As the next six Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times during the past 12 months he has met representatives of conservation bodies.

I have met representatives of conservation bodies formally on four occasions. My colleagues have also had a number of such meetings.

My right hon. Friend will know that my interest in the subject derives from the fact that my constituency ranges from the smallest English national park to the Somerset levels. Will he ensure that that land, which is not suitable for intensive and, therefore, fairly profitable farming or for conservation assistance, does not drift into a gentle decline? Will he therefore, as a matter of some urgency, bring forward proposals to ensure that all the countryside is farmed in an environmentally sensitive way?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have had many individual and informal meetings with conservation bodies and I am pleased to find that they increasingly recognise that if the British countryside is to be conserved, it can be only through the activities of farmers. That is why we are insistent that the reform of the common agricultural policy should be driven by a demand for environmental support. The Government are working for that fundamental change, which we hope to achieve.

I hope that, when the Minister meets conservationists in Monmouth next week, he will remind them that Welsh farmers' incomes have dropped by 50 per cent. over the past two years and that 14 per cent. of Welsh farmers are contemplating giving up farming due to the policies of the Secretary of State for Wales, who has full responsibility for agriculture in Wales. The Minister may not be aware that his colleague said yesterday at the annual general meeting of the Farmers Union of Wales in Aberystwyth that there is worse to come. Is that policy due to the advice given by Ministers in London and by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman's question would go down better were it not known that his party was wholly in favour of the European Community and supported the common agricultural policy. He knows perfectly well that the events about which he is talking are a result of the CAP, which we are committed to changing and which we are fighting to alter. The hon. Gentleman has no possible answers to that. He should not do this and he does so only because it is this week.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of conserving water resources in the countryside? Will he redouble his efforts to encourage farmers to impound the water from excessive rainfall in the winter rather than running down river levels by extraction for spray irrigation in the summer?

I agree with my right hon. Friend that the problems of water levels, especially in the east of England, are of great seriousness. Happily, even the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) cannot blame the Government for that. The truth is that we shall have to share out the use of water. I was very unhappy about some of the suggestions that the National Rivers Authority put forward originally. I am pleased to say that they have now been considerably revised in a way that will protect the water table and, at the same time, enable farmers to use water as they need it to produce crops. I assure my right hon. Friend that we are looking carefully at the water levels of rivers in which I know that he has a particular interest, which he has pressed regularly to me.

Why cannot the Minister tell Mr. Ian Richardson and other conservationists in his constituency who is behind the Swiss bond holders who own Heveningham hall, one of the 20 most beautiful houses in England? Does he understand that, as I represent Hopetown and Dalmeny, it would be quite remiss of me as a Member not to know who owns those great houses?

The hon. Gentleman referred to a matter which is entirely under the control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more careful with his comments and I also hope that he will recognise the enormous amount of work that has been carried out to save that particular house——

It is 20th century restoration of an 18th century house.

and take that in the context of a long period of misuse of the house by the former owners. Who that former owner was—he is now dead—is no more clear to me than it is to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and it would be quite improper for me to answer in any other way except to say that I do not know who the owner is.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate.

Order. It is not legitimate to raise that matter on a supplementary question.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fishing vessels have taken the gear option as opposed to the tied option.

One hundred and eighty-five vessels have taken the gear option while 258 have elected to tie up.

Although I accept that the gear option is not always practical for many boats in Scotland, does my hon. Friend agree that the number that have taken the alternative route and are tying up is gratifying? Will he accept the congratulations of the House on having fought so hard to ensure that that option was made available in the first place?

My hon. Friend will know that when we entered the Council we faced proposals that included the 120 mm mesh size, a 10-day tie-up and no gear option. We had to fight very hard to get the tie-up limited to eight days and to get the gear option. I am pleased that that has been taken up by about one third of the Scottish fleet. We knew that it would not be appropriate for a large number of vessels and we did not pretend that that was other than the case. However, I hope that it is proving effective for those vessels that can take advantage of it. Tie-up is certainly the preferable option where it will work.

Does the Minister accept that the boats have not elected to tie up but have been forced to tie up? Will he confirm that more Scottish boats are now affected by the regulation than boats in the rest of the European Community put together? Has the Secretary of State for Scotland spoken to the hon. Gentleman about his conduct during the tie-up debate and is the hon. Gentleman now able to apologise to Scotland's fishing communities or, better still, to signal a change of policy?

