To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking on proposals for new EC legislation or regulations on nutritional supplements; and if he will make a statement.

We are currently consulting all the interests concerned on a Commission discussion paper on possible controls. Our response to the Commission's paper will be formulated in the light of that detailed consultation.

Is the Minister aware of the continuing concern among natural health therapists and others about the inadequate consultation so far by the Government on this important matter and of the allegations of serious omissions and inaccuracies in the Denner report, which was supposed to be based on previous consultations? In view of the fears expressed about the possibility of serious restrictions being placed on the availability of certain nutritional supplements as a result of the new EC regulations, will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will conduct far wider and genuine consultations on the discussion paper that has been produced by the European Commission?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we conducted wide discussions on Dr. Denner's excellent report which was the basis for consultation. We consulted more than 160 separate organisations on that. We now have an EC discussion paper and we shall consult all those organisations as well. Everyone—and anyone—is invited to make representations to us. I urge people to talk to us as quickly as possible so that we can have meaningful discussions in the EC. We shall continue to consult organisations as the negotiations progress.

Is not the problem for my hon. Friend that there are so many diverse views on nutritional supplements that it is hard to know from which set of experts one should take advice? From which set of experts will he take advice in this respect? Will it be the organised medical practitioners as we know them today or those who are practising in the area? Their views are as relevant as anyone's.

I accept that many experts have a relevant view here. Let me state a couple of fundamental principles that we hold dear. We believe that anyone who wants to buy mineral pills or vitamin supplements has the right to buy them, provided that they are safe. On the other hand, I strongly believe that if people consume a normal, adequate and balanced diet, they should receive almost all the vitamins that they need, unless they are under doctor's orders. As I said to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we shall consult widely all the various interests and, no doubt, other European countries will receive representations from manufacturers, from users and from suppliers.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about levels of employment within the agricultural industry.

The 1991 census of agricultural holdings showed that the number employed in agriculture in June 1991 was 628,000, a decline of 2 per cent. from June 1990.

I thank the Minister for the information that he has given the House. Does he agree that farmers and farmworkers are the backbone of rural communities? Is he aware that this year their numbers have declined by about 9,000? Is the Minister also aware that, in my area of Lothian, since the Government gained office, roughly one third of farmworkers have lost their jobs? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he proposes to do about that?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that increasing productivity in agriculture has been a feature in the past, both in good years and in bad. Employment has gone down only 11 per cent. in 10 years and a great deal of that is due to higher productivity. The hon. Gentleman asked what we would do about that fall in employment. The first thing we must do is to defeat the MacSharry proposals that target British farm workers, and particularly those relating to sheepmeat, which represent a direct attack on those who work in British agriculture—not merely those who own or rent farms but those employed on them. That is our first priority.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the whole thrust of the proposals, as they are currently based, directly discriminates against efficiency? Will he undertake that when he and my right hon. Friend the Minister go to Brussels next week for that crucial meeting, they will continue to fight for British agriculture as a whole and not bend over backwards to please MacSharry, as the Opposition would do?

I give my hon. Friend that pledge with a great deal of enthusiasm. We have always fought for all the people employed in British agriculture, whatever their status. It is particularly important that we have the support of everyone in the House. We must recognise that many people who earn relatively modest wages and who are essential to the rural economy will be the first to be put at risk by those proposals. We will fight them.

Can the Minister explain why 10,000 full-time farmers left the land last year? There is no point in blaming MacSharry, because that happened last year.

It has been happening all the time and, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, it has been happening constantly. Even in the best years for agriculture, people have been leaving the land because the trend is towards larger units, maximising productivity and getting the best out of the work force. I cannot stand here and guarantee that we can halt that long-term consolidation of holdings in agriculture. No Minister in the European Community could do that. We will do our best to ensure that we maintain a sensible, profitable structure for agriculture in the United Kingdom in the interests of all those employed by it and involved in it.

