To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet his counterpart from the Dutch Government to talk about the fishing industry.

I shall meet the Dutch Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on 2 July before the next Council of Fisheries Ministers on 8 July.

When my hon. Friend meets his Dutch counterpart, will he bear in mind that undersized fish are still being caught, landed, sold, and served on dinner plates in homes and restaurants throughout Holland? That galling practice is particularly offensive to the law-abiding fishermen of Lowestoft, who feel that turning a blind eye, as the Dutch Government seem to be doing, is a particularly English practice and is therefore liable to encourage English fishermen to do the same?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the Dutch have made significant efforts to tighten up inspection procedures and now have 100 inspectors—and some auxiliaries—for 550 boats. The previous Minister was changed because of the issue. We have good relations with the Dutch. If my hon. Friend has proof that we can put before the Dutch Minister, we shall not hesitate to do so.

When the Minister meets the Dutch Minister, will he arrange it so that he and his Dutch counterpart bring pressure on their respective Foreign Offices to ensure both that the EC negotiations with the European Free Trade Association include no concessions to Spain in Norwegian waters which might endanger British or Dutch captures there, and that the negotiations are successful?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is important to come to an arrangement with the EFTA countries, but it must not be at the expense of British fishermen. We are certainly conscious of the dangers of allowing Spanish vessels into Norwegian waters, particularly because of the impact that that might have on relative stability. We have, of course, made sure that the British Government are aware of the fishing industry's strong interests in such matters.

Does the Minister accept that the Dutch fishing fleet seems to have avoided the worst effects—indeed, any effects—of the introduction of the eight-day tie-up scheme? Will he bear that in mind when he meets his Dutch counterpart and find ways of ensuring that the United Kingdom fleet—particularly the Scottish inshore fleet—can avoid the worst effects of the eight-day tie-up scheme?

Clearly, we should like to have a mechanism to control fishing efforts that does not involve a tie-up. However, the Dutch fleet is subject to a unilateral tie-up at the instruction of the Dutch Government. The Dutch Minister proposes tie-ups as part of a more universal package of fisheries control. We must be cautious of such a scheme, given the difficulties that it poses for the fleet.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the report on agriculture recently issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The report estimates that support for agriculture in OECD countries increased between 1989 and 1990. Although producer prices fell, world prices also fell and the net effect was an increase in support measured in this way.

My right hon. Friend will have noticed that the OECD report concludes that unless the principal trading nations take speedy and effective action to reform their agricultural support policies, there will be severe economic consequences, in particular, the escalation of trade tensions, price inflation and the holding back of economic growth. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that conclusion?

I am sure that that is a serious danger. That is why we are prosecuting the general agreement on tariffs and trade round so strongly. I know that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development made it clear that changes will have to take place involving all the participants, and that the support for agriculture that we found in the United States has similar effects to that which we find in the European Community. The idea that only the European Community must change is wholly without foundation.

Will the Minister confirm that since he became Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, spending on the common agricultural policy has increased by no less that 55 per cent?

The hon. Gentleman is keen on insisting that spending on the CAP has increased. If only the moneys getting to farmers had increased by 55 per cent., I should be much happier. We are waiting for the hon. Gentleman to tell us how much his policy would increase the spending of any future Labour Government. We have been unable to cost his policy so far because he has not given us the figures. I challenge him to tell us by how much he would increase the taxpayers' bill to pay for his green premium.

Will my right hon. Friend take up with the OECD the problem that the CAP creates in preventing farmers from expanding production in areas in which Britain is not self-sufficient and in which we could increase our market levels? I am thinking especially of increasing our milk production so that we could more effectively compete in the richer market for dairy products. If we increased our export sales, that would help our balance of payments.

Even though we are only 88 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat, my hon. Friend must accept that we are producing butter and placing it in intervention. We must use the milk that we have to produce high-value products. That is why the milk marketing board is seeking new and better ways of marketing milk to that end. The idea of national self-sufficiency does not have the validity that my hon. Friend suggests within the European Community. We need to compete more effectively with over colleagues in the Community and ensure that we produce high-value products.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his meeting with leaders of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation held on 3 June.

