To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about cuts in farm subsidies; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a large number of representations. Negotiations on GATT are due to be brought to a conclusion at a meeting in Brussels next week; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will attend.

Should not we be moving away from the kind of protectionism that the Opposition want, so that Europe's farmers become less dependent on the taxpayer and more sensitive to the needs of consumers, in the widest possible sense?

The Community has already made a considerable offer to the GATT round, which will mean—over a period—a reduction of 30 per cent. in the support that we give. That, however, will have to be done at a pace that the farming industry can accommodate.

Is not it true that the figure is not 30 per cent., but a net 15 per cent. from now, and that that in no way meets the demands of the Americans taking part in the GATT negotiations, who want 70 per cent? How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to ensure that a trade war does not break out after the conference that is due next week?

I am not in the House of Commons to meet the demands of the Americans; I am here to defend the interests of Britain, and the European Community of which we are part. If the hon. Gentleman wants to carry out GATT talks on the basis that we give in to mid-western American farmers instead of defending our own interests, it is a good job that it is not his party that is responsible for standing up for Britain, because it would not do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the suckler cow subsidy, the advance payment on the sheep premium and the drop in interest rates have been a great help to livestock farmers? Nevertheless, we must accept that prices have been substantially down this autumn and that we have a long way to go to increase profitability.

My hon. Friend is entirely right. In relation to the less-favoured areas, I have done all that I can within the rules of the Community; but world price levels have none the less fallen, which means that our livestock farmers are having a very difficult time. We shall have to continue to look for ways in which we can help.

Is the Minister not aware that it simply does not make sense to throw good money after bad to subsidise farmers? Will not he go to Europe and press for a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, using agri-environmental payments as the core of the policy, as advocated by the Labour party and all reputable conservation and farming lobbies?

If the Labour party began by accepting that we do not "go to Europe", because we are already in Europe, its members might get the geography right before proceeding any further. It is that attitude to the rest of Europe which will make it impossible for us to obtain a reasonable arrangement on agriculture.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the answer given to me last Thursday on this issue by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Will he assure the farmers of Northern Ireland that their special interests will be kept in mind?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have taken a particular interest in the needs of the farmers of Northern Ireland. I have met the Ulster Farmers Union and other farming interests and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland keeps me very fully informed. I shall ensure that in the negotiations we do not forget the particular problems of Ulster.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the recent agreement regarding subsidies to farming will have on small hill farmers.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present position of and future prospects for livestock farmers in the English uplands.

Any agreement in GATT must provide the opportunity for continued support for farmers in less-favoured areas.

Is the Minister aware of the desperate plight of many hill farmers in Weardale and many other areas of my constituency who play a critical role in maintaining the enormous beauty of the area? What can he do to guarantee a future for them?

I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that I have already sought to do all that can be done to help the hill farmers of whom she speaks. I hope that she also agrees that I have sought to ensure that they get the extra and special help that they need. I hope, however, that the hon. Lady will mention to them the policies of her own party, which the recent independent report showed would be infinitely damaging to them and would mean a considerable loss in terms of their existing incomes.

May I pay tribute to the concern about this matter hitherto shown by my right hon. Friend, in contrast with the desultory interest shown by the Labour party, typified by the extraordinary gaffe a moment ago by the Labour spokesman on agriculture, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the problems faced by hill farmers in my constituency—those who farm on Exmoor, the Brendon hills, the Quantocks and the Blackdown hills. Will he do his best to bring forward the hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for 1991 to the earliest possible date?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am still considering the information given to me on the hill livestock compensatory allowance. I shall make the announcement as soon as I possibly can. My hon. Friend was right to point out that, despite remarks of a constituency nature by Opposition Members, the Labour party's policies would very significantly reduce farmers' incomes, as the Savill report shows.

In view of yesterday's statement by the vice-president of the European Community that at the GATT talks he is prepared to negotiate subsidy reductions amounting to more than 30 per cent. if the Community agrees to reductions amounting to more than 30 per cent., will the Secretary of State bring the proposal back to the House for consideration before Her Majesty's Government approve it?