Does my hon. Friend accept that with falling net incomes, particularly in the hills, and diminishing employment prospects, everyone on the Conservative Benches wishes him well for the negotiations in Europe? We cannot possibly accept the MacSharry proposals as they stand because they discriminate against British farming more than anything else.

My right hon. Friend and I have spelt that that out categorically in meeting after meeting. We shall continue to do that until Mr. MacSharry understands it.

Does the Minister appreciate that, today, 25 farm workers will lose their jobs and 14 farmers will be forced off the land? Does he appreciate that for every single day that he and his right hon. Friend have been in office in Whitehall place, we have similarly lost 25 farm workers and 14 farmers? Have they no conscience about that? Do they not feel any personal responsibility? It is simply not good enough to blame MacSharry, because his proposals, bad as they are, have not yet affected British agriculture.

The hon. Gentleman would know if he had addressed as many farmers' organisations as I have that the first question farmers ask is how we can deal with the uncertainty of the MacSharry proposals, which now confront us. We know that there are other uncertainties, such as GATT, which represents an equally difficult problem. What happens eventually in eastern Europe will also present just as much difficulty for our farmers.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the planned expansion of environmentally sensitive areas.

In my statement to the House of 15 January, I explained the steps that I had taken to improve the first five environmentally sensitive areas designated in 1987, my plans for reviewing this year those ESAs designated in 1988, including any boundary adjustments, and my timetable for designating a further 12 areas this year and in 1993.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the new, enhanced payments for those who take up ESAs and the improvements in the scheme are widely welcomed by the farmers concerned? Does he agree that the scheme must remain voluntary if it is to retain its value? Will he, if it remains voluntary, reassure farmers who would like to take up the scheme that the payments will not be reduced during the period for which they take it up—that is, for five or even 10 years? Does he appreciate that the great advantage of the scheme in the Somerset Levels, which I represent and where I live, is that all parties interested in the conservation of the wildlife and landscape of the area are sitting down and talking together? That represents a great advance and we believe that, in the long term, something valuable will come of that.

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a major advantage of the situation, which is that conservationists and farmers in environmentally sensitive areas are learning to work together. I hope that the changes in the Somerset Levels will do a great deal to ensure that the area is much improved for wading birds. We are watching the situation carefully to make sure that that is the effect.

How much money will be put into the 12 new areas by the Treasury?

As I have announced, total spending will be about —65 million a year. A large amount of new money will go into the new areas. When we have completed the prescriptions, we shall be able to give a detailed account of how much will be spent in each ESA, so that details of the total amount will be in the public domain.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times English lamb has been hijacked in France: and if he will make a statement.

Since June 1990, there have been 16 such incidents in France involving British lamb exports.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I congratulate him on his robust stance in defence of British farmers, particularly those producing lamb, in stark contrast to the attitude of Labour Members, who wobble on everything. Indeed, had they been defending British farmers, particularly, those producing lamb, they would have achieved only a load of jelly—and red at that.

My hon. Friend has a characteristically robust way of demanding our continued support for British lamb producers. I am sure that he was as pleased as I was that the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), spent some time last week promoting British lamb in the middle of France. I hope that, as a result, the French will eat a great deal more of our lamb, which is the best in the world.

I remind the Minister that we also have some excellent Welsh lamb, much of which comes from my constituency in the Vale of Glamorgan. Is he aware that had the Government encouraged investment in slaughtering facilities, we would not be exporting the jobs that are now being lost?

This is one issue on which the hon. Gentleman might have commenced his supplementary question by saying that most people in Wales are pleased with the way in which the Government have fought for the British lamb industry as a whole and that Welsh consignments have been fought for, too. The hon. Gentleman has been singularly silent in the battle.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we in Britain import more agricultural produce from France than we export to France? Does he agree that it is good that the British farming community is not as violent as appears to be the case on the continent? Does he further agree that that speaks volumes for the decency of the British farming community, which does not react in kind to French imports?

