm that officials were in Brussels yesterday and are in Brussels today discussing possible ways of restoring confidence in British beef and ways in which the European Union can play a full part in providing financial assistance. I anticipate going to Brussels shortly to reinforce those discussions.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to develop export opportunities for the United Kingdom's food and drink industry. [21602]

During the past year, and with the Government's financial support, Food From Britain has opened new representative offices in Japan and Denmark. FFB's corporate strategy for the next three years involves expanding the coverage of its existing offices and extending its services into central Europe and the middle east.

I am grateful for that reply but, as the export of beef is one of the most important components of the food and drink industry, is it not urgent that an emergency package of relief for farmers and the industry should be announced very soon to avoid widespread bankruptcy and unemployment? In that connection, will my hon. Friend, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, encourage British banks to be as supportive as they can of the farming industry until this crisis is sorted out?

We are all aware of the grave difficulties in all sectors of the industry, from the farm right through the food processing chain. I refer my hon. Friend to the comments a few moments ago of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister. I hope that my hon. Friend will attend tonight's debate.

Does the Minister accept that one of the things that could transform beef export prospects is an effective and accurate live test of cattle? Will she therefore reconsider the prospects of Dr. Narang of Newcastle, my constituent, who was personally refused a research grant by the Secretary of State as recently as 21 February? Does she agree that this is not the moment to turn down any avenue of research advance that could transform the prospects of our farmers and their exports?

I confirm that the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Dr. Narang, has been invited to give his information to SEAC for consideration, but I must point out that Dr. Narang has refused to have published in the necessary scientific journals for scientific scrutiny the research that he has done to date. When invited by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make that information available to us, he has refused to do so.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the biggest problem that has been imposed on British beef and the food industry has been imposed illegally by the European Commission, which has decided to ban British beef? It is allowed to make a decision on the basis of there being a severe hazard to health. There is no severe hazard to health and it accepts that. Its decision was made politically, has devastated British industry and British agriculture and is now devastating European agriculture. The only way to put this right is not to receive the European Commission's generosity, but to have legal compensation from the Europeans.

My hon. Friend identifies very clearly what has happened. The scientists who advise the Commission have had all the science put in front of them, but their decision making and determination has not been based on that scientific evidence. As my hon. Friend says, that has had a dreadful effect on the British beef industry which is now spreading to the Europewide meat industry in general. I have heard what my hon. Friend has said and there is much sympathy with the points he made.

May 1 place on record that we Liberal Democrats believe that this is not the appropriate time for recriminations such as we have heard? Does the hon. Lady agree that the first step towards re-establishing our export position in Europe should be taken here at home? Germans will not buy British beef, regardless of any ban, if public confidence remains at such a low ebb in the United Kingdom. Has she and the Minister had time to look at the package of proposals that we put to them last night, which we hope will make a positive contribution to what is undoubtedly a very difficult situation that requires consensus across the House if we are to solve it?

We have received many packages of proposals from various organisations—the NFU, the food industry and other political parties, including the Liberal Democrats. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's initial comment. Making the issue party political will only damage British farmers, the British food industry, other industries and British jobs, for which those who have turned it into a party political scare must take personal responsibility. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we welcome his statement. We shall study all options and bring them forward as quickly as possible.

Will my hon. Friend do her best to make it clear as widely as possible that farmers have confidence in British beef because they have seen the number of BSE cases come down in recent years and therefore trust what the vets and doctors say?

The farming community understands only too well why policy has always been—and will continue to be—based on scientific evidence available at the time. We are all aware, however, that, beyond the science, there is a need for market support. I can assure my right hon. Friend, and the farming community that he represents, that we shall take every step necessary to restore confidence as quickly as possible.

Is the Minister really aware of the extent of the damage to our export opportunities that has been caused by the Government's failure to act swiftly and ruthlessly on BSE? Will she assure the House that that catalogue of delay will never be allowed to happen again?

The hon. Lady should study the facts. We received SEAC's scientific advice concerning the 10 CJD cases, and the necessary steps that it recommended, at midday last Wednesday. By 3.30 pm that day, the information was being conveyed to hon. Members. One cannot act any faster than that.