Over the years, I have learnt that leaks during negotiations in Brussels or anywhere else are better not commented upon until we know the realities. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has found me wanting in defending United Kingdom interests. I shall continue to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that milk quotas have been an outstanding success in directing taxpayers' money throughout the EEC to the producers rather than to the storers and in preventing subsidies from going to exported surplus commodities? Why can he not see that the same system could be applied universally, thereby preventing the depopulation of the countryside without excess expense to the taxpayer?

There are very grave difficulties about extending quotas to the whole of the agricultural industry. It would cause the end of the growth in new technology, a wholly quotaed system would remove the interest in the market and young people would be deterred from entering agriculture. Moreover, agriculture would not change. That would be extremely damaging and I certainly would not propose it.

Does the Minister acknowledge the particularly important role that hill livestock compensatory allowances play in the uplands? Is he still alone in the Council of Ministers in resisting the tiering of HLCAs? Does he not accept that if tiering were introduced it would prove to be a particularly effective method of targeting support on the small upland family farms, which are most in need of that help?

Throughout my time as Minister I have shown interest in HLCAs and sought to use them as effectively as possible. Also, Britain has sought to green the HLCAs and has permission from the Community to do that. I hope that we shall be able to spread that elsewhere. The HLCAs are an essential way of keeping people in the hillsides to look after the land. Without them, the land would not be properly cared for.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to protect small farmers from unfair competition.

We seek to ensure fair competition for all British farmers.

It is not just hill farmers who are facing difficulties. Livestock farmers in the lowlands are also facing severe difficulties, many of them to the point of bankruptcy. Can my hon. Friend the Minister see his way to doing something about the cheap imports of meat from eastern Europe which are coming through east Germany? That is having a terrible effect on the meat regimes of the small lowland farmers. Also, will he look again at quotas, because that may be a way of helping small farmers to deal with the most intolerable conditions?

I quite understand my hon. Friend's concern about small farmers. As he will recall, we sought to help them when we distributed the extra 1 per cent. of milk. We have to be careful, but any Community policy for small farmers would stand precious little chance of helping the United Kingdom, due to the different sizes. On quotas, we look at all the options, particularly in the light of GATT, but there is a danger of prices being left so high that they are marooned above consumption and we would then have a new crisis. There is the problem of the United Kingdom being pinned down where it has a competitive advantage. We could do with more milk, but we cannot produce it, because of the quota system and there is a major problem of young entrants. We are not aware of meat coming into the United Kingdom from east Germany, but east Germany can circulate products throughout the entire Community and we will exercise the strongest supervision over that.

Does the Minister agree that small hill farmers will not survive without financial aid from the Government? To restore confidence, will the Minister give an assurance that he will do his utmost to ensure that no further subsidy cuts will be made in the next four or five years? What immediate plans has he to help farmers in need?

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the hill farmer. I agree also that the hill farmer will not survive without some support from the public purse. We have extended a large addition to the subsidy going to the beef and sheepmeat sector in particular. We keep the matter under review. We have a series of programmes relating to how we can help environmentally, but we cannot reverse what is happening in the marketplace. We will do our best to help and we recognise the importance of those producers.

As my hon. Friend is aware, many dairy farmers, both small and large, depend on the purchasing ability of the milk marketing board. Now that the future of the board is in the public domain, will my hon. Friend consider a role for it as a possible buyer of last resort for milk?

The future role of the milk marketing board is a matter for the board itself. We are anxious for the board to make proposals for the future of dairy marketing in the United Kingdom. There is no Government-prescribed plan for that. We are obviously discussing various options with it, but it is for the board to decide where it wants to go. It started the debate—not the Government—and now that it has been started it must be carried through to a sensible conclusion.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists to discuss the future of research and development.

December 1989 was the last occasion when the IPMS approached this Department on research and development and the matter was dealt with by correspondence.

Does the Minister accept that public confidence in his Department was severely shaken by the closure of the Institute of Food Research in Bristol? Flow does he intend to restore public confidence in his Department when he intends to sack 40 food scientists at Norwich and Reading?