I congratulate the British farming industry on keeping its temper at times when it could easily have boiled over and reciprocated. That has brought a great deal of success, because the French Government are now taking the tough measures that we have been pressing on them for 10 years. That major success is a result of the British farming industry's behaviour.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to oblige food companies to label meat according to the method of production.

All food labelling is controlled by the European Commission. Britain cannot unilaterally compel meat companies to show the method of production on the label unless the majority of member states agree.

No, but we can make an effort, can we not, to persuade our European colleagues to join us in that. What effort has the Minister made so far? If he is really concerned about consumer choice and the gross excesses of the factory farming industry, proper labelling is an effective and cheap way to deal with them.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to a policy of informative labelling. That is why we are following the advice of our independent Food Advisory Committee to explore a voluntary, standardised, humane labelling system. We are actively pursuing that now.

Would not the simplest advice to the British public be that they should always buy British beef, pork and veal? There will then be no chance of contamination.

For a whole host of reasons, yes Sir.

Why is there such a gulf between the Minister's actions and his words? Are not consumers still being denied freedom of choice, resulting in delays in the introduction of more humane systems of husbandry? Will the Minister confirm that he has no intention of taking meaningful action, but that he is afraid to say so because an election is coming up?

It really is not good enough for a spokesman for the official Opposition to come here in spite, without reading the official report by the independent advisory committee. That report says:

"We do not recommend a requirement to indicate animal rearing methods on foods labels …we therefore recommend that the possibility of drawing up a standard system, which clearly defines terms to indicate welfare-orientated rearing methods, should be considered".

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in determining the future provision of meat inspection services; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are currently considering the findings of the recent review of meat hygiene enforcement and will announce their decision as soon as possible.

Does my hon. Friend accept the need to harmonise not only the standards but the costs of meat inspection? Why is Great Britain the only country in the Community to impose full economic cost recovery? So long as that situation continues, the British meat and livestock industry will be placed at a severe competitive disadvantage.

Because of the EC directive on the harmonisation of charges, which Britain, as usual, has implemented fairly and expeditiously, the meat inspection regime is not properly harmonised. That is one of the reasons why British inspection costs impose a higher burden on our producers. We must consider that when we look at an alternative structure for the present arrangements for meat hygiene inspection.

Is the Minister aware that, before I came to this place, I served for many years on a local authority as chairman of the environmental health committee, which had a wonderful section for meat inspection? Because the Government and Conservative Members supported the poll tax, local authority meat inspection is in difficulty. Conservative Members should stop appearing before the cameras attacking the Labour party's policies and, instead, start to do their jobs properly, enabling local authorities to provide proper meat inspection facilities in the interests of the community. They should get off their backsides and let us see what they intend to do about it.

As usual, the hon. Gentleman has made an interesting point. However, there is one wee flaw that I shall draw to his attention—all local authorities have full cost recovery on their meat inspection systems. The Government have taken no action to limit the authorities' scope for charging. That is the problem of which my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) spoke; many Labour-controlled local authorities charge way over the oddds.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has raised an urgent and important issue? We have been struggling for years with an inadequate meat hygiene inspection system and we need, as soon as possible, to replace it with a centralised system that will guarantee high standards and uniform costs. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the House a commitment on the timing of that replacement. That change would be in the best interests of the meat industry, the consumer and animal welfare.

My hon. Friend has made a good point. I would defend the system by saying that it is not inadequate in that it certainly guarantees quality and safety in this country, but it leaves much to be desired in that it is diverse and scattered throughout hundreds of different local authorities. The changing EC directives have placed responsibilities on the Government. We are currently considering all viewpoints, and I can assure my hon. Friend that when we are in a position to announce our final decision, we shall do so as speedily as possible.

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

We have regular meetings with representatives of the poultry industry.

