To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from farm workers and other workers in the beef industry in West Yorkshire regarding economic suffering because of the BSE outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [32360]

I have not received specific representations from West Yorkshire, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met representatives of the rural, agricultural and allied workers group of the Transport and General Workers Union on 15 May to discuss a wide range of BSE-related issues.

Many people in West Yorkshire have suffered as a result of the BSE outbreak, and there are many reasons for that. What action does the Minister intend to take against the Doncaster firm, Prosper De Mulder, which allegedly produced animal feed in a way that was against the regulations laid down by the Government? The present Minister must be aware of the meetings that took place between the former Conservative Member of Parliament for Dewsbury, Mr. Whitfield, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when Minister of Agriculture, and Mr. De Mulder.

Allegations of sleaze do the hon. Gentleman no good at all. It is not an attractive allegation and he should not have made it in this place. As to the more substantive part of his question, if any of the allegations that people were negligent or in breach of their statutory or other duties are backed by evidence, that might well be a reason for those who have or may have suffered loss to consider some legal action, but that depends on being able to establish through credible evidence some cause for action.

The West Riding is a large place, and I live, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows, in the Pennines. Many people in the Pennines were encouraged by the Government and the EU to go into suckler herds, and the cattle which are now leaving their mothers are worth considerably less than they were a year or even two years ago. Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any words of hope for those cattle rearers?

The low price that beef producers are currently receiving for their product is, of course, a matter of considerable concern. It is best addressed by a revival in market confidence, but, as the House will know, the Agriculture Council meets next week in Luxembourg and will consider a number of Commission proposals to bring support to beef producers. At the moment, two specific proposals are on the table, the first of which is a top-up to the premiums of 21 ecu and 25 ecu, and the second is an element of money—which to us will be worth about £14 million—that can be focused on beef producers in accordance with national decisions. Those proposals are on the table. They may change, but we shall be able to use those resources to address the problem that my hon. Friend identified.

The Minister will be aware that there has been a dramatic fall in the number of beasts going into some abattoirs, including one in my constituency. That is likely to affect jobs. He will also know that the intervention board has included just 42 abattoirs on the list of those designated to deal with cattle under the 30-month scheme. The abattoir in my constituency is not on that list, and local farmers are having to travel considerable distances to abattoirs that are. Will the Minister ensure that there is a fair geographical spread, and that the list is monitored continuously so that abattoirs such as the one in my constituency, which have spent huge amounts to bring themselves up to European Union standards, are included when that becomes practicable?

It is important to try to define our principal objective. Here we are referring to the slaughter of cattle aged over 30 months. We want to complete the process with all possible speed, because there is a substantial backlog. The intervention board has therefore tried to match renderers with abattoir capacity, and also to ensure a fair geographical spread.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount has been spent to date on measures related to the BSE issue; and what is his latest estimate of future spending. [32362]

The cost to date has been around £190 million. Over the next three years, the cost will be around £1.5 billion.

The current estimates suggest that every man, woman and child will be required to pay £60—which is £250 for the average family—plus the cost of the selective cull and the cost of intervention. Can the Minister give any assurance to the general public that this massive and costly programme will actually lead to the eradication of BSE within a reasonable period?

I share my hon. Friend's dismay about the fact that it has been necessary to spend such huge sums on the policy. I think that we all regret that. As for eradication, that is an important point. I am glad to say that we are seeing the progressive elimination of the disease. There have been about 160,000 confirmed cases so far; the high point was reached in 1992, when there were about 36,500. The number of cases is falling by 40 per cent. year on year. Last year, there were about 15,000; this year, if we took no action, we would expect about 8,000, and about 2,800 by 1998. As I have said, the disease is being eliminated. That is because of the action that we have taken on feedstuffs, about which I have spoken in the House many times.