Quite simply, by pointing out the full facts. Although Bristol closed, the laboratories at Norwich and Reading are being expanded and there are four other research associations. My Department operates labora tories at Weybridge, Torry and Weymouth. Seventy of the scientists who gave up their posts at Bristol will transfer to Bristol university and we shall increase research expenditure from £13 million to £17 million. Food safety research is being increased, not cut.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of research in this country is the envy of Europe?

I do. For example, in respect of the jobs at Norwich which were mentioned, we are transferring the £750,000 that was being spent at that laboratory on near-market projects such as robotics, meat handling and processing, to diet and nutrition, health and safety, salmonella, listeria and BSE research—which is the right priority for Government.

The Minister's answer is not good enough. In a written answer from his Department dated 25 October, he announced a cutback of 38 research projects. Thirteen of them relate to fish refrigeration, shellfish, smoking and safety. The Minister knows that the fishing industry is facing a crisis, so how does he expect it to pick up the vital research projects that he is cutting back, thereby undermining the industry's viability?

The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Food safety research has increased from £13·2 million to £17·1 million this year. It is right that the taxpayers' money should be spent on basic, strategic and food safety research, and for the industry to concentrate on near-market projects involving food techniques and processing, which it is better able to understand and to fund.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements there are in place to monitor his Ministry's voluntary code of practice on protecting farms from rhizomania.

Our guidelines to civil engineering contractors on precautions against the spread of animal and plant diseases emphasise the need for the plant health and seeds inspectorate to be consulted from the planning stage of all major works affecting agricultural land.

Given the appalling devastation that rhizomania can mean for sugar beet farmers, because the sterilisation of affected land can last for 25 years, will my hon. Friend listen sympathetically to the demands of the National Farmers Union, which is seeking a statutory system of compensation for consequential losses for growers of sugar beet affected by rhizomania and a code of practice to protect sugar beet farms from the coercion of contractors, in particular?

There is no provision for payment for consequential losses even in the animal sector, let alone the plant sector. If I were to suggest that such compensation would be likely to be introduced, I should be telling my hon. Friend something that is not the case. As to contractors, we plan to reissue our guidelines in the new year. A statutory basis would not make sense and would be bureaucratic and almost impossible to enforce—but we shall certainly be ready to intervene where there are difficulties. I am prepared to review the controls that we impose in respect of rhizomania, to ensure that, within the requirement to be absolutely strict about preventing the spread of the disease, we are as intelligent and flexible as possible.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss British hill farming.

I met representatives of the National Farmers Union on 23 October to discuss the economic conditions in the hills and uplands. I met other representatives of those areas yesterday.

The Minister mentioned in an earlier reply his defence of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. Can he explain why, since 1987, it has been cut by £12·5 million in real terms? When the Minister met NFU representatives, did he give any indication that he is thinking of restoring the value of the allowance in real terms, perhaps to the 1986 level, as that could prove vital to hill farmers?

I have increased hill livestock compensatory amounts, as the Government have done on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman may like to explain to his hill farmers why the independent Savill report suggests that if Labour party policies were adopted there would be a 17 per cent. drop in the typical farmer's profitability.

What is my right hon. Friend's reaction to the NFU's suggestion that the way forward for hill farming and, indeed, all United Kingdom farming is through the introduction of strict supply management?

I do not believe that supply management is the answer to agriculture's problems. We need to get nearer the market, make our support more environmentally oriented and ensure that we do not overproduce. If we were to quota the whole of agriculture, we should do considerable harm to the industry.

Given that the maintenance of the hill sector is particularly important to ensure the viability of our rural economy and given that in Scotland 90 per cent. of hill farming lies in the less-favoured areas, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects to be able to make a clear statement on the future level of HLCAs? Many of our farmers have reduced incomes because of a drop in the price of calves and lambs.

As I said in answer to an earlier question, I shall make that announcement as soon as possible. I have already extended the suckler cow premium in the LFAs to the maximum amount available. A ewe supplement is to be paid to sheep farmers in the LFAs in 1991. The green pound devaluation will be effective from 7 January. Assistance to the beef and sheep sectors is now worth about £330 million more than in the previous year. There is already a considerable amount of extra help. We are certainly looking at the possibilities of what we should do in terms of the HLCAs, but much has already been done, as I believe that the hon. Lady would acknowledge.

