To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is now in a position to reveal the latest survey regarding dioxin levels in milk in the Bolsover area; and if he will make a statement.

I have already published all the results available to date. The results of the further survey—which involves complex and time-consuming testing—will be published as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that on 10 December the National Rivers Authority told me, by letter, that it had taken two samples from the river—above the Coalite plant and below—and that the sample from the river above the plant showed a low level of dioxin, the one below the plant showed considerably higher levels of dioxin and that it is now certain that the dioxin is corning from the Coalite plant? As the Minister has said that the polluter must pay, will he give a guarantee that the polluter, Coalite, will pay compensation to the farmers concerned? Will he also hold a public inquiry so that the matter can be sorted put?

My action in support of those farmers is well known to the hon. Gentleman. I am concerned that they should have all the help that they can get. The tests that we are carrying out are not yet complete. The tests done by the National Rivers Authority are different from those that we are doing. We shall provide all that information to the public so that decisions may be made. The decisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are largely not for me.

Is my right hon. Friend happy that the monitoring systems in Bolsover are as good as those in my constituency? There are a number of petrochemical plants in my constituency, as well as the Rechem International plant, which disposes of toxic waste, where Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the local district authority carry out extensive monitoring. What additional monitoring does my right hon. Friend's Department carry out to ensure that toxic emissions cannot enter the food chain?

Our survey programmes have been extensive and we have found nothing of a type similar to that which has been found in Derbyshire. We continue to conduct dioxin surveys. My job is to ensure that dioxin does not enter the food chain and we have a full programme of surveys to ensure that that does not happen. It was as a result of those surveys that we pinpointed two and, later, three farms and that is where the detailed tests are being carried out. In fact, we discovered the problem and acted immediately so that there would be no danger to public health. That is the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

As it appears from the information published to date by the Minister that it is almost impossible to determine the exact source of the dioxin that is causing the problem, what comfort does that provide to farmers? If the source cannot be discovered, how can the polluter be forced to pay? Given that these are insidious and dangerous chemicals that have wide-ranging and far-reaching implications for the food industry, is not it time that the Government thought again about compensation in such circumstances?

The hon. Gentleman should not overstate the position. We have carried out and are carrying out extensive tests throughout the United Kingdom and have found that only three farms are affected. We are conducting detailed trials on those farms. As soon as we have the results of the trials we shall publish them. That is a perfectly reasonable statement of the position. I do not believe that it is helpful to suggest that the problem is widespread or in any way worrying, either for the consumer or for the farming industry as a whole. What I am concerned about is the specific effect on these three farms, which is extremely serious.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve the welfare of laying hens.

We will seek the adoption of the highest standards practicable for all laying hens when the existing Community legislation is reviewed next year.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will implement in full the recommendations of the recent Farm Animal Welfare Council report on the welfare of laying hens in colony systems? Bearing in mind the fact that the report laid out only minimum welfare standards, will the Government take note of and act on the recommendations of the minority report issued at the same time?

The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the fact that any progress that we make on improving animal welfare in Europe has to be on a Europeanwide basis. I am conscious that we want to improve drastically the standards of laying hens, not just in battery cages but in colony and other systems. If we are to be successful, we must have Europeanwide agreement. If we acted unilaterally, we should end up putting out of business our own egg producers just to be flooded with eggs produced under the very system that we had banned.

Should not consumers who are concerned about the welfare implications of intensive laying systems be able to shop accordingly? In the light of the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), will he guarantee that at European level he will press for a system of mandatory labelling so that eggs are labelled "battery", "barn eggs", "free range" or whatever? Is not that the most effective way of harnessing consumer choice in the cause of improving welfare standards?

Of course. In all areas of food policy we believe in the principle that the consumer should choose and have sufficient information to do so. We are consulting others on systems to ensure that consumers have a proper choice when buying eggs and other foodstuffs. This is an area where extensive work needs to be done to ensure that the consumer is not misled because of the plethora of terms that are applied. I do not want to go on a dictionary-chasing exercise, laying down one word only to find that the marketing men have circumvented it by finding another word.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the value of beef exports.