Is the Minister aware that the figures that he has given do nothing to allay the despair felt by farmers in my constituency and elsewhere about the muddle that the Government have produced in their terrible, failed attempt to resolve the crisis? Will he now tell farmers in Montgomeryshire and elsewhere when they can expect to know what system will finally be used to resolve it? When will he tell them the health grounds for the proposed increased cull, and when will he tell them what compensation the farmers will receive for the unnecessary destruction of thousands of good cattle?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is less coherent than usual, but let me deal with compensation, which is an important point. Here, I refer to the accelerated slaughter programme. Clearly, any cattle that are slaughtered under an accelerated slaughter programme will attract compensation. The compensation will be significantly higher than that which we pay for cull cows under the 30-month slaughter scheme. We shall clearly have to embark on detailed negotiations with agriculture representatives—

Quickly.

and quickly, to try to agree a fair basis for compensation.

Now that the framework agreement is in position, will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the Government have obtained from the European Union firm assurances that, as the steps that we are taking progress, there will be a reciprocal lifting of the various bans by the EU, so that we shall at last be returning to a fair deal?

I do not want to deceive the House about this. Thus far, we have an agreement on the eradication plan. Last night, the Standing Veterinary Committee unanimously approved the United Kingdom eradication plan. Separate from that, although clearly related, is the Commission framework document. That document must be adopted at Florence. There is a good prospect that it will be, but it is fair to say that, as yet, it has not been. The framework document as we now see it will provide a mechanism for an early relaxation of the ban in the way that is set out in the document. That reflects our proposals.

Is the Minister aware of the moral outrage in the industry not only at the lack of transparency and equity in the way in which abattoirs were selected to participate in the over-30—month cull, but at the price of £87.50 per head that was negotiated—which, I am advised, is three to four times in excess of the market rate that would have been offered by abattoirs that were not allowed to tender? On a throughput of 20,000 cattle a week, that is an extra burden on the taxpayer of £1.5 million a week.

I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked 12 questions and I fancy that you, Madam Speaker, would prefer me to focus on one or so. The one that I shall focus on is the key one: why we chose the abattoirs that we did. That goes back to the point that I made to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham). Our purpose is to secure rapid implementation of the 30-month slaughter. We need to do that to clear the backlog. We have tried to choose abattoirs that are most likely most quickly to enable us to eliminate that backlog. The identification of the abattoirs is done by the intervention board, working with others, under the direct supervision of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the farming industry appreciates the efforts that he and his colleagues have made to resolve the crisis, but that the farmers losing most are probably those selling prime beef under 30 months, due to the loss in market value? Therefore, was it not disappointing that he had to reduce the premium by 10p yesterday for the 30-month cull, because that helped to give some compensation to the beef industry generally?

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and I shall divide my answer in two. As to the producer selling for consumption beef under the age of 30 months, my points about the announcement at Luxembourg next week will provide some support for my right hon. Friend's constituents. His second point relates to the reduction in the top-up, which was set at 25p over and above the 85p cull cow rate. The problem with that top-up was that we were compensating for destruction at a rate higher than producers were selling for consumption, which was undesirable and created perverse economic incentives. We reduced the top-up for that reason.

Will the Minister confirm that, in addition to the 1 million cattle that will be slaughtered under the 30-month scheme, he has agreed to the slaughter and destruction of a further 150,000 cattle—mainly milking dairy cows? The Minister has acknowledged that compensation must be higher than for cull cows, but does he accept that the figure should cover the cost to the farm of losing those animals? What will be the effect on milk production and jobs? Has the Minister made any estimate of the likely cost to the taxpayer? Will he confirm that, in return for all those measures, the UK is not even getting a timetable for lifting the ban?

I am sure that you will forgive me, Madam Speaker, if I again observe that I have been asked about six questions. I will focus on the key question. The eradication programme approved last night by the Standing Veterinary Committee provides for an accelerated slaughter scheme designed to speed the decline of BSE that has two distinct approaches. As to animals born in 1990–91 and the two following years, we will trace the farms of origin to identify animals most at risk of developing BSE, which will be subject to a compulsory cull.

What proportion of the £1.5 billion will be met by European Union compensation, and what proportion of that compensation will be indirectly paid by the British taxpayer because of the reduction in the UK's rebate?