I know that my right hon. Friend has the future of the small family farm in mind. With the freer markets that we expect from within—

Order. The question is about hill farming. The next question is about family farms.

I know that my right hon. Friend has the future of the small family hill farm in mind. Will he make an early statement on term tenancies, which may be the only way in which sons and daughters of small family hill farmers can enter this important industry?

I have already made it clear that I shall publish a paper on alternatives to deal with tenancies. That paper will protect the rights of present tenants. I very much hope that we shall look for a radical change in the system so that more land comes forward for letting.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the financial position of family farms at present.

It is our policy to foster an efficient and competitive farming industry and to ensure its continued viability.

I am interested to hear that the Minister wants to foster an efficient and competitive farming industry. Does he know how strongly farmers feel about the fact that, as the prices that they receive fall, making them uncompetitive and unviable and forcing them out of business, supermarket prices for the food that they produce continue to climb? How is it that the Government manage to preside over the worst of both worlds?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman, who represents a party which is supposed to be in favour of free market economics, would realise that if there is a surplus of supply it is difficult for incomes to rise at the same time. However, we can try to help farmers to overcome the worst of their problems. They will do that by being more competitive. That is our policy and there is no other sensible way of going about it.

Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to persuade the banks to be more accommodating towards some of our small farmers? When the Labour Government were in office, those farmers were encouraged to produce all that they could at any cost, so they were borrowing—in some cases, overborrowing—from the banks.

In general terms, the level of borrowing by British farmers is about 25 per cent., so many have not overborrowed. I recognise that some small farms are in serious difficulties and that is why we try to pay our grants to them as quickly as possible so that we can help the cash flow. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion that the banks could be helpful when they consider individual cases.

The Minister will agree that family farms and the farmers in them make a great contribution to maintaining the fabric of rural life and that one of the main problems resulting from the financial pressures facing them this year is that their way of life is very much under threat. What further plans can the Minister announce to enhance rural society and to ensure that that fabric is maintained into the next century?

I am perfectly aware of the part that hill farmers play in maintaining rural life, because my constituency has characteristics similar to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Government policies cannot maintain farming family life as such, but we can ensure that we give the necessary assistance, especially for the uplands farms, to enable them to get through difficult economic circumstances, which we all understand. Where we are able to give further help, especially assistance to farmers who look after the environment as part of their food-producing function, we shall take the initiatives that are open to us.

Will my hon. Friend take it from me—and indeed from every hon. Member who represents a rural constituency—that this time round, the farming community and the National Farmers Union are not crying wolf when they speak about the real pressure on farming? My hon. Friend spoke about helping the environment. Will he and my right hon. Friend look sympathetically at the possible extension of the environmentally sensitive areas, especially for Penwith in my constituency?

We shall certainly examine the possibility of adding to our policies for helping environmental enhancement. We understand the NFU's point about farmers being in difficulties and our experience is that it would be foolish to deny it. However, I hope that the NFU will not say merely that the answer is yet another multiplication of public subsidy. That is not an answer. If the NFU comes up with sensible proposals that are costed, effective and targeted we shall listen.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from small farmers and hill farmers.

I have received a number of representations about the position of small farms and of farms in the hills and uplands. I shall continue to keep the position under review.

Does not the Minister recognise that, despite his words this afternoon in reply to similar questions, small farmers and hill farmers will judge the Government not by their words but by their actions? The Minister may find it necessary in the next few weeks to visit Ribble Valley and the Trough of Bowland. If he looks at the balance sheets of the farmers in those areas, he will find that they are now receiving less in real terms for their livestock than they were receiving a few years ago and that they are facing bankruptcy. They expect action from the Government. When will they see it, or will they be allowed to go out of business?

If the hon. Gentleman talks to those farmers, he will hear from them that the suckler cow premium has been increased to the maximum allowable in those areas; that is action. He will hear that this Government have brought forward the payment of the ewe premium both for the first and for the second instalment; that means action. He will hear that the Government have done so much for the livestock industry that they are now spending almost £800 million a year in support of that industry; that means action. The farmers will then turn to the hon. Gentleman and say that all that the Labour party speaks of is to reduce farm incomes by its policies. Labour's only action would be to cut incomes during these difficult times for farmers. The hon. Gentleman must not come to the House as poorly prepared as that.