In the first nine months of this year total United Kingdom beef exports amounted to just over 84,000 tonnes worth about £167 million. For the same period last year exports were 78,000 tonnes worth just over £170 million.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the continued success of beef exports is not only good news for the industry but is a powerful reminder, after all the scare stories last year, that British beef is among the best in the world? Does he agree that the use of greater marketing expertise could open up still further opportunities for British exporters? Can he tell us whether and how he will be using the new marketing initiative of his Ministry to assist exports in the industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend that in the past the weakness when farmers have got together has been the quality of marketing and management that they bring to a project. The aim of the marketing grants is to address any marketing deficiencies and to provide good management, which we are willing to support. We also have an undertaking from the supermarkets and some of the food industry that they will assist in providing managers. That is an essential part of the campaign to ensure that our beef, which is the world's best, finds its way on to tables across the world.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the best beef exported from Britain comes from the less-favoured areas and hill land? Does he agree that hill farmers had a substantial drop in income in recent years? When will he announce an enhanced hill livestock compensatory allowance?

I agree with my hon. Friend that beef production is particularly important in the less-favoured areas. He will know that the Scottish Beef Club has had great success in the export market and that the idea of Scottish beef has been extremely successful. We are pursuing discussions on the future of the HLCAs following the autumn review and we shall announce the results as soon as we can.

In view of the excellence of British beef, why is it that major British restaurant chains, which, incidentally make generous donations to the Conservative party, are unable, on the grounds of quantity, quality and consistency, to use a single ounce of British beef in their restaurants, when at the same time 1 million tonnes is rotting in intervention?

The reason is that under the general agreement on tariffs and trade beef from other countries, notably Australia, comes into the European Community. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman supports the liberalisation of trade under GATT and that he would not wish to defy the GATT rules. In many cases those imports are available at a cheaper price than within the Community. The answer is to unwind some of the absurdities of the intervention system which mean that far too much money is devoted to financing the depreciation of beef rather than to putting it on the table. We must also try to direct support much more to the specialist producers of high-quality British beef.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what schools liaison programmes his Department promotes which enhance young peoples awareness of agricultural issues.

Young people's awareness of agricultural issues is promoted through publicity material, information packs and planned visits to farms.

Does my hon. Friend agree that information on agricultural issues for school children is important? Will he provide encouragement so that those schemes teach young people, particularly from inner-city areas, that the beauty of rural areas such as parts of my constituency is not necessarily just given by the good Lord, but often is created by man, because of the traditional and excellent pursuits of hunting and shooting?

It is important that children are able to find out what happens in the countryside. Three points are important. First, everyone should realise that the countryside is a workplace and not just a recreation place. Secondly, recreation and sport and conservation are allied activities. Thirdly, there is a great heritage in the countryside and we have sought to enhance that, in particular through our environmentally sensitive areas scheme. I have no doubt that that will be an extremely good place for school children to begin. I know that the farmers of Esher would particularly welcome school visits.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that young people show a keen awareness of animal welfare? They will be greatly perturbed by the way in which his Department is undermining the provisions of my Badgers Act 1991 by issuing licences to more than 600 fox hunts to enable them to dig up badger setts and unleash terriers into them. Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance this afternoon that that practice will stop immediately?

The hon. Gentleman has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The dreadful things that he forecasts will not happen. I suggest that he waits for the consultation paper and I think that he will then be reassured.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is worth pointing out to young children that in 1950 it took a man on average industrial wages a week to earn enough to buy his Christmas turkey and that it now takes a person in a similar position just 90 minutes to do so? Is not that a tribute to the massive increase in the productivity of the farming community and to the massive increase in the earning power of the British worker?

I am sure that that is absolutely true. I am sure also that, in the light of our education reforms, most children will eventually be able to do that calculation.

Does the Minister also accept that, in considering agriculture, it is crucial to bear in mind the responsibility of all involved in the food chain, from production to consumption, to ensure that at all times consumers get good, healthy, pure products at the best possible price?