The hon. Gentleman says that more Scottish boats are affected than other boats. That is true. The stocks affected are those that are fished predominantly by Scottish fishermen. The rules stated that the boats affected were those with 40 per cent. of cod and haddock in their total catch in areas IV and VI which are fished predominantly by Scottish boats, and those with more than 100 tonnes. The action is imposed by the Community. It is not something which we have dreamt up. In fact, we mitigated that measure. We are acting to conserve stocks for the Scottish fishing industry. That was our sole reason for acting. Had we not done that in respect of stocks of haddock, of which we have 80-odd per cent. of the catch, and stocks of cod, of which we have 50-odd per cent. of the catch, we would have been remiss in our duties.

The tie-up rule clearly means "Thou shalt not fish." Is my hon. Friend aware that in some cases it means "Thou shalt not earn a living"? The fishermen on some boats that are affected claim that they cannot get other work, such as standby and diving support work. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look into that matter?

In so far as I can assist, I shall certainly do so. The regulation was imposed upon us by the Community because of concern about stocks. We agreed that the stocks were in a serious condition. We did not say, "There is no problem" or "Let us pretend that the problem does not exist." We sought to obtain the most sensible application of a rule that we had to observe. Having obtained it, we are obliged to enforce that rule, or we will end up next year with an even more inflexible rule from Brussels. It would be in no one's interests if that happened.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for improving conservation of fish stocks.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he intends to make to the July Council of Fisheries Ministers on the conservation of fish stocks.

We have already announced unilateral conservation action to apply from July. My immediate priority now is to achieve greater selectivity of gear on a Community-wide basis.

As we have a conservation crisis in the North sea in particular, a proper system of conservation would require a ban on industrial fishing, a ban on bream trawling and a ban on fishing in spawning grounds during the spawning season. It would also require a ban o n square mesh panels, a one-net rule and a series of such measures. Why is not the Minister developing a proper British conservation programme instead of sitting there like a Saudi kleptomaniac with a hands-off policy, waiting for the Commission to do it all by such daft measures as the eight-day lay-up?

The hon. Gentleman knows the facts. He cannot complain simultaneously that we are not introducing our own measures and that we are about to impose measures on the United Kingdom fleet because of the importance of the stocks that we must conserve. It is a difficult choice. We have not been afraid to take that choice. Many of the matters that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are in the United Kingdom proposals—for example, the single-net rule, which is applicable. Other measures can be proposed only by the Community. Where we have national scope, it must be within the framework of the Community rules. That is why we had to apply, for example, a 90 mm square mesh panel in a 90 mm net. We did not have the flexibility to go beyond that proposal. We have not hesitated to take those actions. Where we have taken those actions, they have hardly been greeted with overwhelming acclaim by the fishing industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main problems with the conservation of fish stocks is that, while the British Government play by the rules and take effective enforcement measures against our own fishermen, too many other European Governments do not properly apply the rules against their own fishermen? Will my hon. Friend take care at the Council meeting in July to make that point forcefully to his European counterparts?

Because of our desire to have effective conservation, we defended at the previous Council meeting, and will do so at future Council meetings, the basic idea that the common fisheries policy should be enforced by the member states in the waters that they control. We can impose that system on all vessels fishing in those waters. If that policy disintegrated and enforcement were handed over to some centralised control, or if we were to slacken our enforcement, I fear that we would then have differentials.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said last week on a visit to Scotland that fishermen had to take an initiative in conservation. Will he confirm that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation put to the Government a comprehensive conservation package almost two years ago, that the industry has also proposed a decommissioning scheme and that some sections of the industry have actually advocated that the industry make a contribution to a decommissioning scheme? Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify the confusion at the recent meeting between Scottish fishery leaders and Ministers on the Government's position on decommissioning and say whether the door is still open to some form of decommissioning scheme, possibly involving an industry contribution?

My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear that he is ready to examine any workable proposal for the industry that is based on an industry-funded scheme and would deliver long-term conservation gains. That is a perfectly clear statement. The hon. Gentleman said that the industry brought forward its proposals two years ago, which is true. Those proposals were based on 90 mm mesh with an 80 mm panel.