As a result of the reduction in the rebate, the UK will be paying the lion's share.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to implement the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the agricultural industry. [32363]

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to implement the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the forestry industry in England. [32368]

The employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—with one exception relating to trade organisations—which apply to all employers with more than 20 employees, will be commenced by 2 December 1996. Codes of practice will be available. Drafts were laid before Parliament last week.

Why has the agricultural industry, which is renowned for low wages, been singled out under the 1995 Act as the only one in which discriminatory wages have been specifically endorsed by the wages boards?

I do not for a moment accept that the agricultural industry is unique or has been singled out. In fact, I bracketed that and the forestry industry in answering. I understand the point that the hon. Lady is seeking to address. It is precisely because my predecessors, after consultation, decided to retain the Agricultural Wages Board with its provision for a statutory minimum wage that there is any element of distinction between the treatment of agricultural employees and those in other industries.

Will the Minister confirm that public rights of way and public footpaths in forest areas will be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and that, when Forestry Commission estates are sold, in particular, it will be illegal for purchasers to narrow footpaths or to do anything else to restrict access? Will he tell us precisely what he is doing to ensure that employers in the forestry industry are aware of their responsibilities under the Act?

Those are somewhat different and disparate points. After the anticipated announcements on implementation and further advice to employers by my noble Friend, we shall be ready to give advice to employers in forestry and in agriculture on their obligations under the Act. Clearly, access provisions will be bound by the general law. On forestry disposals—which I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind—wherever possible the approach will seek to safeguard access to woods that are used extensively by securing an access agreement through the local authority. I am sure that local authorities will wish to have the specific interests of people with disabilities in mind when implementing the provisions.

Is not the best thing we can do for disabled people to ensure that there are jobs in the British farming industry for them and for other people to take up? Towards that end, does the Minister agree that it is extremely important that we boost consumer confidence in British beef? Is it not important that we tell the British people that the incidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease here is no higher than in any other European country, and that the precautionary measures taken in this country probably make British beef the safest in the world to eat? Is it not the case that there is real anger among the farming industry at the way in which some food lobbyists and Labour Members—not least the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)—have—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going quite wide of the question. I know that he was very keen to be called during a question relating directly to BSE, but the question does not relate directly to BSE. His question must relate to the Order Paper.

It is about saving jobs.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants to save jobs, but he is going the wrong way about it.

I can assure the House that the Government are as interested in securing economic and effective jobs as they are in the proper provision of facilities for people with disabilities. We shall certainly proclaim loud and clear the interests of the British beef industry on every possible and conceivable occasion.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the disabled should look at the Government's record rather than listen to the rhetoric from those on the Opposition Benches? Will he confirm that spending on the disabled has more than trebled in real terms under this Government?

I shall have to be a little careful in answering outside my departmental responsibilities, but the Government have an excellent record on disability. I remember being modestly engaged—in my previous job at the Department for Education—in securing some of the provisions for future and higher education, in which I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment is also engaged.

Does the Minister accept that agriculture, horticulture and forestry are very important employers of disabled people, and especially of disabled people with learning difficulties? Has the Minister of Agriculture read the programme of action from the Forestry Commission on dealing with disabled people? Does the Minister accept that there is a responsibility on the Minister of Agriculture and on all Cabinet members to promote employment for disabled people—if only because of its outstanding importance and our refusal to accept complacency on such matters?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency whatever among Ministers. We seek the right balance. Among other things, we very much wish to emphasise to employers in forestry, agriculture and elsewhere their direct responsibilities under the Act and under the codes set out under the Act and the need to have regard to the interests of disabled people. It is a difficult balance to find, but we are determined to offer advice and encouragement for them to fulfil those responsibilities.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking (a) to reduce the extent of regulation on the UK food industry and (b) to increase its global competitive ness. [32364]

The Government's food law deregulation plan was published on 14 September 1993. It listed 29 action points. Action has already been completed on 15 of these and a further 11 are due for completion this year. In addition, the Ministry has a market task force, dedicated to improving marketing competitiveness.