That is a self-evident truth. When children go into the countryside and visit farms, they will see that the conditions are completely different from those that their fathers may have seen when they worked on farms during their holidays—that was one of the great traditions of United Kingdom cities. Our aim is to ensure that food is wholesome, of high quality and produced as economically as possible and to ensure that, not only in the United Kingdom but in the export market, people have the benefits of an outstanding product.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate has been made of the effect on the EC budget of implementation of the MacSharry proposals.

The Commission admits that its proposals would increase the cost of the common agricultural policy to the Community budget.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify a puzzle which arose during yesterday's European Community debate? On two separate occasions, when questioned about the cost of implementing some proposals under the Maastricht treaty, the Leader of the Opposition said that the money could be found from the reform of the common agricultural policy. [Interruption.]

Order. The question must relate to Government policy. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules.

If the money can be saved from the reform of the common agricultural policy, would not that mean a reduction in income for farmers in my constituency, unemployment and a reduction in the rural economy?

There is no doubt that reform of the common agricultural policy must be carried out in a way which ensures that there is no discrimination against farmers in the United Kingdom. The proposal of the Leader of the Opposition to spend the money that is now spent on British farmers on farmers in southern Europe is something about which every farmer should know—unless the Opposition spokesman will advise him differently and tell the House when he has so advised him.

Does the Minister agree that those mainly affected by the MacSharry proposals are the 3 per cent. of farmers across Europe who are large farmers and that small farmers—those with less than 125 acres of cereals, fewer than 90 beef cows or fewer than 40 milk cows—are not affected? When that is added to the fact that rural development is now a major part of the Maastricht treaty and of the MacSharry proposals, is not that a very good thing for rural society?

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong and his views are opposed by the farmers unions of every part of the United Kingdom, including such "big" farmers as the crofters in Scotland. All of them say that the MacSharry plans would be devastating for farmers in every part of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman's views can give comfort only to the farmers outside the United Kingdom on whom the Leader of the Opposition wishes to spend our money.

Would not my right hon. Friend be insulting British farmers if he were to suggest that he should decimate the financial support available to them so that it could be given to M. Delors for use as a slush fund for so-called cohesion—a bribe to the countries of southern Europe? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that if anyone does make such a daft suggestion, that person's name is put loudly and clearly in front of the British farming community?

So far, the only person who has made that suggestion is the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, I am quite happy to put his name—at least in this context—in front of the general public. The proposals suggested yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition were clearly to ensure that British farmers reduced their already low incomes and that the money be used for development—rural and urban—in the southern parts of the European Community.

Will the Minister explain to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) that the common agricultural policy which he seeks to defend is a grossly inefficient system? As my right hon. Friend pointed out from the Dispatch Box yesterday, only £1 in £3 of agricultural support goes to farmers, which we do not think makes much sense. As the Minister and I agree that the fatal weakness of the MacSharry proposals is that they will increase the cost of the common agricultural policy, thus breaching the budgetary limit, will the Minister give the House a guarantee today that the Government will use their right of veto on any proposals to breach the budgetary limit? He has those powers; will he use them?

The hon. Gentleman quoted his right hon. Friend, but he should examine the words again. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that

"it must be the major source of the re-orientated finance for the development of cohesion in the Community."—[Official Report, 18 December 1991; Vol. 201, c. 290.]

Far from taking money away from British farmers, will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind during his negotiations with Mr. MacSharry the inequity in national aids? Food from Britain has only six representatives trying to sell British food in Spain, whereas Food from France—its French equivalent—has 60 representatives trying to sell French food in Spain. Will my right hon. Friend find out what can be done to even up the balance? Far from reducing the amount of money available for selling British produce, will he try to increase it?

My hon. Friend has highlighted the fundamental difference. The Government are determined to get rid of arrangements that differentiate against the United Kingdom, whereas the Labour party wishes to increase such differentiation and to pay farmers and others in the southern European states money that will come from the very low incomes of British farmers. That is the difference—the Conservatives support this country.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the EC regarding the use of veal crates; and if he will make a statement.