My hon. Friend and I, with the Scottish Office Minister with responsibility for agriculture and fisheries, met leaders of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 3 June. We discussed conservation, decommissioning and the eight-day rule.

There have been numerous press reports of the meeting, but will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify precisely what his position is on decommissioning? Does he think that the industry should make a contribution or that there should be total funding by the industry? If conservation measures are to be attached to the policy, what sort of measures should they be? I have asked a clear question and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will provide clarification.

My position is exactly what it was when I first stated it, and I shall continue to state it. The purpose of our policy must be the conservation of fish. Otherwise, there will be no fishing for the next generation of Scottish and English fishermen, or any other fishermen. I have said clearly that if conservation comes first, the decommissioning schemes so far proposed will not meet the conservation end. If we are to have any sort of decommissioning, it must be part and parcel of a package of measures that would conserve stocks. Such a package must be effective. Accordingly, I want the industry to propose measures that it believes it would be able to keep to and which it would be able to support. If such a series of measures came forward, it would have to have—I shall continue to use these words—a significant degree of support from the industry itself. I believe that to be necessary, and I want the industry to be involved in that way.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the fishermen in my constituency are always in favour of genuine conservation measures, but they have expressed to me on many occasions their concern that he should protect the interests of all United Kingdom fishermen and not just a section of them?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that the interests of different sections of the fishing industry— different coasts of Scotland, different parts of England, and as between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—are not always the same and there are bound to be arguments between them. But the one issue that matters is that we conserve the stocks or there will be no British fishing industry. I am sad at those who try to garner votes today at the cost of fishermen's jobs tomorrow—that is the challenge I put to the Scottish National party.

Is the Minister saying that he is willing to implement a decommissioning scheme if conservation measures are agreed with the fishing industry, because that is a bit different from what he has been saying in previous debates in the House? On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) about the EFTA discussions taking place on fishing grounds off Spitzbergen, will the Minister give us a date when those discussions will be finalised and will he confirm that the fishing industry will be consulted on what steps are being taken as part of those talks?

I certainly cannot give a date. The arguments are fast and furious and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows well that there is no division between us on our determination to maintain the basis of the common fisheries policy and not to have that destroyed as a by-product of the negotiations, and that is what we shall continue to do. I shall state my case once again. I have said quite clearly that I shall not consider a decommissioning proposal except if such a proposal is part of a package of effective additional schemes for conservation which comes from the industry. If such a proposal were made, I would not count out a decommissioning scheme so long as it had significant support from the industry.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy on the future use of sheep dip compounds; and if he will now make it his policy to refuse future licences for the organo-phosphorous range of products.

All sheep dips must be licensed under the Medicines Act 1968. It will continue to be our policy to issue licences for products that meet the strict requirements of safety, quality and efficacy after independent scientific assessment.

I do not thank my hon. Friend for that answer because it ducks the question of the future of organo-phosphorous dips. Is he aware of the number of farmers and farm workers who have been physically damaged by the use of those dips, which have precisely the same origin as the nerve gases used in warfare? Does he agree that farmers should be required to wear full protective clothing in the future and that fair compensation should be paid to those damaged in the past?

Of course we are aware of the reports from people who have suffered allergies or reactions to the use of any compound, including pesticides and sheep dips. There are 99,000 sheep farmers in England, Wales and Scotland and we have reports of 63 adverse reactions. We are terribly sympathetic to farmers who suffer an adverse reaction, just as we are sympathetic to anyone who suffers an adverse reaction or has an allergy. I urge my hon. Friend to urge his constituents to send full medical reports to the independent veterinary products committee which is reviewing all organo-phosphate chemicals and sheep dips and any evidence will be taken into account. However, the Government do not insist on farmers using only organo-phosphate sheep dips. There is an alternative which is not made of that particular chemical.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the increase in the number of vets that will be needed to meet requirements arising from EC directives and regulations.