When the Minister next meets representatives of the industry, what will his answer be if they tell him that our poultry meat inspection charges are not subsidised, unlike those of our European Community competitors? That means an extra 4p a pound on poultry meat to British farmers, with the result that 18 per cent. of poultry meat is imported into this country. The disadvantages placed on the industry mean that it costs our farmers 5p a dozen more to produce eggs. Are the Government trying to ruin our industry at a time when 18 per cent. of poultry meat is imported and we have a food trade deficit of more than £6 billion—the worst deficit of any industry in this country?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has not quite got his figures right on imports. We are 98 per cent. self-sufficient in poultry meat, although there has been an increase in imports of whole frozen chickens, which have penetrated the market. That happened in 1990, not last year, when the figures were relatively stable. It is true that the industry has to bear some costs. The House will have heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said about the poultry meat inspection charges. We have to impose charges when dealing with salmonella. It would be irresponsible not to guarantee to the consumer that British products are absolutely safe to eat. I have no doubt that those same consumers, when exercising their choice about what to buy, will want to be absolutely sure that products imported to the United Kingdom have had to undergo precisely the same levels of checks and monitoring as products exported from the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend will be aware of concern in the poultry industry about meat inspection. There is a difference in price of 4p a pound in poultry meat due to inspection charges. Will my hon. Friend press the Treasury to sort out the issue of the cost of meat inspection to ensure that the thousands of jobs presently at risk in the poultry industry will be made secure?

The complaint about meat inspections in the United Kingdom is that the charges levied by different local authorities vary widely. Some of the overall costs are due to meat inspections, but not all of them. It is important to recognise, too, that there are certain structural problems in the industry; but, above all, we must tackle the problem of the failure of the French to observe the rules effectively and their failure to employ enough inspectors. We have opened discussions with Mr. MacSharry on that, we are pushing the Community for urgency on the zoonoses regulations, and the Commission has before it a proposal to overhaul the meat inspection and meat hygiene directive. We shall push on all those matters in the interests of the United Kingdom poultry industry.

If the Minister holds meetings on the poultry industry, why does not his hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, agree to meet me to discuss the case of my constituent Mr. Johnston, a duck producer from Sharnidubs, who has been shabbily treated by the Ministry? Does the Minister understand that the arrogance and insensitivity of his hon. Friend, who has not agreed to a meeting for about four months now, has been noted not just by Mr. Johnston but by every farmer in the north-east of Scotland?

The hon. Member's limited range of adjectives will have been noted by everyone in the House. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has said that he will always defend the Department's policies in this House; he will do so whenever challenged to.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has had to his recent policy document "Our Farming Future".

"Our Farming Future" has been widely acknowledged as a realistic and helpful statement of the Government's approach to the challenges facing the farming industry in the 1990s.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how useful, helpful and informative many farmers have found the document "Our Farming Future"? That is because it demonstrates how poorly British farmers co-operate to sell their products—I hope that my right hon. Friend's marketing grants will assist with that problem—and spells out in words of one syllable that the British farmer will not be discriminated against in Europe.

I thank my hon. Friend. I think that he will agree that "Our Farming Future" could cover only the factors over which we have real control. The decisions that will be made on the common agricultural policy and on the GATT talks will be those which most affect farmers in the future. I want to get those decisions as quickly as possible, but they must be the right decisions because unless they are, the future of British farming will be under a cloud.

Is the Minister aware that there are at least three farmers in the Bolsover area whose future is bleak? Since June of last year two of them have not been allowed to sell their milk because it is contaminated with dioxins. The Minister has promised on several occasions to ensure that the matter is cleared up. He has received a letter from one of the farmers which I sent him a few days ago. It is time he responded and paid compensation to those farmers, and allowed them to get on with earning their livelihood, instead of telling them that there is nothing for them from the Ministry of Agriculture.

No one would have guessed from that question that every one of the farmers affected has been paid regularly while we carry out the necessary tests to discover what has caused the problem. I have never known a Member of Parliament so unwilling to accept the work that has been done by the Ministry on behalf of his constituents.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will not be much of a farming future unless British farmers improve their marketing arrangements so that they can compete with foreign imports?