The Government's activities on deregulation and the market task force are to be welcomed. I hope that my hon. Friend will do what she can to increase those activities, because they benefit the food industry, which is well poised to take advantage of world markets, not least as the common agricultural policy fades. Will my hon. Friend take action to discourage and prevent the over-zealous enforcement of food regulations by environmental health officers, which is still taking place? Does my hon. Friend agree that the last thing our excellent food industry needs is a Government formed by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who are the enemies of enterprise and the apostles of over-regulation? The damage they have caused to our beef industry is already very serious.

My hon. Friend is right to seek to draw a balance between the need, quite rightly, to protect the consumer and the need not to stultify enterprise in this important industry. The system which we have developed, and which environmental health officers enforce, is the HACCP system—hazard analysis critical control point. It looks at where the critical points are in food production, identifies where the risks are and applies the law proportionately. I hope that the House is aware that that system has been recognised in this country and is being emulated in others as well.

Does the Minister not find it extraordinary that one of her hon. Friends should contemplate relaxing regulation on food when we have just been told of the colossal cost of clearing up the BSE scandal and when there has just been concern over the safety of baby milk? Would not the best answer be the establishment of a food standards agency, separate from the Minister's Department?

No, I am not astonished. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker) struck the exact balance—proper enforcement proportionate to risk. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that baby milk is quite safe.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, over recent years, small independent abattoirs have had to pay huge sums in order to meet the standards set by new and ever-higher regulatory levels? It is precisely those abattoirs that are now facing devastation as a consequence of the application of the policy on BSE and the decision to use only the large abattoirs for that slaughter policy. Before my hon. Friend comes back to the House with proposals for the slaughter of more animals, I hope that she and her colleagues will think carefully about the need to be fair to those small independent abattoirs, particularly those which have in place adequate rendering facilities.

I am aware of that, and I am sympathetic to the investment made by abattoirs across the country, many of which are seeking higher standards and the EU mark to enable them to export. That export market has now, unfairly, been denied to them. My hon. Friend will have heard the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister when he explained how those abattoirs have been selected for the 30-month cull scheme.

Does the Minister not think that food safety should come before the political dogma of deregulation? Is she prepared to risk another food crisis by sticking to the dogma that deregulation is all—important?

We never subjugate the safety of consumers to any policy or dogma. I refute totally the hon. Lady's suggestion and I am sorry that she could not find something more constructive to say.

Is my hon. Friend aware of how efficient the farmers in my constituency are in terms of global competitiveness? Is she also aware of the high levels of optimism among cereals farmers in Suffolk, which is manifested in rising land prices? Will my hon. Friend join me in applauding the fact that that optimism has translated itself into an unemployment rate in my constituency of only 4.2 per cent.—one of the lowest anywhere in the developed world?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the competitiveness of firms in his constituency—and, indeed, the United Kingdom in general. That is why we supported the general agreement on tariffs and trade and why we are seeking to reform the common agricultural policy and move towards world market prices as soon as possible. British farms will be well placed to compete in a global market.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for using decommissioning funds to encourage conservation-effective fishing. [32366]

The aim of any decommissioning policy should be to help bring fishing effort into better balance with what fishing stocks will bear.

Given that there is a conservation crisis in fishing as a result of the common fisheries policy and that there will be continuous pressure for decommissioning, would it not be more sensible not to take out conservation-effective fishing vessels, such as Grimsby's seine-netter fleet, but to rearrange the programme to give priority to taking out, first, the bigger and more efficient vessels, those whose activities are more damaging to conservation and the environment and those vessels whose track record shows that they have been making the biggest catches? Would it not also be sensible to do that on a Europe wide basis? If we do it alone, we shall simply ensure that the stocks that we save are looted by over-large foreign fleets.

I made it clear to the Council of Ministers the other day that its forthcoming decommissioning proposals, which do not make any provision for decommissioning industrial fishing vessels, are crazy. Industrial fishing does enormous damage, especially to stocks in the North sea. I have also made it clear that we will not contemplate any further large-scale decommissioning of the UK fleet until we have made some substantial progress on the issue of quota hoppers.