Is my hon. Friend aware that fishermen in my constituency fully realise the need for conservation, but that, at the same time, they demand fairness in the enforcement of the restrictions on gear and quotas throughout the United Kingdom?

I appreciate the thrust of my hon. Friend's comments. Although our fishermen fish for different stocks in different vessels, we must ensure that they all play by the same rules. We can hardly complain about other people failing in this regard if we do not maintain effective enforcement around our own coasts. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the enforcement authority in Scotland has now become an agency. I am extremely confident that that agency will make a great contribution to enforcement practices north of the border. We shall ensure that that is the case south of the border also.

The Minister said a moment ago that the eight-day tie-up was imposed upon him by the Fisheries Ministers Council. I must question the accuracy of that statement because Mr. Marin, the European Commissioner for Fisheries, said that that proposal came originally from the Minister's Department. Is not the truth of the matter the fact that the fleet is too big and has to be reduced and that the most humane and fair-minded way of doing that is by a decommissioning scheme?

No, it is not true that that scheme originated in my Department. It originated with the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas, which stated that there must be a 30 per cent. reduction in effort. The Commission translated that into a 10-day tie-up per month. We got that reduced to eight days, for various reasons, partly because we thought that it was excessive.

During these exchanges hon. Members have expressed the need to link conservation measures with a reduction of effort. I was recently in Brussels to talk to the fisheries directorate-general, which expressed great surprise at the fact that, of all the countries in Europe, this country has not taken the opportunity of using the EC funds that are available for decommissioning schemes in order to reduce that effort. I agree that we need a package of measures and that, on its own, decommissioning would not be adequate. However, will the Minister give the House the undertaking that he will make it a priority to discuss with the industry a total package on conservation and, above all, on effort limitation, which would involve fair compensation for the fishermen who have suffered so much as a result of the measures to reduce the pressure on fish stocks?

My right hon. Friend the Minister has already begun that debate with the fishing industry. We accept that we can put together a package of measures that will be of benefit to the industry, and it is essential that we do so because we are talking about the long-term future of the stocks.

rose——

Order. We have spent rather a long time on fishing, but I recognise its importance. We must now get on more rapidly in the interest of those hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the proposal at the International Whaling Commission to review the moratorium on the killing of certain species of whale.

I have received a very great number of representations, many expressing appreciation of the Government's strong stand on the conservation of whales.

Although I do not dissent from that statement, will the Minister take the opportunity to confirm that our common ecological heritage is as much a legitimate subject of international law as our common security? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will do everything possible to give effect to the overwhelming consensus among civilised countries in favour of the continuing enforcement of the moratorium, if necessary by trade embargoes on those countries that ignore it?

I have made it absolutely clear that there is no case for raising the moratorium and we are using every possible pressure to ensure that it continues. We have been successful in using the framework of the International Whaling Commission. It has a lot of faults and we want to extend its framework to cover some of the small cetaceans which some people believe are not covered, although we believe that many are. We have a lot of work to do and we should press on and make sure that the protection of whales continues.

Introduce legislation and stop blubbering.

It is all right for the hon. Gentleman to make comments from below the Gangway, but some of us take seriously the conservation of whales and do not make jokes about it.

Does my right hon. Friend understand that most people in Britain find whaling abhorrent and extend that feeling to the fishing of porpoises? Countries such as Japan are fishing thousands of porpoises for no real reason. Is there any possibility of extending the moratorium?

My hon. Friend is right, particularly about Dall's porpoise. The Japanese have carried out a major attack on that species and I am concerned to extend the controls. However, we have used the present framework effectively up to now. I am determined that we should use it more effectively in future. No one must be in any doubt about our commitment to the protection of the whale.

Is the Minister aware that there is deep concern in Britain about what is regarded as the abuse of scientific whaling, especially by Japan? Will the Minister give us a categorical assurance that he will oppose commercial whaling and tighten up scientific whaling so that it is not abused by other countries in future?

I made it clear as long ago as the conference in Brighton that the Government are wholly opposed to scientific whaling being used as a cover for commercial whaling. We shall continue to fight that. We are particularly concerned that not just one but a number of nations have signified their intention to extend their whaling activities. In today's circumstances, that is clearly unacceptable.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whales are slaughtered throughout the world in barbaric ways and that the numbers of many species are getting rather low? The management of the slaughter of whales is deplorable. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance this afternoon that he will not agree to anything until he is satisfied that those dreadful trends have been reversed?