I am sure that that is right. Many farmers are taking that message seriously. I compliment the National Farmers Union on bringing out an adventurous scheme to complement what the Government are doing and what farmers are doing. The whole industry is determined to make these changes, and the recent announced by the Milk Marketing Board of its determination to change its own structure is yet another example of an entirely new and welcome move in the industry.

In view of the exhortation by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) a few minutes ago that we should buy British when we buy food, I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House what representations he has received from the Ministry of Defence on his consultation document? Can he further explain to the House how the Ministry of Defence justifies importing thousands of tonnes of beef from South America to feed our forces when we have almost 1 million tonnes in intervention in Europe?

I find it a little difficult to take that kind of question from an hon. Gentleman who said that we ought to eat New Zealand apples and refuse to eat British sausages. That aspect of the hon. Gentleman's role is very difficult to take. I also find it difficult to take from somebody who has said that farmers have not done too badly. Farmers have been rather lucky, he said in a broadcast today. The hon. Gentleman has ceased to have any credibility in the farming industry. I am happy to tell him that my right hon. Friend is now looking to see whether there are better ways of sourcing Ministry of Defence needs among British and other European farmers.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress made so far in reforming the European Community's common agricultural policy.

Discussions on CAP reform in the Agriculture Council are continuing. The next meeting of the Council is on Monday.

What does my right hon. Friend think that people would say when they got their weekend grocery shopping if there was a little item on the end of the bill which read, "This bill includes £18 hidden subsidy, the result of the CAP"? Will he be having any talks with the Cairns group of countries, which involves major food producers such as Australia and New Zealand and is dedicated to getting rid of all subsidies, tariffs and quotas which put extra costs on food, and getting good-quality, cheap food back on the shelves—policies from which our farmers have absolutely nothing to fear?

If such an item were included on the bill, the customer could take the salesperson to the courts for misuse of trade descriptions. Such a bill would be entirely fallacious. It is entirely based upon the fraudulent suggestion that, if we did not support agriculture, the prices now obtaining in the world at large would be our prices. Of course they would not; they are dumped prices as a result of support, and they would not obtain. Therefore, any housewife who receives such a bill should complain to the courts.

Does the Minister agree that, if the general agreement on tariffs and trade talks are concluded successfully and there is subsequent reform of the common agricultural policy, there is a great chance for an increase in production in the intensive sector in the pig and poultry industry once we gain access to cheap grain from the United States?

All kinds of suggestions could be made as to what would be the effect of the major changes which GATT and the CAP reform would bring about. I am not sure that what the right hon. Gentleman says is true. The way to deal with the international support system at the moment is to reduce it right across the board—for all support systems to be reduced at a speed which farmers can bear and which bears on different types of farmers equally, both within the Community and as between the Community and our competitors in the United States. What worries me at the moment about the proposals is that there is discrimination not only against the United Kingdom but against Europe in the way in which the Commission is carrying out the negotiations with the United States.

Farmers in Calder valley need continuity, as do farmers all over Europe. Will my right hon. Friend and his Department therefore spend a great deal of time in the next six months talking to our friends the Portuguese through the Portuguese presidency, so that they may adopt a sensible policy which we can then follow?

As Britain will assume the presidency next, we are carefully discussing with the Portuguese how we should proceed with common agricultural policy reform. We cannot bring that about successfully until we know what is to happen with the GATT agreement. It must come first, and then we can implement it through a sensible reform policy that encourages farmers to get closer to the market, helps them with environmentally friendly farming, does not discriminate against the United Kingdom, helps those in the less-favoured areas and gives early retirement to those who are prepared to restructure their farms.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many miles of hedgerow he expects to be planted in the United Kingdom over each of the next three years.

I cannot forecast future plantings, but between 1984 and 1990, some 16,000 miles of hedgerow were planted in the United Kingdom.

That is a disappointing answer. Does the Minister accept that the Government have continually prevaricated about encouraging the planting of new hedgerows? Is it not time that they devised a positive policy, to ensure that the many thousands of miles of hedgerows that were grubbed up or allowed to go to waste over the years are replaced? Hedgerows are an important source of protection for flora and fauna, and it is sad that the Government have not dealt with that situation in a positive and effective way.