In 1989, my right hon. Friend the Minister established a working party under the chairmanship of Dr. Ewan Page to review the need for veterinary manpower in the United Kingdom both for the public service and for the private sector, and to make recommendations on how any increased manpower requirement might be met.

The Minister will recognise the increasing demand for vets arising from our own legislation and from European directives and requirements. Only recently veterinary training at Cambridge and Glasgow was under threat. That threat has now been lifted, but in 1990 we brought in more than 400 vets from overseas. Will the Minister give us every assurance that the Government will not allow the nation to fail in those important services through not having sufficient trained vets from this country?

Of course—we should be failing in our duty if we did not maintain the high standard of veterinary surgeons that this country has traditionally produced. Because we recognised the increasing work load that veterinary surgeons would be required to undertake under EC rules, we implemented the Page committee's recommendation that the ceiling on the intake of university students should be lifted. Universities are now recruiting more students to achieve the intake level of 400 per year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there would be no shortage if the British Government followed the German example and pressed for an exemption for smaller slaughterhouses, where in the main the problems do not arise?

That is not the simple answer to the problem. Veterinary expertise and manpower will be required in a whole host of areas in the future. Even if some exemptions were introduced for the smallest slaughterhouses, they would relate to their design and construction—not to the hygiene standards that must be maintained in all slaughterhouses.

Does the Minister agree that health, and the quality of the product, can give our farmers an important competitive edge? What positive steps is he taking to promote animal health campaigns to eliminate, for example, enzootic abortion in sheep or to deal with fallen livestock? Small amounts of money spent now could reap important rewards in the future.

The Ministry has animal health schemes which it is keen to promote, and a growing number of farmers are joining them. Yesterday, in Standing Committee on the Draft Welfare of Pigs Regulations 1991, which is the successor to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body), I said that as we shall have higher welfare standards for pigs and for pig meat—although we shall be pressing hard for Europe to follow our lead—I hoped that British producers would use their marketing advantage. There is nothing unethical about that.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the value to United Kingdom farmers of the green pound devaluation agreed in the recent CAP price fixing settlement.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the value to British farmers of the green pound devaluation agreed in the recent CAP price fixing settlement.

It is estimated that the green pound devaluations should, on their own, increase United Kingdom producer incomes by around £125 million in a full year.

Does not my right hon. Friend's reply indicate that, against the expectations of the farming community—which was steeling itself for difficult negotiations with the European Community—my right hon. Friend and his colleagues achieved an incredible increase in farm incomes? Ought not British farmers to acknowledge that we have a Minister and a Government who negotiate in Europe from a position of strength, and who have delivered to farmers an incredible settlement under this year's price review?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The figure of £125 million represents a restoration of the sum that British farmers ought to have —not an increase in their prices. We were offered only one third of that amount, but we got it all. That is partly a result of our strong position in Europe, which has been created in particular by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Clearly, we are seeking to co-operate within Europe, but we also take an extremely strong view of Britain's interests.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his achievement is welcomed by the hard-pressed farming community? Does he agree—as his last reply implied—that for many years British farmers have been cheated of their proper income by the wretched green pound system? Can he give an assurance that it will come to an end by the end of next year?

Certainly. With the single market and Britain's membership of the exchange rate mechanism, we are moving towards a point where we shall be rid of the old green pound system. That is more proof—if proof is needed—that co-operation within the European Community is the way to achieve such ends. We have been successful, but that success was built on hard negotiation and a real understanding of Britain as being in the centre of the Community and not sidelined.

While the devaluation of the green pound is obviously welcome to my farmers, they would probably be far better helped by the payment of the 4 ecu ewe premium supplement this year, if that were possible. Has the Minister any plans to do that in view of the fact that the variable premium will be going by the end of the year and that my less-favoured area farmers are much more hard pressed than the average farmers in this country?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that we have tried to help the less-favoured area farmers in all circumstances by bringing forward the payments. It will be easier in future because the computerisation system now takes into account the headage payments and the rest which held us up before. I shall do everything possible to ensure that we pay those as early as we can in the circumstances and we have already announced that we shall do that in two parts.