My hon. Friend will be aware from his recent visit to the Wash inshore fishery that conservation is of paramount importance. Is he aware that the current dredging programme is causing great concern to local fishermen? Will he confirm that the promised monitoring programme and consultation process are actually in place and working?

I visited my hon. Friend's constituency last year specifically to look at the whole issue of dredging. I fully appreciate that concerns about dredging were raised with me at that time. I am confident that the monitoring programme is being assiduously carried out.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest weekly figure for the number of animals slaughtered under the 30-month scheme in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [32367]

Just under 20,000 animals were slaughtered in England and Wales under the 30-month scheme in the week ending 16 June.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that, this time last year, a 600 kg live-weight beef animal would have realised about £786? Even with the 25p per kilogram top-up payment, there is now a loss of more than £90 per animal. With this week's cut in the premium to a measly 15p per kilogram, the loss will be about £158 per animal.

Let us all be quite clear about the purpose of the top-up: it is for clean beef, steers and heifers, which we would have expected to come into the human food chain. As of 20 March, it was clear that some farmers would not have them ready to enter the food chain. The advice of the Meat and Livestock Commission and others was that there was an incentive for farmers to hold back those cattle to be slaughtered under the 30-month scheme rather than putting them into the human food chain. That is a crazy situation.

Does not the progress made from the over-30-months cull to the agreement on eradication and now the possibility of agreement on a framework document show that my right hon. Friends were entirely right to use the veto in the Community and thereby to bring beef to the top of the agenda? They have brought us to a position where we are now very close to an agreement that we can all back.

Yes. Having, along with other ministerial colleagues over the past few weeks, spoken to many fellow Agriculture Ministers and other Ministers elsewhere in the European Community, I am convinced that if we had not pursued the policy of non-co-operation, we would not have made such positive progress in seeking to lift the export ban on UK beef.

But have not the Minister and his colleagues achieved an armistice in the beef war by agreeing to a level of eradication and slaughter that the Minister of Agriculture previously said that he would not agree to? Is not the House entitled to understand, therefore, that the past month of posturing has been at best irrelevant and at worst positively damaging? Is it not reasonable to expect to see a white flag of surrender over Downing street this afternoon?

With respect, all that is disingenuous twaddle. No one looks for the lifting of the export ban more keenly than beef producers in Scotland, and I cannot believe that any beef producer in Scotland will look with any respect at the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Does my hon. Friend accept that behind the words "an accelerated programme" lies devastation for many of our dairy herds? Does he accept that those of us who come from dairy-producing areas welcome today what my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has said—that there will be increased compensation for animals that have to be slaughtered under the scheme? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be compensation not just for the loss of the animal, but for lost production from that animal? Can my hon. Friend assure us that there will be compassion and common sense in the way in which the programme is operated?

I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend on all those points. This morning, I again met the deputy president of the National Farmers Union—the president is abroad—and the president of the Country Landowners Association to start the process of discussion on the details of compensation between the Government and the farming industry, including from next week the farming industry in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We shall, of course, listen carefully to what the farming industry says about compensation. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has made clear, compensation will be at significantly higher rates than under the over-30-months scheme.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent correspondence he has received from representatives of local authorities concerning Government policy on agricultural pollution. [32369]

The Department has received correspondence this year from representatives of local authorities on a range of agricultural pollution issues, including the land-spreading of waste and recycling of farm plastics.

Have not the Government's foolish deregulation policies led to contamination by muck flowing from the rendering industries, particularly in Ashford in Kent, where the products of the rendering industries, possibly contaminated by BSE, are now polluting the environment? The Government have been soft on regulation, and that has created pollution. Is it not right that the country will never again trust the Government to ensure the safety and purity of British food?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely off beam. It is precisely as a result of our stringent legislation and the provision of the new Environment Agency that such matters—including the discharge of waters to agricultural land—are closely regulated. The case that the hon. Gentleman cites relates to treated water from an effluent plant that is discharged in the way that he caricatured. It is subject to all the regulations of the Environment Agency and, to the best of our knowledge and information, they are complied with in full. Any breaches of that legislation will be rigorously pursued.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June. [32391]

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.