The history of monitoring and controlling whaling shows a very poor record. One reason why we are concerned about management proposals is that management has been very bad in the past. I see no sign that the problems are being overcome. We have succeeded much beyond our expectations so far. Our job is to make sure that we continue to do so.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that EC food distribution is available to all pensioners; and if he will make a statement.

I see no reason to provide free food for people like my noble Friend Baroness Trumpington or the hon. Gentleman's friend the chairman of Mirror Group Newspapers.

When the Minister has finished with his little sneers at pensioners, does he realise that men and women who fought for this country in the war have queued up to find, when they get to the end of the queue, that they are denied butter which they have paid for, since the Government have handed over £14 billion to the Common Market in the past 10 years because of their arbitrary impositions? Would not it be a decent gesture to allow all pensioners to have that little bit of butter, especially since some charities—the public schools of this country, where the sons and daughters of the wealthy go—are also eligible for free butter?

The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the scheme from his days in the European Parliament. He will be aware that there are 3,000 tonnes of beef and 3,800 tonnes of butter. He will therefore be able to do the mathematics. If they were distributed to all those eligible and all pensioners, they would each get the princely amount of 7·5 oz of beef and 9·5 oz of butter. If that is the gesture that we are about to make to them, I expect that I would get a gesture in return.

Although I have no objection to the distribution of surplus food to pensioners or anyone else, does my hon. Friend agree that pensioner families., like all others in this country, are now contributing £830 a year on average to the common agricultural policy and pensioners, like the rest of our families, would rather have that money in their pockets to spend on the food that they choose to buy?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the way to deal with surpluses is to tackle them at source so that they cost less to ordinary people and to those on relatively modest wages. The surplus should not be perpetuated and then dished out free, because that is most inefficient. If there is food to be distributed, the United Kingdom will have its share and it will go to the poorest people in society, which is the right way to do it. I am determined that that should happen. However, the thesis that my hon. Friend proposes is the sensible one—not to produce surpluses in the first place, which would cost us all less.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally inadequate answer to my question and the fact that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) described Bradford pensioners as stupid, I reserve the right to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

He has no right to do that.

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman kindly contain himself. It is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) to say that he will raise the matter on the Adjournment. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has been here long enough to know the rules.

I am right.

Unless the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) contains himself I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber for this afternoon. Will he please be quiet.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the reform of the common agricultural policy.

The reform of the common agricultural policy was considered at the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 22 and 23 April, where discussions concentrated on the Commission's 1991 agricultural price proposals.

This is beginning to get close to "The Muppet Show".

The hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has kept that matter very much in my mind. Therefore, on every occasion when it has been possible I have raised the matter in the European Community. I have obtained a further extension of four months, but that is not enough. However, more important than the extension is ensuring that it is monitored. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have strong objections to the way in which the Commission has so far failed to monitor properly the arrangements which it put in place at our insistence. I am perfectly well aware of the importance of the Scottish raspberry industry and the soft fruit industry to the United Kingdom. We need to provide a market for eastern European products and to insist that that market is at a price similar to that which we get at home. Otherwise the benefit goes to the processor, not to the eastern European country. The disbenefit is to the British farmer. I am determined that, as far as it is possible to find new ways to press the European Commumnity, we shall do so. I believe that the Commission has let us down on this issue.

In the light of continuing arguments in some circles that nitrogen quotas should form part of a reformed CAP, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take this opportunity to explain his continued opposition to that argument?

I could give my hon. Friend a large number of reasons. First, it could not be policed; secondly, what does one do about natural nitrogen that comes from farmyard manure; thirdly, how do we make sure that others keep the rules, even if Britain were able to police such a system; fourthly, how could one ensure that it was a fair system; fifthly, how would rationing be done in countries where the authorities have no idea what people used in the previous year, anyway; and, sixthly—well I could give a number of other reasons which would all go to show that the system would be unworkable.

Does the Minister realise that while Opposition Members support the Government in resisting the details of the MacSharry proposals for the reform of the CAP, we still believe that there must be a fundamental reform if we are to get a fair deal for the British consumer and farmer? The Minister should take the high ground. Will he take the offensive and table his proposals for reform of the CAP so that we can start arguing on our terms rather than on MacSharry's terms?