A Community directive setting minimum standards for the welfare of veal calves was agreed by majority vote at the October Agriculture Council. In our view this directive does not properly tackle the cruelty of the veal crate and we voted against it. British standards for veal production will not, however, be reduced and consumers can be sure that if they buy British veal it will have been humanely produced.

I welcome the fact that we voted against it, but this is one area in which a stand against the EC would enjoy the support of people of all political persuasions in this country. A ban on the import of veal from countries that produce it by a method banned here would constitute such a stand. Failing that, should we put the grand EC official who is in charge of such policies—Mr. Legras—in a veal crate for a few weeks and see whether he changes his mind after that?

We have made a stand on veal. We held out strongly in the EC to have our standards implemented widely throughout the Community and when it was clear that other nations were not of a similar mind, we voted against the directive. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our mutual friend Mr. Legras does not seem to take kindly to the breaking of Community law or the treaty. We cannot unilaterally break the law in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, but we can mobilise consumer opinion. No inhumanely produced veal need be eaten in this country if consumers say that they do not want to touch the filthy stuff.

I welcome my hon. Friend's robust attitude, but is it correct that it is still possible to export calves which end up in crates that would be illegal in this country?

Yes, that is true. That was the subject of the correspondence from Mr. Legras when the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) tried to introduce his ten-minute Bill. The EC has made it clear that live animal exports and imports are a fundamental tenet of the treaty and that it is not up to any nation unilaterally to seek to restrict that trade.

The Minister said that British consumers would not want to buy inhumanely produced veal if they had the choice. How do consumers know whether their veal was produced inhumanely abroad or humanely in this country? When will the Minister introduce proposals for proper labelling, so that consumers can choose food products that have been humanely produced? I assure him of our full support for action to stop the hypocrisy of exporting calves for veal production in other countries.

If we are talking about hypocrisy, let me say that it would be hypocrisy to suggest that we have the powers unilaterally to introduce a labelling directive to discriminate against foreign veal. The hon. Gentleman is making the same point that his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) made. All these matters have to be dealt with on a Europeanwide basis if we are to have a directive. Alternatively, it can be done by individual companies and by retailers. The British Government cannot order people to label inhumanely produced veal, but consumers can demand it, supermarkets can provide the labelling and the restaurant trade can do the same if it is so minded. It is consumer pressure that will bring about a change.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet representatives of the bloodstock breeding industry to discuss the state of this sector.

I have no plans to meet the horse bloodstock industry, but my noble Friend Lady Trumpington is to attend the annual luncheon of the Thoroughbred Breeders Association on 9 January 1992.

Is the Minister aware that a number of stud farms in my constituency, including two owned by Her Majesty the Queen, and also stud farms in general make a tremendous contribution to the rural economy? That is valuable at a time when farming is in difficulties. Is he also aware that bloodstock is subject to a far higher rate of VAT than in this country in France or in Ireland? That is an extremely serious problem which is leading to a number of stud owners moving their horses abroad. Will he tell the House what he is doing about that and what discussions he is having with the Treasury?

My hon. Friend will know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, has taken the lead in the discussions. The Irish rate of VAT is safe because it was in place before the cut-off date in the Community. The French rate of VAT may be challenged and may have to rise. We cannot lower the rate of VAT under Community rules, but we can try to find a way to assist the industry. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, is conducting discussions with the industry on the basis of a proposal for a flat rate agricultural tax which would replace the 17·5 per cent. VAT. The discussions are close to a conclusion and I understand that my hon. Friend will shortly be writing to the industry to clear up some of the remaining points, which will isolate the relatively few issues to be settled.