Although I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's actions for those who farm in less-favoured areas, is not he concerned by the letters that I have sent to him from members of the High Peak Livestock Society, representing farmers in the villages of Wildboarclough, Wincle, Langley, Rainow and Kettleshulme? Those farmers are deepy concerned about their future. Does he accept that hill farmers are essential to the maintenance of the countryside, which is a matter of great environmental importance?

My hon. Friend asks a constituency-based question and shows that he understands his farmers' problems. His question stands in sharp contradistinction to the previous one.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the progress made by his Department in securing a reduction of the European Commission budget spent on agricultural subsidies since 1979; and if he will outline any current proposals which the Government have for further reductions.

We have had a sustained and progressive reduction in the real level of agricultural support prices since 1984 and we are committed to achieving a sustained reduction in the level of support in the current GATT negotiations.

I do not blame the Minister personally, as he has not been in the job very long, but the Government have had 11 years in which to reduce the level of subsidy, and it still costs the average family about £15 a week throughout the year to sustain high food prices. Now that we have a Prime Minister—

Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's question?

We now have a Prime Minister who may be less supportive of the United States, but will he continue to guarantee that the position of the United States in seeking freer trade in agricultural products will be sustained by him and by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman's figures are utterly wrong; they simply do not stand up. If there were no subsidies, world food prices would rise considerably and the consumer would have to pay more. The £15 figure that he cited has no basis in any sensible fact. I note that he supports United States farmers against United Kingdom farmers. I hope that his hon. Friends will realise that he would like to reduce farm incomes even further and I hope that farmers in constituencies round his will know exactly how to vote when the time comes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the so-called renegotiation under the previous Labour Government, the common agricultural policy was totally out of control when the Conservative party came into government back in 1979? Does he agree that only the resolve and determination of this Government and of my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister brought some sense into the bloated budget?

The lovely countryside of Nottinghamshire would be destroyed if the policies supported by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) were adopted.

Will the Minister confirm that spending on agricultural surpluses has got out of hand? Will he confirm that there has been a 68-fold increase of skimmed milk powder, a fourfold increase of beef and a doubling of the amount of butter in intervention? Will he further confirm that he will have to spend an extra £1 billion in the next few years to support that? When will the Minister go to Brussels and start fighting for the British consumer?

The hon. Gentleman betrays his lack of knowledge both of the common agricultural policy and of the negotiations that are taking place. This Government have fought more effectively than any previous Government for the British consumer and the British farmer and this Minister will continue to do that in the GATT round. It would help considerably if the Opposition would stop slagging off Britain and start supporting its farmers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever form agricultural subsidies or support for the countryside may take in the future, it is vital that the regime should be universal in the Community so that we may have an open and fair market?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The Government are fighting for fairness among the countries of the European Community and between the Community and the other countries of the world. That is why I wish that the Opposition would stop promoting American interests and start supporting European interests.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the prospective future trends of farm incomes.

It is not my practice to forecast future levels of farm incomes.

Will the Minister confirm that 80 per cent. of current farm subsidies go to the richest 20 per cent. of farmers? As the Minister is so anxious to reduce the overall level of farm subsidies, will he tell us what proposals he has to ensure the more equal distribution of the subsidies that will remain?

The policies of this Government are to make sure that subsidies will continue to be paid on the basis of production, where they are production subsidies, and that other subsidies shall increasingly be paid for environmental purposes.[Interruption.] We are determined to make sure that British farmers get a fair share of those subsidies and that they are not distorted so as to help other countries disproportionately.[Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to listen to these questions. This is a rare opportunity and there are only six minutes before Prime Minister's Question Time.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the spirit of the agreement in the Agriculture Council with regard to the reduction of agricultural support in the GATT round relates only to support that aids production and has not stopped the British Government or any other European member state Government supporting the environment? Does he agree that the proposed expansion by 36,000 hectares of less-favoured areas will be a great boost? Will he announce soon exactly which areas are included so that farmers will receive extra income?