Will my right hon. Friend ignore advice from the Opposition, who would sign away Britain's vital interests to some European super-state? When he meets European leaders in Florence tomorrow, will he remind them of Britain's economic success, and will he continue to fight robustly for Britain's interests in Europe, in contrast with the Opposition, who would fight for Europe's interests in Britain?

It is certainly the case that the principal Opposition party would jeopardise the rebate, undermine the veto and follow policies in Europe which certainly would not add to employment and would damage our position here and in Europe. I confirm that we shall not remotely follow any of those policies. We have a crowded agenda to address at the summit at Florence this weekend—on the intergovernmental conference, unemployment and economic issues—and I hope to get a resolution of the beef dispute.

Under the European Commission proposal, when does the Prime Minister think that the ban on beef will finally be lifted? Obviously, I am asking not for a precise date, but for the approximate time when he now expects it to be lifted.

We do not yet have an agreement on the framework. There is unanimous agreement by the Standing Veterinary Committee on the eradication plan, which is a great step forward. The agreement on the framework document remains to be achieved and I hope to reach an agreement in Florence. I am not certain that I will, but I certainly hope that it will be possible. After then, it will be for us—not the Commission—to determine the dates, as it will depend on the steps that we have to take. I would expect that, provided that we can reach agreement in Florence, we shall begin to see the lifting of the ban in the early autumn, but that will depend on negotiations still to come.

The question is not when it will begin, but when it will end. Perhaps the Prime Minister will confirm the following about the deal. First, there is no date on the deal. Secondly, there are no guarantees; indeed, any part of the ban being lifted has to be referred to a committee which is under no obligation to accept it. Thirdly, he has had to concede extra cattle to be slaughtered, although there is no scientific basis for it. Fourthly, there is no lifting of the third country ban and, fifthly, there is no deal on additional compensation, though we shall be spending billions on it for years to come. If those points are correct, is not calling it a triumph, as some Ministers have today, an utter travesty of the truth?

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in almost every aspect of what he has just said. Let me make it clear to him that, but for the action that we have taken, we would be nowhere near the deal that it may be possible to strike this weekend. In the first eight weeks after the ban was imposed, nothing whatever was offered to us by our European partners. In the four weeks since we began a process of non-co-operation, we have reached agreement on the eradication plan and reached agreement with the Commission on a framework. I hope that we shall reach agreement with our partners on a framework to enable us to begin to move towards lifting the ban.

My understanding is based on the European Commission document.

indicated dissent.

Then perhaps the Prime Minister will answer the question that was put to him: when does he expect the ban finally to be lifted? I suspect that the reason why he will not give us an estimate is that, if he did so, the period would be in years, not months. That is why he does not want to give it. Is not the truth that he is now so desperate to extricate himself from this mess that he will settle for anything? There is humiliation in the deal. There is ignominy in the deal. In fact, it is not a deal at all: it is a rout.

The right hon. Gentleman's position is wholly idiotic. Not only that, but now that he is talking in that fashion, he might bear in mind that his hon. Friend the shadow Minister of Agriculture supported the ban, against the interests of this country, after it was proposed. First the right hon. Gentleman says that he supports our policy and that we must negotiate an agreement. Then, when we do negotiate an agreement, he changes his position. The fact of the matter is that there would have been no chance of an agreement, but for the policy of non-co-operation that we have followed. We are now within a few hours, with luck, of getting an agreement in Florence —and that is no thanks to the policies of the Opposition, who right from the outset have done all that they can for party advantage, notwithstanding the damage to the British agricultural industry.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend remembers the old cowboy movies that he must have watched in his youth. In that context, if one of our colleagues had gone to Germany and told a German audience that he would never be prepared to see Britain isolated in Europe, and that he would therefore be prepared to give up the veto, but then told a British audience that he would never give up the veto because Britain might have to be isolated in Europe, would my right hon. Friend be justified in saying to that person, "Paleface speak with forked tongue?"

When the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) went to Germany, I at least did not expect him while he was there to attack a policy that he was nominally supporting in this country. But instead, to curry favour with his hosts, he rolls over on his back with his feet in the air.