Is the Minister aware that feeling within the industry and the related sales industry is that if the VAT gap between this country and Ireland and between this country and France is not narrowed significantly we could lose a considerable part of our breeding industry and our entire sales industry, which are the most prestigious in the world? Although the recent approaches to the Treasury and the manner of their reception have been much appreciated, there is a feeling that little may yet be done to prevent the most serious disruption of breeding and horse sales in this country.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. He knows that we cannot reduce the VAT rate as a solution, but he also knows that we can take measures that would have a similar effect in helping the industry. A meeting a week ago today between officials and the industry got to grips with some of the remaining problems. As a result of that, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury, will write to the industry shortly. That should clear the way for what may be the final round of discussions which, I hope, can reach an agreement to achieve a measure that is equivalent to a reduction in VAT, within the Community rules which permit it.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the beef sector.

My right hon. Friend the Minister and I are in frequent contact with the president of the National Farmers Union about all aspects of the agriculture industry, including the beef sector.

What plans does my hon. Friend have to take up the 20 ecu supplement to the suckler cow premium agreed by the Council of Ministers on 11 December?

We are discussing our response to that decision. We voted against it on the ground that it seemed absurd to respond to a crisis in the beef sector simply by throwing yet more money into a system which has not been reformed. As the intervention system remains entirely in place, and as the Community has not decided to try to make savings by reforming the system to make it less attractive, it seemed to us to be the wrong way to tackle the problem. There are structural difficulties and the Council of Ministers has come up with a typical measure—just finding a few extra bob to see whether it will solve the problem. We are discussing the result of that Council with a view to taking our own decision.

Many beef farmers in my constituency of Monmouth are deeply anxious about the impact of the MacSharry proposals. Their farms are generally too large to get the benefits of the MacSharry proposals, but they do not get the benefit of the less-favoured area payments. May I invite the Minister to come to Monmouth to discuss those problems with the farmers there, which will give him the opportunity to assure them that he is seeking to protect their interests?

My right hon. Friend has made that point personally to farmers of Monmouth. The hon. Gentleman knows that our doors are always open to members of the farming or fishing communities who have problems and that we are active around the countryside. The hon. Gentleman can be absolutely certain that we agree that the measures proposed by Mr. MacSharry are to the detriment of his farmers and farmers in every corner of the United Kingdom.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the intervention scheme is a uniquely silly way of buying a first-class article, storing it for months on end, and then dumping it back on the market as a third-class article? Will he please reconsider the scheme as soon as possible?

As my hon. Friend knows, our fundamental position on reform is that the intervention system must he made a great deal less attractive. It was designed as a safety net, but in many respects it has now become a high wire for farmers. We should move to a system under which the specialist producer can be rewarded for producing an increasingly better carcase and an increasingly improved quality of meat, which will find a world market. If intervention remains, it should be reduced to the original concept of a safety net for use in extreme emergencies.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom trade deficit in 1991 as it applies to food and drink.

Net imports of food, feed and drink into the United Kingdom were £4·7 billion for the period January to October 1991. This compared with £5·2 billion for the same period in 1990.

Is the Minister aware that since he was first appointed to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1985 there has been a £28 billion food deficit, which amounts to £15 million per year or £1,200 per household? Is that not a pretty inept performance?

Very much the same situation has obtained under Ministers of both Governments for the past 20 years—[Interruption.] That happens to be a fact, and it was this Government who set out to do something about it. The hon. Gentleman may like to ask some of his right hon. and hon. Friends what they did about it. They did not even approach the matter. We are dealing with it as well as we can in the circumstances and are beginning to have some real effect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask his constituents to remember that if they want to do something about that matter there is one answer—to buy the best food that there is, and that is British produced.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the drinks industry enjoys a surplus mainly because the value of exports of Scotch whisky far exceeds the value of imports of wine? He will be aware that there are Commission proposals on harmonisation with a zero rate for wine but a substantially higher rate for spirits, which is bound to have an adverse effect on our trade balance. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will press for harmonisation based on alcoholic strength, or at least some mechanism for capping the rate on spirits?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not allow the European Community to roll over him—as would be the case if the Leader of the Opposition were in charge of the affairs of this country—but will be fighting hard for Britain's interests, and especially for the interests of the Scotch whisky industry.