My hon. Friend is right. The present arrangements suggest that we will be able to continue the help that we are giving for environmental purposes while we reduce that which relates to production. However, there is still much to be fought because the United States is proposing something that would enable it to continue direct support and thus reduce the costs of its exports. We must stop that.

Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of assisting farmers is to ensure that they get a good price for their product in the marketplace? Will he consider releasing surplus food from intervention stores to assist the Russian people at this time and thereby increase market demand for British produce?

I am not sure that the answer is as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We are looking at all sorts of ways of improving the market, but, in the end, the tone of the market will be upheld only if supply and demand are much more closely correlated.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the current level of profitability in United Kingdom agriculture.

Farming, particularly in the livestock sector, is going through a difficult time. The Government are determined to ensure its continued viability.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to put firmly on record his awareness of the problems caused by a lack of profitability and reassure the House and United Kingdom farmers of his belief in the ultimate success of his strategy?

I will reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to stand extremely strongly behind the British farming community. I hope that, with me, my hon. Friend will pay tribute to the success of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in ensuring that the British knacker industry is no longer stopped by the European Community rules. It will remain as it is at least until 1995, and thereafter there will be a review. That will make sure that the environment is protected because of the important job that that industry does.

Does the Minister agree that the great problem in British farming is the gulf between profitability and subsidies and between the grain barons of East Anglia and their huge profits and the hill farmers of Wales and elsewhere? Does he agree that the answer to the real problems of hill farming is to redistribute subsidies towards hill farmers?

What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely untrue. Our arable farmers are also under a considerable squeeze. Many of them are finding it very difficult to make profits. Unless they are profitable, they, too, cannot look after the countryside. The hon. Gentleman does the farming industry no good by trying to drive a wedge between different kinds of farmers.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the future of the milk marketing board.

I have received representations on this subject from a range of individuals and organisations representing milk producers, processors and consumers.

Although I recognise that the present system cannot remain unreformed, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the position of small family farmers in far-flung areas such as Pembrokeshire, who fear that if the national system is broken up into as many as 30 different co-operatives, they will be seriously disadvantaged in relation to dairy manufacturers?

My hon. Friend is right, but the greatest threat to the small farmer would be to do absolutely nothing and wait for the scheme to collapse under the weight of its problems. The answer is to find a sensible alternative and to get a move on with it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 29 November 1990. The first question to a great new Prime Minister, Sir.

rose—

Resign!

Now wait a while.

May I preface my question by asking—

No.

I think that it would be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman encompassed it.

In congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming Prime Minister, may I assure him of the total and united support of my constituency and every constituency in the country?

That is certainly the intention of our reforms, our management and our financing of the national health service. I congratulate South Birmingham health authority. It has made good use of the extra resources that it had last year and I expect it to continue to do so in the future.

rose—

Hear, hear.

Order. I am anxious to call as many hon. Members as possible.

May I offer my personal congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on becoming Prime Minister? As the right hon. Gentleman says that he was bounced into the poll tax, does he now intend to abolish it?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome to the Dispatch Box. I look forward to our discussions over the forthcoming years. On the community charge, I have made it perfectly clear what the position will be. We have decided that we shall look again to see what further refinements may be necessary to ensure that the community charge is accepted throughout the country.

May I offer some help to the right hon. Gentleman—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] It is well intended. He could save himself a great deal of time and trouble and the British people a great deal of money by accepting Labour party policy and abolishing the poll tax now.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take forward a very thorough, constructive and fundamental review of the community charge. In doing so, he will take account of the points made by my hon. Friends both north and south of the Scottish border before we reach conclusions. On this side of the House we believe in examining matters before reaching conclusions.

Everybody, including the right hon. Gentleman, knows that there is only one fundamental, efficient and fair thing to do with the poll tax and that is to scrap it.

The right hon. Gentleman forgets the alternative, to which he has decided to return. Was not it he who, in 1980, said that

"the most unjust of all taxes, local rates, take most from those who can afford least"?

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend accept the special congratulations and welcome that he will receive from East Anglian Members of Parliament and their constituents, particularly as he is an East Anglian Member of Parliament, representing Huntingdon? Will he confirm that shortly he will meet President Bush to discuss the Gulf and other matters of common concern so as to continue the Government's correct policy on these issues?