Can the Minister explain why, under his predecessor—the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor)—spending on the common agricultural policy fell, but under his own regime there has been an increase of 55 per cent? Does that not prove that the other agricultural Ministers in Europe are giving him the run-around?

The hon. Gentleman proves only one thing—that he has no idea about agriculture—every time that he comes to the Dispatch Box. Farmers' incomes have fallen because the price in the market has fallen. Therefore, support prices have risen. When market prices rise it is possible not to increase support prices. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman presses this matter, the farmers of Britain will know that if there were a Labour Government they could expect a slashing attack on their incomes, a destruction of the farming industry, because the Opposition do not even care about agriculture enough to understand it—[Interruption.]

Order. A lot of the disruption could be stopped if the Minister would turn towards me.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the bonus of £125 million is enormously to be welcomed and is a matter on which he deserves congratulations? However, will he compare that figure with the second bonus that farmers have received recently, which arises from the 3·5 per cent. reduction in interest rates in the past six months?

My right hon. Friend is perfectly right about that. You, Mr. Speaker, will recognise that the reduction of interest rates has been brought about by the Government's positive policy and our ability to get inflation under control. However, I am sure that you would want me to remind the Opposition that their policies would push interest rates up again and increase taxation to levels that we have not experienced for 15 years.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the effect on the United Kingdom canned meat industry of the import of canned meat from Poland.

I have received a number of representations about imports of pigmeat products from eastern Europe, but nothing about canned meat products in general or specifically about imports from Poland.

Will the Minister investigate a claim made by a tinned meat factory in my constituency that cheap imports of tinned meat from Poland must be heavily subsidised to be as competitive as they are? The company is not afraid of competition, but this is tantamount to unfair competition and needs investigation to protect what remains of the British tinned industry and jobs in my constituency.

The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to let me know that he has a constituency interest, and my officials have already been in touch with the firm of Parrish and Fenn in his constituency. Some limited Polish imports, which benefit from special generalised system of preferences concessions, are coming into this country at the moment. That has enabled an element of the benefit to be passed back to the Polish producers. That said, however, Polish exports to this country are down severely because the Polish Government are hard up and are no longer paying export subsidies—imports are down 40 per cent. this year compared with last. I shall ask my officials to verify the specific complaints with the company and we shall follow those up.

Will my hon. Friend have regard to the interests of the consumer rather than paying attention to protectionist devices and will he heed the good sense of the British housewife, who can look after herself?

Of course, we shall pay attention to the interests of the consumer—[Interruption.]

Order. The Minister is answering a question.

I do not think, however, that the interests of the consumer would be served by a system that permitted the entire United Kingdom market to be taken over by imported products, to the detriment of our own production. That would cause a sharp reduction in consumer choice.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made to stop the transportation of live animals from the United Kingdom to Europe following 1992.

Agreement has not yet been reached in the EC on the transport of animals, but we are pressing to ensure that animals are properly cared for on all journeys in the Community.

In a report published today, the Select Committee on Agriculture says that the Minister should stand firm against any degradation by the EC of United Kingdom safeguards for animals in transit. It also says that the United Kingdom's minimum values system, which prevents horses and ponies from being exported for slaughter, must be retained. Public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of those recommendations. Will the Minister accept them and show some gumption by saying no to the transport of live animals for slaughter after 1992?

Ever since I became an Agriculture Minister, we have been saying exactly the same thing every month at the Dispatch Box. We will fight for the retention of minimum values and we will continue to fight for a welfare regime for animals in Europe that uses the best examples of the British system. We have our own excellent rules. We have been standing firm; we are standing firm; and we will continue to stand firm.

Our EC partners seem to regard directives as lofty aspirations rather than detailed rules to be followed to the letter. What guarantee have we that, even if a good deal is struck, the regulations will be enforced?