I hope that the public recognise that the hon. Gentleman's willingness to advise others stops short of his willingness to learn that proposals cannot be tabled at the EC in that way. Proposals are tabled only by the Commission. I am determined to see that the Commission's new proposals contain our suggestions. I have put those proposals forward absolutely clearly.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects final decisions to be taken regarding the future of minimum values on the export of live horses and ponies; and if he will make a statement.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the draft directive on the transportation of live animals to be next discussed at a meeting of the European Community Council.

EC discussions have recently resumed on the welfare of animals during transport, but we will resist most strongly any proposals to resume the export of live horses and ponies.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the passionate concern that exists across the country about the continued pressure on the Commissioners to end minimum values in 1992 on the export of live horses and ponies? Animals would end up being brutally and viciously slaughtered if they were exported in that way. Will he shake up the EC and seek an early assurance that if the EC's present plans go forward, horses and ponies will not be exported from this country after 1992 in such an inhumane way?

The only good thing about the present proposals is that they unite the Government and all the welfare organisations, including excellent bodies such as the International League for the Protection of Horses. I assure my hon. Friend that we are in harness on this issue, along with all the British people, in arguing to keep our specific minimum value proposals. I am not interested in getting an early decision from Brussels. I am determined to get the right one and that should be that we do not have to resume the export of live horses and ponies.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in Chelmsford warmly welcome the efforts that are being made by him and his Department on minimum values, but are disgusted and dismayed at the prospect of the live exportation of animals across the continent as a result of EC measures? In view of the improvements in refrigeration in the 30 years since the signing of the treaty of Rome, why must animals be subjected to such inhumane transportation practices, despite the efforts that are being made by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food improve the arrangements? We beg the Minister to fight hard in Europe to put an end to this Euro-nonsense.

Animals have been and can be transported safely across international boundaries. Britain has had the most comprehensive detailed regulations on the safe transport of animals for many years. We take as our starting point in EC negotiations the excellent British regulations and we suggest that they should be the basis on which the EC comes up with proposals on the movement of animals to apply to the whole of Europe. We are also keen to encourage an EC-wide inspectorate so that the high standards of animal welfare that we enforce in this country will be enforced throughout Europe.

I welcome the fact that the Minister is so firmly opposed to the export of ponies and horses, but why does not he apply his opposition to the transport of calves and sheep? Will he acknowledge that it is impossible for this country to ensure that the arrangements and regulations in place in the rest of Europe are enforced? Would not it be sensible to promote a policy of slaughter as near to the point of production as possible?

We have always transported cattle and sheep safely and believe that it can be done. The hon. Gentleman should realise the conditions of the EC treaty, under which we have no power unilaterally to ban the transport of live animals. We make a distinction in the case of horses and ponies, however, because we believe that, from a welfare point of view, they are quite distinct. The sad, sordid history of their export shows that they cannot be transported safely but only at great risk of damage. Cattle and sheep can be moved safely round the country and are moved safely from Ireland and the Scottish islands to the mainland. We must be very careful before seeking a unilateral ban on the safe movement of animals which would severely disadvantage many parts of the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister accept that, although he has widespread support in resisting moves to transport horses and ponies, it is essential that he makes no concessions in securing the best possible transport of animals or with regard to ponies and horses? The House will accept no concessions. Should not the Government be doing more to encourage the transportation of meat by hook rather than on the hoof?

I cannot dictate to consumers, particularly European consumers, in what form they should eat their food. Although I sympathise with the view that much more meat could be safely transported in carcase rather than live form, it is a fact of life that Europeans want a live meat trade and the EC treaty protects that wish. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall not enter negotiations with the view that we must start off with concessions, as that would not be sensible. Rather, we shall enter those negotiations on the basis that the excellent British rules have served us well, that they should be extended to the rest of Europe and that we do not intend to give way on the issue of the export of live horses and ponies.