Why does this country import more champagne per head than any other country? Could it be that the people of this country are storing up champagne to celebrate the wondrous event of the Tories' being smashed at the next election?

That is an entirely new version of the phrase, "champagne socialist". The hon. Gentleman does not set an example to others in the consumption of champagne, as I do not believe that he seeks such a tipple—

The Minister is wrong there.

In that case, the hon. Gentleman sets an example and shows that in a free society people can decide what they want to drink. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants a society in which people are prevented from drinking what they want.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to include environmental protection features to the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme.

My right hon. Friends and I are currently seeking the views of interested parties on a package of measures designed to enhance environmental aspects of our support for hill farming. We will study the views put to us carefully before drawing final conclusions.

Why are the North York moors not included in the 12 proposed environmentally sensitive areas?

Because our statutory advisers did not recommend that they be included. Statutory advisers from the conservation bodies all gave us a list of the areas that they wanted included and, for the most part, we followed those lists in so far as they agreed with one another. The area to which my hon. Friend refers was not considered such a high priority as others. As a result of our decisions, we will now spend five times as much on the environmentally sensitive areas and they will cover three times more of the United Kingdom than previously—more than 12 per cent. of the land area of England. That is a remarkable achievement and I hope that we can build on it in the future.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the National Farmers Union to discuss the MacSharry proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy.

I meet representatives of the National Farmers Union regularly to discuss a range of agricultural issues.

Does the Minister appreciate that his tenure of office as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is regarded by farmers as disastrous? Does he agree with his Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who said:

"Never have I known a time when farmers were more fearful of the future, and never has that fear been more justified"?

In referring to the MacSharry proposals, my hon. Friend said what was true. I am happy to say that the farmers of the United Kingdom believe in this ministerial team and in the Government, who are fighting for them against the proposals of the European Community. They know that the Labour party, led by the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), would lie down and be run over by anything that the Community proposed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hill farmers and raspberry farmers in Tayside look on him and his team as the best champions of their interests? They regard the problems as being a result of the structure of the common agricultural policy. How wise we were not to allow the Europeans to extend their competence to other areas. Not only our farmers but everyone else would suffer if we followed the views expressed yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.

My hon. Friend is right. The European Community's future is best served by those who believe in Europe and in putting forward strongly the position of their countrymen, farmers and those who have interests in the United Kingdom. We must ensure that that balance exists. It was upheld by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht, but it would have been undermined if the Leader of the Opposition had had anything to do with governing the country.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the current level of intervention stocks in the United Kingdom and the EC.

Tables showing the current level of intervention stocks in the United Kingdom and the EC are placed in the Library of the House each month.

The Minister must be aware that under the 1988 reform package we were assured that intervention stocks would disappear, but they are now at record levels, whether for skimmed milk, butter, beef or cereals. Does the Minister agree that that reform package was merely a cosmetic exercise? Does he further agree that we must now have a fundamental review of the 1988 package, as advocated by the Labour party?

We must have reform of the CAP and it must be continuous, because the world situation keeps changing, but we must ensure that it is the right reform. It would be dead easy to reform the CAP at our farmers' expense and simply shovel the money across to other farmers, which appears to be the Labour party's proposal, but we do not share that view; we must ensure that it is a balanced proposal and that in the United Kingdom, where we have efficient agriculture, the efficient farmer has a long-term future.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the English countryside is covered by environmentally sensitive areas.

Environmentally sensitive areas currently cover 3·7 per cent. of the agricultural land in England. Proposals I announced last month to create 12 new environmentally sensitive areas will more than treble the area covered.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the fact that so many parts of the country are queueing up for ESA status is a tribute to him and to the usefulness of such areas? When will he announce the extension of existing areas? Will he consider sympathetically inclusion of the Penwith moors in that list?