My hon. Friend has put her finger on a good point. That is why we are determined that an enforcement system should operate in Europe which applies to all member states. This country has excellent enforcement procedures, not only through the Government but through animal welfare organisations, which are terribly anxious to ensure that animals are treated properly in transit. Many other EC countries do not have the same cultural attitude towards the protection of animals; that is why an EC-wide inspectorate is essential if our high standards are to be applied in every corner of the Community.

I say this with the best will in the world. Does not the Minister agree that many more live animals will be transported to the Continent next year and the year after because of our lack of slaughtering facilities? Many slaughterhouses will close in the next six months. What plans does the Minister have to solve the problem?

The hon. Gentleman is one of the nicest Opposition Members, but as he is a spokesman for the Liberal Democratic party—which only yesterday published a federal document—I will not take his advice, or that of his hon. Friends, on how we can negotiate strongly and robustly in Europe. Liberal Democratic party policy is to say to Mr. MacSharry, "Please take this shirt off my back—and here is a spare one for Mr. Delors."

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he is considering on the means by which the common agricultural policy may be reformed in order to promote better health.

The Government fully recognise the need for any reform of the common agriculture policy to pay due regard to the nutrition and dietary needs of the population.

Why must the British taxpayer subsidise the growing of tobacco in other Community states? Has my right hon. Friend any information to suggest that that iniquitous practice may soon be brought to an end?

I have been a consistent opponent of the tobacco regime, which costs £1 billion a year. However, it is difficult to suggest that it is better to import tobacco from outside the Community than to use tobacco grown inside the Community. The real issue is to discourage people from smoking. That is the role of government and that role is becoming increasingly clear to all nations in the European Community.

Will the Minister accept that there was a forum in Ayrshire last week at which environmental health officers said that they were seriously concerned about the health risk resulting from the number of carcases, which they said was 54,600, that had been buried or disposed of, or in some cases even left lying on the hillsides of Dumfries, Galloway and Ayrshire? Will the Minister examine the issue seriously?

We are constantly monitoring that matter. If they were environmental health officers, they came from local authorities which have all the legal requirements to make sure that that state of affairs does not occur and to enforce the law. They should enforce the law.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the volume and value of sugar to be used by the United Kingdom confectionery industry this year; and if he will make a statement.

I have no estimate, because we do not collect the information.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is great disappointment among consumers and producers in this country that the Commission's proposal to reduce sugar support prices by 5 per cent. has not gone through? Is he aware that our great confectionery industry will suffer as a result? Is he further aware that if the British Government were to press the matter further, we should be likely to see an increase in the benefits to the United Kingdom confectionery trade, which produces a surplus amounting to about £100 million in exports?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we supported the case for a cut in the sugar price, not merely because it would be of benefit to consumers and manufacturers in Britain but because it is the best formula for the developing world rather than to give compensatory subsidies. I am strongly aware of the importance of the confectionery industry, which, as my hon. Friend says, has a £100 million a year trade surplus. I appreciate that the industry is strongly centred in my hon. Friend's constituency and that he is particularly attentive to its interests.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he intends to introduce to assist medium-sized family farms that are dependent on livestock production.

The Government are well aware of the difficulties facing livestock farmers. Government and Community support to the livestock industry is currently costing £900 million a year. This year, hill livestock compensatory allowances have been increased by an average of 14 per cent. and, as I announced on 14 May, for the second year running two advances will be paid under the annual ewe premium scheme. Furthermore, for the first time, sheep producers in the less-favoured areas will benefit from the £3·10 supplement to the ewe premium agreed last year, which next year will be increased by a further £1·20 as a result of the recent price fixing.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that any reform of the common agricultural policy must take account of the fact that farmers' incomes have dropped significantly in recent years and that if we are to maintain a stable agriculture industry, we must support medium-sized family farms, particularly those involved in livestock production, because their capacity for diversification is extremely limited?

The size of the farm is not the key issue. Some larger farms, for example, support a large number of families. We are concerned that farming as a whole should be sufficiently supported to make it prosperous so that it can look after the land and produce the food that we need. We want that sort of reform—not the building up of surpluses, payments to intervention storekeepers or support leading to dumped prices in developing countries. The modulation should be towards need rather than according to the size of the farm.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the best ways to help medium-sized, or even smaller, farms and industry in Britain as a whole would be to reduce interest rates? Is he aware that to do that, it will be necessary to bring about a realignment of the pound within the ERM?