When my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister said a few moments ago that the ban on exporting beef was not based on scientific evidence and was wrong, did he mean that the ban was illegal? If it is illegal, what action does he intend to take about it in the European Community?

The ban is not illegal in terms of the law as it stands in the European Community. My point was that, whereas in this country we make decisions based on science—one could reasonably have expected scientists in Europe to follow the same principle—other countries in the European Community have singularly failed to do so.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the rural, agricultural and allied workers trade group of the Transport and General Workers Union to discuss employment conditions for farm workers. [21603]

I have not yet had the opportunity to meet formally representatives of the rural, agricultural and allied workers trade group. I should be happy to do so, if they wish.

I am rather surprised by that answer, given that about 350 BSE-infected cows are disposed of each week. Bearing in mind the fact that there will be a greater number if there is selective slaughter and that concern has been expressed that the humane killer could spread infected brain tissue, I should have thought that the Minister would have sought the advice of the Health and Safety Executive on the protection with which workers should be provided, and ensured that he met the unions to give them the Health and Safety Executive's advice.

It is, of course, entirely within the remit of the Health and Safety Executive to carry out such studies and to consider any evidence laid before it. Policy responsibility for the executive rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We do, of course, take an interest in those matters and we are more than pleased to pass on any representations to the executive and, equally, to SEAC for expert scientific appraisal. These are serious matters which affect concerns about the health and welfare of the working population and about their employment prospects. We take those concerns seriously and we are prepared to consider any evidence, or to hold any discussions, that they feel appropriate.

When my hon. Friend meets this august body, will he tell it that many farm jobs are at risk in Scotland in the prime beef-producing areas, which produce quality beef? The problem has been caused by careless talk, much of it in the House, and by action taken within Europe which means that, whatever we have, we do not have a common agricultural policy. It should be recognised that animals in Europe suffer the same ailments as animals in the United Kingdom. We want a level playing field.

I would be pleased to pass on those messages. We suffer at the moment from an unfortunate combination of scare tactics, for political reasons, on the part of certain hon. Members and an inappropriate and disproportionate reaction by some of our European colleagues which is not based on the science.

More than 200,000 jobs in Scotland are at stake as a result of the BSE scare. May I remind the Minister that, when the farmers asked the Parliamentary Secretary for help last week, the only help she offered was to put good Samaritans on the other end of a helpline? Can we stop the nonsense about political opportunism? If we had accepted the statement by the Secretary of State for Health—that it was the people who were mad and not the cows—where would we have been today?

The hon. Gentleman might care to have a word with the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). He is worried about the 200,000 jobs in the beef industry in Scotland, but he should be aware that she started that hare and that she was fully followed by a number of Labour Members.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about developments in his negotiations with his European counterparts about the welfare of animals. [21606]

Discussion of the Commission proposals for amending the European Union directive on the welfare of calves has now commenced. I have made it clear to my colleagues that the United Kingdom will continue to press for the early introduction of adequate space and dietary requirements. In addition, the Government will press at the intergovernmental conference for a protocol to be added to the treaty of Rome to place an obligation on a Council of Ministers to give full regard to considerations of animal welfare in the exercise of its powers on agriculture, transport, research and the single market.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept credit for the success of the Government's efforts to persuade other countries in the EU to consider high standards of animal welfare, in line with our own? Will he continue his efforts to press for an early end to the veal crate and its associated restrictions on space and diet? Will he seek an amendment to the treaty that would give the welfare of animals the importance that it has in this country? Presumably that would not include the unjustified slaughter of masses of cattle.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Veal calf crates are an important subject, and I am glad to say that proposals are now being made by the Commission. At the moment, the time contemplated for the implementation of the new regime-12 years—is in our view far too long. We shall press for a shorter time.

Will the Minister acknowledge that BSE is a terrible and invariably fatal disease in cattle and that, since last week, there has been concern about a link with human beings? Has he seen the letter that I sent him yesterday, setting out Labour's proposals to restore confidence in British beef, keep the BSE agent out of our food, improve the epidemiology of the disease, increase consumer awareness and make Government action more effective? Will he adopt a constructive approach to those proposed measures?