I hope to announce the extensions soon after we resume after Christmas. I thank my hon. Friend for his compliments. The House should note that the system of environmentally sensitive areas, invented in this country by this Government, is now being copied by almost every other country in the European Community. We are leading in the European Community, rather than allowing others to lead us.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

Today Scottish trade unions are lobbying the Scottish Office to support full employment policies. Is the Prime Minister aware that in the year since he took office Scottish dole queues have lengthened by a further 28,000, leaving almost 250,000 Scots without work and leaving him with an even worse record than his predecessor, the former first lady of mass unemployment? Does he agree that the price being paid by 2·5 million unemployed this Christmas is too high, and that if a price has to be paid for the economic mess that our country is in, it should be paid in full by himself and his ragbag of right hon. Friends?

In the period of this Parliament, unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency has fallen by 39 per cent. But I appreciate that every job lost is a personal tragedy for the person involved. The latest figures show that the increase in unemployment is continuing to slow down. Vacancies at November are now at their highest level for some time. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind what is happening elsewhere: unemployment has risen in all the Community countries except the Netherlands, in every country of the European Free Trade Association, and in every G7 country except Japan. That is a reflection of the fact that the world economy is slowing down. The hon. Gentleman would address the problem more accurately were he to acknowledge that fact.

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

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

Now that it is clear that pre-Christmas Sunday trading has simply been a stalking horse for all-year Sunday trading, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating stores such as House of Fraser, C and A, and Marks and Spencer which have upheld Sunday trading laws and refused to break them? Will he condemn those who have flouted the law simply for commercial gain?

As the hon. Gentleman knows from previous exchanges in the House, following the appeal to the European Court the present law is unclear and no one is entirely certain what the correct law is at present. As the Attorney-General explained to the House some time ago, the law is not suspended and local authorities, who have the primary duty of enforcing the law, should decide their own course of action. I believe that, under existing provisions, that is the only way to handle the matter.

rose—

Order. As I inadvertently called two hon. Members from the Opposition Benches, I shall call Sir Peter Tapsell.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's raising of German interest rates, at a time when the German economy is in a different stage of its economic cycle from that of France, Britain and the United States, illustrates the great difficulties of a single European currency? Is it not extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition is incapable of understanding that we might frequently find that monetary and interest rate policies were wholly inappropriate to the requirements of this country if we join a single European currency?

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and one which is especially relevant when the divergence in the performance of the economies of Europe is still so great. If and when there is convergence on a whole range of issues, circumstances may change, but we are certainly many years away from that.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the news that mortgage lenders are introducing a package to assist people who are in difficulty with their mortgages will be commended throughout the country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is not something that has arisen in the past few days, but has been carefully negotiated by the Government over many weeks?

My hon. Friend is right about that. We have been pursuing proposals for some time. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has had a number of discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders and others, and he will be announcing a package of measures later this afternoon.

Is it not clear from today's awful rise in unemployment to more than 2·5 million that the recession is continuing? Since the Government obviously have no idea what to do about it, will the Prime Minister give me an undertaking that he will call a general election very early in the new year?

I will give the right hon. Gentleman no such undertaking; nor did he expect me to. What is clear is that the rate of increase in unemployment is beginning to slow, and that is very welcome. The figures are quite clear about that. Also, job vacancies are rising, unit wage costs are falling and productivity is continuing to improve. That is what will make us more competitive and what will create more jobs. It is not a short-term problem; it is a matter that we have to get right to ensure the long-term prosperity of this country.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister is continuing to run away from the electorate. Since the right hon. Gentleman became Prime Minister, 800,000 jobs have been lost, 80,000 homes have been repossessed, and 45,000 businesses have failed. That is the record of a completely discredited Government—a Government who must go, and quickly.

The right hon. Gentleman has no policies whatever to deal with employment. His jobs tax would cost 50,000 jobs; his strikes charter would cost jobs and lose orders; the sweatshop mentality on the Opposition Front Bench would risk losing the 450,000 jobs that have come in; their minimum wage policy would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs; and the abolition, one way or another, of the trade union legislation that we have produced would reintroduce the difficulties that we faced in the 1960s and 1970s. The right hon. Gentleman's policies would reintroduce the levels of unemployment that we saw in the 1930s.