My hon. Friend must accept that we have been able to reduce interest rates by 3·5 per cent. because of our membership of the ERM at the present level. I do not agree with him in the change that he seeks, but I hope that he agrees with me that the one way to ensure that interest rates would rise again would be to increase taxation by the 15p which Labour's present policies would do.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the Consumers Association about improving food hygiene and safety in the United Kingdom.

Representatives of the Consumers Association were present on 20 February 1991 at the fourth periodic meeting between my right hon. Friend the Minister and the office-holders of consumer organisations. The next meeting is planned for 25 June 1991.

The Minister must be aware of the deep concern of the Consumers Association about the ability of trading standards officers to detect irradiated products, especially if they are publicised in an inadequate and misleading way. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest to trading standards officers? To protect the consumer, why does not the Ministry set up an independent food standards agency?

We have some of the most detailed regulations in Europe. Our standards are among the highest of all the European countries that have irradiated food and our regulations are as detailed as those of other countries. We have much detail on the policing of irradiated food. So far, we have received only one application to irradiate food and that was in respect of herbs and spices. The licence was granted and last week the Ministry published full details of the conditions to which the company must adhere. We already have independent experts who assess food and guarantee food safety. The hon. Gentleman is making yet another promise that a Labour Government will spend more of taxpayers' money on setting up quango after quango.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some concern that these food hygiene matters have been carried too far and that they are interfering with the activities of legitimate small organisations, which are unable to cope with the demands made upon them? Will my hon. Friend carefully consider any representations made to him in that regard and take care that he does not drive many valuable small organisations out of business?

That is absolutely correct. In the pursuit of food safety, we must ensure that we do not drive out of business many of the excellent producers of high-quality, tasty food. My hon. Friend does not seem to have been deprived of a good supply of food.

Food hygiene and safety are important, so why is the Minister blocking grants to fish processors and curers such as Kelly of Newhaven? Such companies want to invest in new equipment for a future which, we hope, will bring better herring stocks to this country so that people can benefit.

My Ministry will be happy to consider any specific proposals from the company that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on his plans for a one year set-aside scheme.

I shall be inviting applications from farmers so that they can gain the opportunity of entering into the one-year set-aside before the end of next month, which is the due date.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because the scheme must be attractive to farmers, there is a strong case for having a United Kingdom payment over and above the EC proposed payments for set-aside?

I believe that the offer will draw out of farms a sufficient amount of set-aside. I am not prepared to structure a scheme in such a way as to set aside large parts of Britain so that other countries can produce more. There must be comparability across Europe as a whole.

If the Governor of the Bank of England can pick up £60,000 out of the Common Market set-aside scheme, surely that means that there is too much money in the budget. Why does not the Minister answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)? Is not it true that, since the day the right hon. Gentleman was appointed to the job, our CAP contributions have gone up by 55 per cent. Yes or no?

It is very flattering that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I control the level of the dollar; indeed, it is one of the most flattering comments that he has made to me. The hon. Gentleman may want to live in a country in which individuals are treated differently by the Government because of class prejudice, but the British people do not—even at the high taxation cost that that would produce.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the future prospects for the United Kingdom milk sector.

In 1990–91, dairy farming remained one of the most profitable sectors of agriculture in the United Kingdom, for all sizes of farm. Removal of the remaining monetary gap will also contribute to improved prospects for the dairy sector; however, the Agriculture Council has also agreed to a cut in member states' quotas. Member states may cut producers' quota as necessary up to 3 per cent. and pay compensation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that Britain has the best standard of milk in Europe and that the milk marketing board serves our farmers particularly well—not least with a reliable monthly milk cheque? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that any changes to the milk marketing board should be approved only following a referendum of all our dairy farmers?