Of course BSE is a terrible disease; CJD is an even more terrible disease. Yes, I have seen the letter from the hon. Gentleman; he will bear in mind the fact that we are to have a debate. He asked whether I was adopting a constructive approach to the problems. The answer is yes, I am, and I shall set out my thoughts more fully in this evening's debate.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the fish quotas which apply to Essex fisherman. [21607]

The UK fish quotas are apportioned between producer organisations, the non-sector—representing vessels over 10 m in length that do not belong to producer organisations—and the under-10 m fleet. Most Essex fishermen fish against the separate allocations of quota made to the non-sector and to the under-10 m group of vessels.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Essex fishermen are fed up with being allowed to catch only tiddlers while the rest of Europe is allowed to catch whoppers? Will he kindly bring their plight to the attention of the next Fisheries Council, so that the imbalance can be addressed and their quota of Dover sole increased?

I am well aware of the problems facing smaller vessels, and I am considering constructively what steps might be taken to ease their difficulties. My hon. Friend initiated an Adjournment debate on the subject yesterday morning, and I said then that I was willing to go and talk to the Essex fishermen at Leigh-on-Sea and to consider more carefully what we might do to help further the non-sector fishing industry of the Thames estuary.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage the British fishing fleet is over its common fisheries policy multi-annual guidance targets. [21608]

The UK's multi-annual guidance programme targets consist of separate tonnage and power figures for each of 10 fleet segments. They are due to be met by 31 December 1996. At 31 December 1994, the nephrops and distant water targets had been met. All other segments were short of target by varying degrees. Figures for the end of 1995 are not yet available.

I should have hoped—and expected—that the Minister would take the opportunity offered by the first fishing questions for ages to ask consumers who do not want to eat beef to eat fish, because it is better for them. On the substance of his answer, is it not ludicrous that the United Kingdom—which provides two thirds of the waters in this so-called common market pool and more than three quarters of stocks—is now being asked to make the biggest reductions in its fishing fleet, particularly when a fifth of that fleet is owned by Europeans? Commissioner Bonino said that she will take quota hoppers into account when deciding reductions. Why does the Minister not meet her and ask her to live up to that promise?

The hon. Gentleman needs to sort out some of his points—some of them are good and some are awfully had. We are not being asked to make any greater reduction in our fishing effort than any other member state. If we fish against national quotas, of course it is crazy that members of other EU states can catch fish against our quota. For that reason, we have made it perfectly clear that, if appropriate, we will seek treaty changes at the intergovernmental conference to deal with the issue of quota hoppers. Of course I discussed that with the European Commissioner—she was in the UK the other day. I think that she fully understands our opposition, and our determination to deal with quota hoppers—which is what we are determined to do. I very much hope that, in the not too distant future, the Anglo-Dutch fleet, which is sailing around the North sea, will disappear.

My hon. Friend is aware that Europe is taking emergency action to keep out our beef. Why cannot we take emergency action to keep the pillaging fishermen of Spain and elsewhere out of our waters on the grounds of an emergency in employment and conserving fishing stocks'? What is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

That is good, robust stuff, Madam Speaker. It is important to remember in all this that the House and the country will always comply with the rule of law. We will always base our decisions on law. We will, moreover, seek to base our decisions on best science. It is a matter of great disappointment to all hon. Members that our European colleagues have shown this week that they do not follow those policies.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government have taken to promote managed access to the countryside. [21609]

The Ministry offers a range of incentives to encourage farmers to provide increased public access.

Does my hon. Friend accept that farmers in my constituency and elsewhere welcome managed access to the countryside? What they do not welcome, however, is the hysterical approach of the right to rampage being put forward by the Labour party, which would be a licence for criminals, burglars and people who want to commit damage to go into the countryside without let or hindrance. Does my hon. Friend recall that the previous Labour policy on this subject, in 1990, was launched under the title "Out in the Country"? Does he think that this policy could more accurately be described as out to lunch?