I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend. The date has not yet been fixed, but I hope that it will be this side of Christmas.

May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Britain's Prime Minister? The whole nation will wish him success in the difficult task ahead—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] For the sake of the nation, we wish the right hon. Gentleman success.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome, which I appreciate. There will be a wide range of matters to discuss at the intergovernmental conference and we need to discuss them with great care before we proceed. The Government's position on the imposition of a single currency is clear: it is not acceptable.

After the recent turmoil and my right hon. Friend's uniting of the party, does he agree that his objective of a classless society in the future will be better served by a Conservative Government led by him than by the socialism offered by the Labour party?

I am happy to agree entirely with my hon. Friend about that. We need to continue to build on what has been achieved in the past 11 years to make this an open society of opportunity. The Government propose to do that.

The Prime Minister in his recent meteoric rise has shown great dignity and pride in his humble origins. What priority will he now give to the problem of homelessness which he inherited from his predecessor? In particular, will he look at the issues of cardboard cities, people who live in damp homes and those who have no hope of a roof over their heads?

Everyone is entitled to dignity and pride. The Government's policies will endeavour to ensure that they can attain them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

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

May I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box?

I assure my hon. Friend that I certainly favour further tax reductions when they are affordable and it is prudent to make them. I am extremely keen to see the growth of savings for two reasons: first, to provide the base from which the investment we need in the 1990s will come and, secondly, for the security and independence that savings give individuals and their families.

Earlier this week, the right hon. Gentleman's former boss, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), described the poll tax as unworkable and politically catastrophic, whereas his predecessor as Prime Minister said that we had already had a fundamental review of the poll tax. Which of those two conflicting opposites has the Prime Minister advised the new Secretary of State to adopt in the new fundamental review of the poll tax to which he referred earlier?

My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made it entirely clear on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box that when any new charge of this sort was introduced, it would need to be kept under review. That is what we are doing.

At the commencement of his Administration, will my right hon. Friend declare continuing support for the police in their difficult task of maintaining law and order?

The police do a magnificent job in this country, often in difficult circumstances. I have no hesitation whatever in assuring my hon. Friend that I have the greatest admiration for the way they behave.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

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

If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, he is his own man, may I ask him to say in what way his policies will differ from those of his predecessor?

I am my own man and on that basis I see no need to beat my chest and tell the hon. Gentleman. Let him wait and see what we do.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

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

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend as Prime Minister. May I invite him to take some advice from a female colleague in relation to inner cities? Does he agree that to achieve his aim of a classless Britain, which is highly commendable, the Government need to give the highest priority to inner cities? Will he afford me the honour as soon as possible of coming to Wolverhampton and giving me the opportunity to demonstrate our success and illustrate the contraints of municipal socialism, which continues to deny choice and opportunity?

I find that an irresistible invitation. I am familiar with the problems of the inner cities. I regard them as a matter of great importance and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will bend his formidable energies to that problem.

With regard to the Prime Minister's desire for a classless society and social mobility, will he explain why there are no women in his Cabinet, or is the only woman in his Cabinet the back-seat driver?

In recent years, in all aspects of life in this country, women have been taking a higher profile: in the law, in commerce, in the civil service, in industry and in politics—[Interruption.]—and that will continue. As those women would wish it to be, they will reach the top on merit—[Interruption.]

Order.

Oh yes, and if the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will find women aplenty in top positions in my Government. Indeed, if he had waited awhile, perhaps even to the end of today, he would not have asked that question.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

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

I endorse the congratulations of my west midlands colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). My right hon.

I am certainly looking forward to visiting Much Wenlock. It is true that my wife was born at that hospital, so I have a good reason for looking forward to visiting it.

As a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming Prime Minister? Now that he is Prime Minister, can he say whether the British economy is in recession?

As I have told the hon. Gentleman in the past, if he takes the classic definition of recession, it is never possible to determine whether we are in a recession until after the figures are available. As I have told the House more than once, I expect a small downturn in output for a brief period, but we shall be back in a growth pattern during the passage of next year, with inflation well down.