The milk marketing board is making its proposals and it believes that changes are necessary. I have welcomed the board's desire to make the system more satisfactory. It must be a matter of concern that, in many recent years, the return to the farmer on milk has been one of the lowest in Europe and the cost to the consumer has been one of the highest in Europe. That must suggest that changes are necessary and those changes are being proposed by the board under its own constitution.

To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to meet the leaders of other NATO member states to discuss, inter alia, the membership, structure, functions and policy objectives of the organisation and related matters; and if he will make a statement.

NATO Heads of State and Government will meet in Rome on 7 and 8 November. Our main task will be to conclude the review of NATO's role, strategy and force structures set in hand by the summit in London last July. Good progress has already been made. The reformed alliance will continue to provide the essential basis for our security in the 1990s.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but may I point out to him that, in Scotland, there is growing concern over what appears to be a piecemeal and fragmented restructuring of the armed forces of all the NATO countries, including the United Kingdom? Will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that the rapid reaction force will never be deployed outwith mainland Europe unless and until it receives the specific authority of the United St … United Nations. [Interruption.] I said the United Nations and not the United States as I never want to see young Scots, or young men from anywhere in the United Kingdom, being turned into cannon fodder at the behest of an American President skilfully exploiting the sycophantic support of NATO leaders.

Let me say first how much I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom will command the future NATO rapid reaction force. That is a key role for the British Army and one which I think it will perform splendidly, both in the interests of this country arid of NATO. The specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised is quite clear. The purpose of the rapid reaction corps is to defend NATO territory; it is not a signal of a more interventionist NATO approach elsewhere.

When the Prime Minister comes to consider these matters, will he also take into account the enormous advantage of the participation of the United States and Canada in NATO, mapping it out, in the opinion of many of us, as a much more effective medium of western defence than any of the alternatives recommended?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. The presence of north American forces in Europe is absolutely essential; by that I mean US conventional and nuclear contributions, both of which are irreplaceable. They are here now and I hope, trust and believe that they will be here in the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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 precisely how much, in pounds and pence, a single old-age pensioner has on which to live for a week? Does he regard it as adequate?

It would depend on his individual circumstances: whether he received income support, whether he had any state earnings-related pension supplement or a raft of other special payments.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

Will my right hon. Friend give a pledge to the House that he and his Government will never increase funding for various aspects of Government by plundering the wage packet of the British working man and woman? Will he further compare his Government's spending—[Interruptioni]—spending policies with those alluded to by the Opposition, whose policies of spend, spend, spend —[HON. MEMBERS: "Spund, spund, spund."]—have no regard to how they will be paid for?

I believe that people in this country need only look at our record on cutting the direct rate of taxation to be clear about the fact that we would not be in favour of increasing it. The Labour party, by contrast, is in favour of much higher spending, which can be met only by much higher taxation, not just for the well-off, but for those on the standard rate of income tax. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has shown that vividly this morning.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that in their recent comments, both of his Tory predecessors were only trying to help him? Which of them did he find most helpful?

The greatest help that this party often receives is from the right hon. Gentleman himself.

That must be why we are 10 points ahead and are winning by-elections. Why will not the Prime Minister tell us? It is a straightforward question—is he closest to the last leader of the Conservative party or to the last but one leader, or is he just piggy in the middle?

I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I can tell him that I have no intention of being distracted from the policy on Europe which I have set out clearly and repeatedly in the House. I shall continue to negotiate in Europe for an outcome that I can safely recommend to the House. It will then be for the House to decide on it.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider what the implications for taxation and public spending would be if the privatisation programme were to come to an end? Furthermore, what would happen if British Telecom, the water industry and the electricity grid were to be renationalised?

The privatisation receipts are about £.5·5 billion a year. That is the equivalent of nearly 3p on the standard rate of income tax, so clearly to abandon those receipts would lead either to higher borrowing or to higher taxation. There can be no doubt about that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 June 1991.

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

I am sure that the Prime Minister would want to be fair. If he is so keen to have everything costed, has he had Majorism costed, or is he merely sending the bill for that to the unemployed?