I have considerable sympathy with the points made by my hon. Friend. There has been wise advice on the subject from some of the Opposition's noble Friends in another place—including Baroness Mallalieu, who explained that a law would be unenforceable without the consent of farmers and landowners. As my hon. Friend implied, the policy would also impose very severe insurance, administrative and general hassle costs for the farming community. It could not proceed without consent, it is entirely the wrong way round and we will have no part of it.

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) did not blame my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) for pillaging the countryside. Has the Minister seen the representations made by the Ramblers Association following the decision announced yesterday—

She has done enough damage already.

I know that the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is suffering from mad cow disease.

We would be happy to shift our attack from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), who has perhaps already taken sufficient punishment, to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). I will, of course, be delighted at any time to speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on forestry matters, as I do frequently. I would have to tell him that the basis of any of our forestry disposals programme is to provide properly for public access. Woods that are not widely used by the public are one category, but we would not sell woods or forests that are widely used by the public without making or offering adequate provision for access, which we regard as important.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department has taken to promote regional speciality food. [21610]

In the past few months, two regional speciality food and drink groups have been set up with the help of Government financial assistance. Those groups have joined three other regional and several smaller groups to raise the profile of this important sector of the food industry.

Is the Minister aware that, although Norfolk is predominantly an arable county, one particular regional speciality is its excellent beef? Is she aware that Norfolk farmers are concerned because they do not want their beef businesses destroyed by a combination of press hysteria and Opposition Members who are more concerned about scoring political points than about helping those businesses? How long does it take for a post-mortem BSE test to be carried out on a slaughtered bullock or cow?

My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the many beef herds around the country that fall into the speciality category and are of particularly high quality. I know that Norfolk has its share of such herds.

As the most important regional speciality food in Northern Ireland is obviously Ulster beef, both in terms of the employment that it provides and the value that it adds to the economy of Northern Ireland, and given the damage done to the Ulster beef industry by decisions taken in Europe, will the Minister not forget that there are other important export markets for Ulster beef outside Europe? As a matter of urgency, will she spearhead a new export drive in those other countries to promote Ulster beef?

The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the importance of Ulster beef. Although countries outside the European Community have been caught by the worldwide recommendation, the right hon. Gentleman may like to know that I am making scientists available from the Ministry to speak to representatives from other countries outside the EC who have asked to come to hear the science from us, and to hear about how it has affected the trade. I am receptive, as a Minister and on behalf of the Ministry, to those countries which wish to do that. We shall enable that to happen, and we are happy to talk to attaches and ambassadors of specific countries.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that another regional speciality food is North sea cod, plaice and sole? Because of the workings of the common fisheries policy, however, there is a great danger that we shall soon not be able to catch any of those off England. Will she take that message to the IGC when she considers the reform of the common fisheries policies?

My hon. Friend the Minister of State has outlined to the House the work that he is doing with the industry to ensure that we get a sensible common fisheries policy, which affects his constituents and many other people around the country.

Does the Minister agree that many regional beef herds—such as Ulster beef, Scottish beef and herds from other areas—are high-quality herds with no history of BSE? Will she support some of the quality-assured schemes run by producers, and give support to those regional beef herds? Will she give some thought to the slaughter and food-processing industries where many thousands of jobs are now at risk because of the way in which the Government have handled the issue, and for no other reason?

When the hon. Gentleman started his question, I thought that he was going to say something of profound interest to the industry and was going to recognise the difficulties that it faces. I certainly agree that some herds, kept by specialist producers, are free of BSE. Those herds are very often raised on grass, and are not subject to the cattle feed problems that we are talking about. I can assure him that I am aware of his point and will do my best to take it into account. How disappointing it is that yet another Labour agriculture spokesman, pretending to seek a justifiable solution for a matter of grave importance throughout the country, cannot resist the temptation to add his fivepen'orth of party politicking. It is a disgrace.