When the Government came into power unemployment was 1·25 million. At the time of the last general election, unemployment was going down. The right hon. Gentleman has spent the past two years as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister. In that time he has put unemployment up by nearly 1 million, so he can offer us no lectures on the subject of unemployment.

I can certainly inform the right hon. Gentleman about matters that he does not seem to understand. Unemployment has risen in virtually every western country in the past decade. Many of the major industrial countries have seen unemployment increase—[Interruption.]

Order. That is a terrible noise to make.

It is clear that the Opposition Whips have been active. Unemployment has been rising in the United States, Italy, France and Canada, and in every country of the European Community. Only the right hon. Gentleman believes that we can be insulated from what is happening throughout the world.

As the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, is retiring at the end of the month, would it not be appropriate on behalf of the House and of all parties for my right hon. Friend to record our gratitude and appreciation for a fine international servant?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in that tribute, which I think is the united view of the House. Mr. Perez de Cuellar has had a lengthy and distinguished record as Secretary-General and the House would wish to record its appreciation of his activities and those of his personal representative in securing the release of so many hostages.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

The Prime Minister approves of the obscene pay rises and profits made by the privatised monopolies. Does he also approve of the scandalous racketeering by the gas, electricity and British Telecom undertakings in imposing huge standing charges, which often amount to more than 50 per cent. of the bill for the most vulnerable people in our society and are causing millions of pensioners and poor people to face a cold and miserable Christmas? Does he have any compassion at all? Will he take steps to abolish standing charges or is he the Scrooge of the 1990s?

I see that the Christmas spirit has descended upon the hon. Gentleman a little early. Standing charges have often been discussed in the House. The difficulty is that their abolition would have a direct relationship to an increase in unit costs, which would bear most heavily on many of the people who are most in need. Therefore, it is not a way to help people who are particularly in need. Many would suffer from that change.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that practically everyone in the House welcomes his initiative on repossessions, no matter what political claptrap we may hear later? The main problem is the dead hand of local authorities, which keep tens of thousands of properties empty. Is it not time for an initiative to make local authorities hand over their property to housing associations, and could regional ombudsman be set up for that purpose?

In a few moments my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will set out our detailed proposals to deal with the problem of repossessions. If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not trail that in advance. My hon. Friend's point about local authorities in terms of voids and, often, delays in letting is a genuine problem. Performance is patchy in different parts of the country. In many inner-city areas, typically though not exclusively run by Labour councils, the policies followed mean that many properties are left empty unnecessarily when many people could safely live in them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

On the day when the Prime Minister's unemployment figures have gone over 2·5 million, will he consider the training and employment needs of adults with learning difficulties, and people over 19 with mental handicaps whom he and his Government have abandoned? Will he consider in particular the training workshop recycling products in my constituency, Track 2000 in Splott, whose income was ended as a result of his cuts in employment training, where the trainers, who are on the dole, and the trainees, who do not get a training allowance, are coming in voluntarily? People are still being referred to the centre by social services because there is nowhere else for them to go. What does the Prime Minister propose to do about that?

If the hon. Gentleman were genuinely concerned about employment and training, he would be prepared to condemn the Trades Union Congress boycott of employment action, youth training, and training and enterprise councils, but neither he nor his party has done so. In the coming year, about 1 million people will be helped through employment and training programmes to get back to work. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are spending on training and enterprise two and a half times as much in real terms as the last Labour Government. When they left office, they were training 6,000 people a year. This year, we shall be training 260,000.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to notice this week substantial orders from abroad for British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce and Govan Shipbuilders? Is it not churlish that Labour Members have not welcomed any of those orders?

Yes, I welcome the substantial orders that have been received and I was pleased to see that in the past few days a number of them have come here. The special order for Govan will be particularly welcome. It is a shame that Opposition Members utterly neglect to welcome the successes of this country and take every opportunity to run them down as well as the prospects of the country.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

What single word would the Prime Minister use to describe his Chancellor of the Exchequer?

He is a very good Chancellor.