May I encourage my hon. Friend in his insistence on an international inspectorate for the export of animals throughout Europe? However, does he agree that unless those inspectors are given real powers, their existence will be useless?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. Our experience of the EC international inspectorate for abattoirs suggests that those inspectors have considerable powers and that their powers work. We would wish for no less on the animal welfare front. Britain has nothing to be ashamed of and is among the countries with the best record on animal welfare in Europe. We would welcome an EC-wide inspectorate to enforce our high standards in other parts of the EC.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list (a) overall European Commission expenditure as a percentage of overall European Community gross domestic product, (b) net European Commission expenditure on agriculture as a percentage of overall European Community gross domestic product and (c) the net United Kingdom expenditure on agriculture including net receipts from the European Commission as a proportion of United Kingdom gross domestic product, for the last year for which figures are available.

The figures are 0·9 per cent., 0·6 per cent. and 0·24 per cent.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does not it prove that some of the statements that he has made about the high cost of agricultural support have been grossly exaggerated? Will he also bear in mind the fact that British agriculture is supported even less than European agriculture and we are spending less than a quarter of the amount on agricultural support than we were in 1960 and only half what we were spending in 1973 when we joined the EC?

My hon. Friend must accept that the budget is likely to go up by 30 per cent. next year, which cannot be sensible in the present circumstances. It must be reasonable to bring the budget under control and ensure that a higher proportion of it reaches the farmers whom it is supposed to support. I do not think that we help the situation by arguing on the basis of the percentage of gross national product.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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 have further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister know of the grave shortage of resources that is affecting children's wards and units in hospitals throughout Britain? Is he aware that the unique baby life-saving unit in Groby Road hospital in my constituency is likely to have to close because there is no money locally and the Department of Health has refused central NHS funding? If that unit closes, as is almost certain unless the Government change their mind, what will the Prime Minister say to the parents of babies who will certainly die, totally unnecessarily?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, I cannot carry in my head the details of each and every aspect of the national health service, but he knows that the average annual increase in the national health service budget has been more than 3 per cent. during the period of this Government—substantially higher than it was under any previous Government.

If public spending is to be paid for in the future by increases in our economy, in the opinion of my right hon. Friend do policies of increased taxation, increases in quangos and Ministries and a minimum wage level make a sensible policy to increase such a demand?

I suspect that I know what my hon. Friend is driving at. The reality is that the Labour party would never deliver any growth whatsoever to fund increased public expenditure. It never has and never would and any suggestion that it would is sheer wish fantasy.

Has the Prime Minister seen the letter from the health authority district general manager to his clinical directors stating that

"the reality of GPs holding their own … budgets"

"equity has gone out the window"?

It is not fiction. Operations are done on the basis of clinical need. I have been advised within the last hour or so that the doctor to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred has also said that the big advantage of the trusts is that you are opting out of bureaucracy, not out of the national health service. At Bart's, the hospital at which he works, they are treating more patients at less cost. Over 1,000 jobs may have gone in the last five years, but more patients are being treated.

Since the Prime Minister also wants to quote Dr. Grant, I remind him that he is the man who said that they are opting out of equity. Can I put it to the Prime Minister again? Is not it clear that the Prime Minister's health market policies have now made queue-jumping the order of the day and that the clinical needs of patients are coming second to commercial considerations? I put it to him again. In view of that reality, on the testimony of Dr. Grant, will he now withdraw the false claim that he made two days ago that operations are done on the basis of clinical need? It is fiction.

No, I will not, and I will call in evidence to support my position Mr. Rowden, the chief executive of West Lambeth health authority, who writes to the press as a nurse, a general manager in the national health service and a member of the Labour party. I quote:

"For Labour to suggest that the old-style district health authorities provided a sound basis for the management of the NHS is spurious to say the least. Decisions prior to the reforms were arrived at by a process of those who screamed the loudest, and we have all witnessed various displays of shroud-waving … This was not a rational way of making difficult decisions, and perhaps the key benefit from the NHS reforms will be the evolution of a system that will lead to rational and informed debate about how and why we use precious resources in our NHS."

Like his predecessor, the more the Prime Minister goes on in his answers, the less convincing he becomes. May I put it to him again? Does not he agree with the testimony of one of his supporters, a district general manager, who says that because of his system equity has gone out of the window? Will not he affirm now that, as a consequence, operations are not being done on the basis of clinical need but on the basis of commercial considerations?