Will my hon. Friend take another look at the future of Bath chaps, which are under sentence of death this week? Will she go back to SEAC and ask whether it really meant the masseter and temporal muscles to be classified as specified offal, because that will bring to an end a large industry and could result in up to 40 works closing?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern for the industry in his constituency that is producing Bath chaps. The recommendation from SEAC last week was very clear, and I am sorry that I cannot give him any comforting words. SEAC has recommended that the head should be removed, and that the part of the head that may be used in the food chain is the tongue. The part of the head to which my hon. Friend referred has been specifically identified by SEAC as a part not to be put into the human food chain. While I sympathise with, and have every concern for, my hon. Friend's dilemma, it would be quite wrong for the Government to challenge the scientific advice that we have accepted at this Dispatch Box.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his EC colleagues regarding the welfare of farm animals; and if he will make a statement. [21612]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend gave a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert).

Is the Minister aware that many people of all political persuasions will welcome the collapse in the odious trade in live exports that has resulted from the present crisis? Is she further aware that many of us gave up eating meat some years ago—not for health reasons, but because we were unable to justify the appalling cruelty that factory farmers inflicted upon farm animals? She can restore the confidence of many of us only by persuading the EC to amend the treaty so that live animals can be treated as sentient beings and not as agricultural products.

My right hon. and learned Friend explained to the House today that the addition of a protocol would create a legally binding obligation, whereas amending the treaty itself would not necessarily meet the objective. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's first remarks, he is free to take whatever decisions he likes about what he eats, and we all value the fact that he is able to do so. In time, however, he may well feel that his initial remarks were ill founded. There is a meat trade, and it is important that the highest standards apply—we have led the way on this—for animals reared in, and transported from, this country. We have pioneered the way in which those standards can be implemented across Europe, and that is the answer. We cannot just focus on what we do here, as what happens over the water is equally important in terms of animal welfare.

Is my hon. Friend aware that today McDonald's is importing foreign beef products? Is she also aware that health observation in other countries throughout Europe is perhaps not so stringent as ours and that animal welfare considerations have been shown not to be of such great concern? Does she feel that McDonald's has made a great error of judgment?

We shall work hard to encourage McDonald's to lift its decision on British beef as quickly as possible, because that will surely give confidence to the beef market both at home and abroad. We have no intention of allowing beef from other countries to undermine our marketplace here. We are studying imports of beef carefully to see that we can be absolutely sure that they comply with the sort of assurances on British beef that we give the population of this country.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March. [21631]

This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is not the wide welcome for the Government's endorsement of Sir Ron Dearing's proposals for the education of 16 to 19-year-olds thoroughly deserved, as they bring together academic study with work-related training and recognise young people's differing skills and aptitudes for reaching their full potential? Is not that belief in diversity and choice the hallmark of Conservative policy and a striking contrast to anything else on offer?

My hon. Friend is right about the desirability of choice and diversity being the key to raising standards in schools. I am sure that that is right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will set out more proposals this afternoon to achieve precisely that. That is what we want for all children—our children and everyone else's as well.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, to restore confidence in British beef, we should recognise the mistakes of the past and that contaminated meat did pass into the food chain, but that, for the future, we should take all measures that are necessary to make negligible, not just extremely small, any chance—[Interruption.]

Order. This is disgraceful. The House will come to order.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the need to take all the necessary public health measures. The reality is that we have always taken the action that was seen to be necessary and the advice that has been offered. In 1989, we took action that went beyond the advice that we had received. I have had an opportunity to look at the proposals that the Opposition made this morning. They are a mixture of motherhood and action that is already being taken, and they largely miss many of the matters that need to be dealt with. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is wrong with them?"]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman was asked a question by an hon. Member from a sedentary position. Members must learn to listen and not bawl out from sedentary positions.

The plan for a separate food agency would mean that matters such as this would no longer be represented round the Cabinet table but would be represented in an agency. The chief medical officer already has the support that he has asked for to carry out his duties. The reality is that our examination is much more fundamental than this public relations nonsense from the Labour party. It is considering votes; we are considering the industry and the national interest.