I am somewhat doubtful about a concrete policy for hedgerows. Apart from that, the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that the Government have for a number of years, under the farm and conservation grants scheme, provided a 40 per cent. rate of aid for new hedgerows. We are committed to legislating as soon as possible on a new scheme to protect hedgerows and to notify the intention to grub up. Meanwhile, the Countryside Commission is to introduce a national hedgerow management scheme this year. Add to that the various set-aside programmes, and the hon. Gentleman will find that agriculture's mood has changed towards amenity, and that, over the coming years, he will have greater cause for satisfaction.

I welcome the Government's measure to protect hedgerows and their management, but among the worst offenders in grubbing up hedgerows are local highway authorities. What advice does my hon. Friend the Minister have for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and local authorities, to ensure that, wherever possible, hedgerows are protected, since they can endure at least as long as roads?

I will draw the suggestions that have been made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Our advice is that, where hedgerows are to be replaced, they should not be substituted just with a row of quickthorn between two strands of barbed wire, but with a mixed, proper, traditional hedge—which would be much better for the environment and habitat.

The action taken through the farm and conservation grants scheme is most welcome, in terms of hedgerow planting. However, is it not the case that, under the present Government, thousands of miles of hedgerows have been lost over the years? Although the Government promise action to preserve hedgerows, they have not produced proposals for a hedgerow protection Bill. Is it not the case that when it comes to positive action and real decisions, the Government are always in the pocket of the landowners?

This Government have done more than any of their predecessors to put the environment at the top of the agricultural agenda. Ours is the only Government who have as a priority in our negotiations in Brussels the provision that all subsidies should be subject to some form of environmental assessment. I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in believing that it is important that we develop such a policy—but neither he nor I, nor anyone else, can say that any particular state of agriculture is frozen. We must ensure that farmers realise that it is in their interests to restore the habitat and hedges. Everyone benefits from profitable and efficient agriculture, and from an amenity that we can all enjoy.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what specific grants are available to farmers to encourage the adoption of environmentally sound practices on agriculture.

My Department offers a number of grants to farmers that encourage the adoption of environmentally sound practices. Those and all other grants available from other statutory organisations are listed in our booklet "Conservation and Diversification Grants for Farmers".

Does my right hon. Friend agree that farmers are caught in a pincer movement between the National Rivers Authority, which threatens prosecution of farmers who use more fertiliser on their land to increase productivity, and the banks, which are increasing their interest rates on loans to farmers, because they are considered a bad risk? Will my right hon. Friend, in his role as David against the EC Goliath, do his best to increase the grants available to farmers, so that, if they practise green policies, they will get their rewards?

A clearly stated aim of our debates in the European Community is the placing of environmentally sensitive farming at the centre of the reform of the common agricultural policy. We want to see the environment as a central theme, not as an "add-on extra"— a complementary series of measures, as proposed by Mr. MacSharry. That is one of the major changes in the MacSharry proposals that we intend to secure.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he was eight and I was a little older, Her Majesty the Queen acceded to the throne? Will he join me in expressing our deep respect, our loyal affection and our good wishes to Her Majesty on the 40th anniversary of her accession?

I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's invitation. The Cabinet discussed the matter this morning, and the whole House may care to listen to the message that the Cabinet agreed to send Her Majesty:

"At the Cabinet meeting today, Your Majesty's Ministers agreed that I should convey to Your Majesty our warmest good wishes on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Your Accession to the Throne. This was in recognition of the incomparable contribution Your Majesty has made to the life of our nation throughout your Reign."

Hear, hear.

May I join the Prime Minister—and, I am sure, the whole House—in sending good wishes to Her Majesty, and in expressing the admiration that I know is felt throughout our country, the Commonwealth and, indeed, the wider world for the wisdom, strength and dedication that Her Majesty has invariably shown throughout the four decades in which she has been our sovereign?

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman speaks for all our millions of fellow citizens.