I did not support the Government in the policy of confrontation. Is it not perfectly clear that the Prime Minister, having again marched his troops to the top of the hill in Brussels, is now engaged once more in uselessly marching them back down again? What is the cost of all that folly, the terrible damage to Britain's influence abroad and to respect for this country?

Yet again the right hon. Gentleman shows his breathtaking capacity to understand nothing. He is wrong on almost every aspect, as he will discover at the end of the discussions in Florence, when we will have finally dealt with the matter. We would still be waiting for any movement towards the lifting of the ban by Christmas or later, had we followed the policy that he advocated. As it is, we are close to an agreement that will be in the interests of the British agriculture industry. He says that he is interested in the agriculture industry when he is in his constituency, but when he is in the Chamber he just wants to make silly points.

Did my right hon. Friend read the remarks that Mr. Henkel made at the conference attended by the Leader of the Opposition? He said that unemployment in Germany was continuing to increase, whereas in Britain it had fallen by 20 per cent., that the rate of taxes on retained profits in Germany was twice as high as in Britain, and that Britain was the enterprise centre of Europe. Is it not the case that we are doing rather well at cricket, our footballers are playing like heroes and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) is nearly 80 years old? We are moving towards a position where all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, so why let Labour ruin it?

Mr. Henkel, the president of the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, said more than that: he pointed out that we had received 10 times as much investment from outside Europe as Germany had, despite the fact that Germany was a larger economy. What is rather strange is that the celebrated guest at that great meeting where the president of the BDI paid those compliments to the United Kingdom would like to change all the policies that have made this country so successful.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June. [32392]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Will the Prime Minister comment on his deputy's claim on "Today" that the culling of a further 65,000 cows amounts to no more than "a handful" of cattle? How does he square that with yesterday's comment by the Minister of Agriculture that any suggestions of a further cull were completely untrue? Will he give the House and the public two simple assurances: first, that the Government will guarantee full compensation to farmers for the reconstruction of the national herd and, secondly, that a sizeable contribution from Europe will now form a core part of the framework agreement that he has negotiated?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong to suggest that 67,000 additional animals are to be slaughtered, That is not remotely the case. Every one of those animals was going to be slaughtered in any event. Not a single extra animal will be slaughtered. [Interruption.]One can always tell when the Opposition do not like what they are hearing. Not a single extra animal will be slaughtered, so the hon. Gentleman's question is based on total nonsense.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June. [32393]

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

May I wish my right hon. Friend a most enjoyable weekend break in Florence? So as to ensure that it is enjoyable also for Conservative Members, will he make it clear from the start, and again at the end, that he will accept no weakening of the British veto and no extension of qualified majority voting?

Weekends in Florence are always enjoyable, as I have learnt on many occasions in the past. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is a lovely place, and I am looking forward to an enjoyable weekend there. And I can ensure that my hon. Friend enjoys both this and subsequent afternoons by giving him both the assurances for which he asks.

Why do the Government refuse to support the International Labour Organisation's convention on home workers when this country has 1.5 million home workers, many thousands of whom earn less than £2 an hour, and many of whom earn less than £1 an hour? These people have no protection or rights under our existing legislation. Does that not show a quite incredible callousness?

Not remotely. A large number of people in this country are in work rather than unemployed precisely because we do not have the sort of legislation that the hon. Gentleman prefers. I happen to take the view that policies, whether the hon. Gentleman likes or dislikes them, are for this House and should not be pushed upon us by bodies such as the ILO.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June. [32394]

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is no part of his Government's policy to impose regional government and regional assemblies on the British people, which would mean yet another tier of government, more expense, more bureaucracy and more interference and would be a nightmare for the British taxpayer?

I certainly agree that regional assemblies would be a total irrelevance, were they to be introduced. They are proposed by the Labour party only because it knows that its plans for a tax-raising Scottish Assembly are untenable unless it moves into this nonsense. The Labour leader is rather confused about this policy. He said on one occasion, "We are not committed to regional assemblies," and then on another occasion he said that regions should have assemblies. On this issue, not only does he disagree with his colleagues —he disagrees with himself.