I neglected inadvertently to complete the quote from Mr. Rowden, the Labour party supporter. He deals with the point that the right hon. Gentleman now raises:

"When all the politicking stops, it has to be said that many of the Government's changes to the NHS give us the first opportunity in decades to begin explicitly to make choices about where we spend our money in the UK health care system."

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, unlike the Labour party, he will keep public expenditure in line with what the country can afford? Furthermore, as the First Lord of the Treasury, will he make available to Her Majesty's Opposition the full facilities of the Treasury to check out their taxation and spending plans, as clearly their sums do not add up?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Our economic policies in the last 12 years have achieved a remarkable treble—tax cuts, spending increases on public services and a reduction in the national debt. The extra £20 billion that Labour promises is spending that it could never deliver out of growth which it has never previously provided when in government. The only things that would grow under the Labour party would be taxes, inflation and national health service waiting lists, just as they always have done.

Does the Prime Minister realise that while the scale of international relief in Bangladesh is still pitiful in relation to need, there is nevertheless real pride about Britain's lead in providing it? I again ask the Prime Minister why it is that he, his Government and, it appears, the written press continue to ignore the incalculably greater scale of the disaster now unfolding in Africa? I want the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that he knows and understands that 27 million lives are imminently at risk and that in some areas food will run out at the end of this week. If he knows about these matters, will he tell the House what he intends to do to help?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his question. The assistance that we have given to Bangladesh has made us the largest single national donor. We are prepared to do more and are urging others to do more. Particularly in the months ahead we will need to seek a better international way of co-ordinating assistance when great tragedies such as this are faced. I shall do what I can to bring that sort of system about. On the subject of Africa, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are providing substantial aid and providing it fast. After the United States, we are the second largest bilateral food aid contributor to the Horn. We have done a great deal and, where necessary, we will be able to do more. However, we cannot do everything that is necessary on our own. We have a better record than almost anyone in the world and we can justly be proud of that record.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that 12 years ago to this day he and I first entered the House? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal dedication and commitment to an improvement in public services throughout that period. If the history of the 1980s shows anything it is that it is possible to reduce taxation while simultaneously and dramatically improving public services.

My hon. Friend is quite right about that. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his illness. We are all very pleased to see him here and looking so fit and I look forward to seeing him sit here with me for at least another 12 years and possibly a good deal longer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Such improvements depend on the levels of growth that we have achieved over the last decade, which levels Conservative Governments traditionally achieve and Labour Governments fail to achieve.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

As the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Energy both oppose test drilling by Nirex in their constituencies, does the Prime Minister understand why the people of Scotland do not wish to see up to 6,000 planned test boreholes being drilled in Caithness? If Nirex proposes to spend such time, effort and money in drilling up to 6,000 boreholes, how can the Prime Minister expect anyone to believe that Nirex has not targeted the north of Scotland as a nuclear dump? Scotland has been badly let down by this decision.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there will need to be quite specific planning consents before there can be any dumping of waste there. That matter lies in the future, but before any dumping at all could take place after the test borings, quite specific planning consents would need to be granted. We will look carefully at those when they come forward.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend accept that when we came to office 12 years ago the top rate of taxation was 82 per cent., that it is now 40 per cent. and that the miracle has happened because everyone has been encouraged to work harder which has meant that £17 billion more has been spent on the health service this year than when we came to office? Does he agree that a nightmare will strike people such as a police sergeant, a deputy head teacher or a doctor when they hear that if they earn £20,300 a year they are among the rich and are to be taxed and taxed and taxed again.

That would certainly do nothing but damage to enterprise; and it is certainly true that, over the past few years, lower rates of tax have produced a higher yield.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

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

As the poll tax has been a big mistake, why should people be hounded and imprisoned in England? Why should they suffer because the Government got it wrong? People outside think that something has to give—that there should be an amnesty. The Government should understand the position of the 16 individuals in England—[Laughter.] It is not funny.

Order. This does not help the hon. Gentleman. Briefly, please.

Those 16 people are in prison because they did not pay the poll tax. We know that the Prime Minister claims to want a classless society—[Interruption.]

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now conclude his question?

This is important, because people cannot be imprisoned in Scotland but they can be in England. Let us free these political prisoners. That would be an important decision.

I know that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about these matters, but I must point out that he did not even carry his own side of the House with him in his remarks.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I take points of order after Question Time.