I do not think that we have heard anything quite so pathetic as that. Let me take two of those measures—one, random testing, was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman's own committee. As for the policy in relation to abattoirs, his own scientists have said that the regulations have to be enforced. Will he confirm that, as late as last year, almost half the slaughterhouses were not up to scratch and that, although it is true that there are far fewer today, there has not yet been one completed prosecution? Is that not right?

What is pathetic is this document. What is also pathetic is this wriggling change of policy after the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Gentleman did everything that they could to extract maximum political advantage, at the cost, potentially, of jobs, and of the national interest, in the beef industry. On his remarks about controls in slaughterhouses, the Meat Hygiene Service has an officer—in some cases more than one officer—in each and every slaughterhouse, and every single carcass is inspected by those hygiene officers—officers whom Opposition Members voted against when we brought the proposals before the House.

Will my right hon. Friend assure his farmers—my farmers and farmers up and down the country—that the Government will do all that they can to avert the disaster facing British industry? In short, will the Government bring forward proposals for a selective slaughter policy to take out of the food chain the meat from cows that will be culled in any case?

What needs to be done to ensure confidence both for the beef industry and for allied industries, in the interests of the farmers as well as public health, and the substantial range of matters that must be examined, are all under consideration at the moment. We must address specifically the question of market confidence: that means convincing our European partners and the beef outlets that beef is safe. The next step in that process will be an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food later this afternoon.

The Prime Minister knows very well just how many jobs and how many businesses are now at risk in what is the worst crisis to hit rural Britain for three decades or more. He knows that every delay will add to that list. I therefore assure him that, if he brings forward an urgent plan of action, designed to restore public confidence and to make the British herd BSE-free as soon as possible, based on culling and other measures, we shall support him. We shall also support every action that is designed to persuade our European partners that it is not a problem just for Britain, but a Europewide problem that requires a Europewide solution.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's latter point: it is a Europewide problem. I shall discuss the matter with our European partners in Turin tomorrow and my right hon. Friends will also discuss the matter with their European counterparts. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right: 650,000 people are employed in the industry, which generates about £5 billion each year. That is why we must ensure that the proposal we bring forward is comprehensive and will work. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his offer of support as we do so.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be total support for his comments yesterday about the European Union ban on worldwide exports of British beef which he said was unjustifiable, unjust and should be reversed? Does the Prime Minister recognise that we do not wish to be bribed, by accepting the return of some of our own money, into agreeing to something that is fundamentally wrong? Is there not a case for, if not leaving the British seat vacant at the IGC tomorrow, at least saying that there will be no progress until the ruling has been overturned?

On the basis of the scientific advice that we have received, our partners must know that the ban on British beef is totally without justification. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is having urgent discussions to outline the measures that we are taking to ensure safety. I assure my right hon. Friend that I shall reinforce that point vigorously in Turin tomorrow. It is essential that decisions of that sort are taken by member states on the basis of rational judgments and of science, and not on any other basis—as I believe they were on this occasion. I shall certainly make our feelings clear tomorrow.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March. [21632]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.

What message does the Prime Minister have for his so-called Euro-sceptic friends now that he is not going to Turin to talk tough to the intergovernmental conference but is going cap in hand to beg for compensation for the measures that he knows he must now take to resurrect the British beef industry, which has suffered because of his Government's total incompetence?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard what I said a moment or so ago; if he did hear it, he patently did not understand it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 March. [21633]

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

When my right hon. Friend goes to Turin, will he take the opportunity to impress on his fellow European leaders the absolute need to reduce business costs? Will he also ensure that there is no way in which the European social chapter—the European tax on jobs—is smuggled into this country by the back door or foisted on the British people by the back door despite our opt-out?

As I said a moment ago, and am happy to reaffirm, I am not prepared to see the social chapter opt-out, negotiated and agreed in good faith at Maastricht with our colleagues, undermined by an improper use of other treaty heads, and I shall demand changes in the intergovernmental conference to ensure that that cannot happen. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Labour party may wish to sign up to policies that will make people unemployed—Labour Members are obviously reckless of employment, as they showed earlier this week with their statements on health matters—but we care about putting people back into jobs and we shall not accept any measures that prevent jobs being created.