The hon. Gentleman plumbs new triviality with each question that he asks. In the past decade, conservatism has delivered a far higher standard of living for the people of this country than ever before and so it will in the next decade.

When my right hon. Friend goes to the European Council, will he accept that he carries with him the good wishes of all Conservative Members and our gratitude for the constructive and responsible way in which he has tackled serious and important constitutional issues? Will he take the opportunity to point out to his colleagues in the other European countries that any rapid move to a single currency, before the economies of the various countries in Europe are very much closer in performance, would produce disastrous consequences which would be far more likely to blow the European Community apart than to lead to greater unity?

I entirely agree with every word that my right hon. Friend has said. I have made the point consistently over the past 15 months that until and unless there is proper convergence of the European economies, it would be utter folly even to contemplate a single currency.

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

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

The Prime Minister will be aware of the stand taken by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the threat to ICI. What will the Prime Minister's stance be in the event of a hostile bid being made by Hanson to take over ICI?

There has been no such takeover bid and it would, therefore, be entirely inappropriate for me to comment.

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

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

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at early-day motion 902, which is an all-party motion tabled by, among others, the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? It concerns Guardsmen Povey, Hicks and Ray. Through no fault of theirs—whoever's fault it was, they were not on a holiday jaunt—they lost their legs in a tragic accident. With his well-known compassion and concern for individuals who have problems, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will look at the problem with that compassion so that we can come to the right decision, which is to care for the individual who serves this state?

This is a very tragic accident. I am sure that the whole House feels that deeply and we offer our sympathy to the guardsmen concerned. The board of inquiry has examined the matter carefully and has reached the conclusion that it was a tragic accident and that no one was culpable for the dreadful affair. I am examining the matter, but I must do so on the basis of legal liability.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his predecessor when she said that joining the exchange rate mechanism relegated Ministers to the status of innocent bystanders at an accident? If he agrees, how would he describe himself—as the bystander or the accident?

We entered the exchange rate mechanism last year when my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was Prime Minister and I was Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was right to enter the mechanism then; it is right for us to be members of the mechanism now. I made it absolutely clear at the time that I felt that that was the best way in which to ensure that we not only got inflation on a downward trend, but kept it on a downward trend. We are in the exchange rate mechanism; we are staying in it. In due course, we shall move to the narrow bands.

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

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

In considering local government matters in the light of the appalling record of the past eight years of the Labour administration in Liverpool—the appalling inefficiency, massive debts and uncollected refuse there, and the impending gravediggers' strike—does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition that the Labour council there—

Order. This is not the Prime Minister's responsibility.

—with the statement made yesterday that the council there is merely trying to provide—[Interruption.]

Order.

When considering the reform of local government, does my right hon. Friend agree that the appalling inefficiency of Liverpool should be rate-capped and in future should be avoided by local government reform, or is the statement of the Leader of the Opposition merely pie in the sky?

The whole country will observe what has happened in Liverpool over recent years and will be perfectly well aware where the blame for that lies. As the Labour Co-ordinating Committee has written about Labour councils:

"They demonstrate as far as the public is concerned, what a Labour Government would be like".

Is the Prime Minister aware that when considering the future of Britain the volatility of a couple of Prime Ministers is a trivial sideshow compared with the potential volatility of £84 billion sterling hot money as a result of the Government's incompetence? How far can the Prime Minister say that he is confident that there will be no sterling crisis before the next general election?

If there were to be a sterling crisis, it would occur only if there were no longer a Conservative Government.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that even marginal increases in taxation can have a serious effect on incentives and that even marginal increases in Government borrowing can have a serious effect on inflation and interest rates and that to increase borrowing and taxation by something like £35 billion would have catastrophic effects on the British economy?

There is absolutely no doubt about that. In practice it would mean either dramatically higher borrowing with consequentially much higher interest rates and mortgages, or it would mean up to an extra 15p on the standard rate of income tax to 40p in the pound. With a policy of adding national insurance contributions throughout the income scale, that would make us one of the highest-taxed countries in the industrial world.