May I—[Laughter.]

Order. Mr. Kinnock.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of countries around the world are in recession, are heading towards recession or are coming out of recession. According to the latest figures, Australia, New Zealand and Sweden are at the moment in recession. In the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, the worst of the recession is over; in West Germany and Japan, growth has slowed and is slowing.

There are economies that are slowing; ours is in reverse because of the Prime Minister's policies.

Every one of the right hon. Gentleman's policies would lead to a continuing recession, and that is well known. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that I head a Government who have cut interest rates seven times in the past 12 months, halved inflation in a year and built up the best industrial relations in half a century. The reality, I fear, is that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the economy or how it works. The right conditions for economic growth are low taxes, the right hon. Gentleman wants high taxes; low inflation, the right hon. Gentleman would engender high inflation; and good labour relations, the right hon. Gentleman would reintroduce the old, bad trade union practices. Everything that the right hon. Gentleman proposes would lead to the perpetual recession of which I spoke on Tuesday.

May I revert to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant)? I speak as Father of the House. Is it not a matter of great rejoicing, wherever we may sit in the House, that throughout the past 40 years, which have seen such momentous changes as the peaceful transition from empire to Commonwealth, the ending of the cold war and the coming together of former enemies in the European Community, Her Majesty has presided over this nation unfailingly, with a dignity and devotion to duty for which we are all greatly thankful?

My right hon. Friend is right and speaks with the authority of many years' membership of the House. One of the most striking facts of the Commonwealth, as I saw clearly at the Commonwealth conference in Harare, is the immense affection and admiration that exists for Her Majesty the Queen among all Commonwealth leaders and countries.

May I associate myself, my right hon. and hon. Friends and our party with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister on the 40th anniversary of Her Majesty's accession to the throne?

I believe that the whole House will share the right hon. Gentleman's view on both the matters that he raised. The recent activities—the shooting of five men and the wounding of others the other evening—were another terrible and unnecessary scar on the history of Northern Ireland. It would greatly assist the activities in Northern Ireland and the search for peace if the clearest possible lead was given by all politicians in this country and Northern Ireland.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his message from the Cabinet and Government. Is he aware of early day motion 580, already signed by 165 hon. Members, which expresses the views of Back Benchers and their loyalty and congratulations to Her Majesty? It does not include members of the Cabinet or Government, or of the shadow Cabinet, and, unfortunately, is not even allowed to include Parliamentary Private Secretaries. Will my right hon. Friend please convey that message to Her Majesty?

My hon. Friend expresses sentiments that are shared by the whole House.

May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the tribute paid by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen, and may I join in the other congratulations already expressed?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I shall ensure that Her Majesty is aware of what has been said.

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister's remarks about Queen Elizabeth II? Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that if politicians in Northern Ireland had been sitting at a table, the awful atrocities that we have witnessed in the past few days would not have taken place? If he and this House believe that, there is no hope for Northern Irleland.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words about Her Majesty the Queen.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

The latest year for which figures are available on the number of new houses built in the United Kingdom is 1990. A comparison with 1980 shows that 38,000 fewer houses were built in 1990. Why is it the policy of the Government to build fewer houses?

The hon. Gentleman might more accurately have asked which local authorities had the highest number of vacant dwellings. I shall tell him: numbers of vacant dwellings are highest in Liverpool, then in Manchester, then in Salford, then in Burnley, then in Brent, then in Hackney, then in Tower Hamlets, then in Knowsley, then in Newcastle and then in Wolverhampton. The characteristic of all those areas is that for a long time they have been Labour controlled, although Conservatives have been in control in Brent for the past year and the Liberal Democrats have recently been in control in Tower Hamlets. There is no doubt which party fails people on housing.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the remarks of Sir Brian Corby, the president of the CBI, who said that to sign the social charter would be an act of remarkable lunacy? Does he agree that, if we signed the social chapter, employers' costs would rise and jobs and foreign investment would disappear, all of which would be bad for this country?

I most certainly agree with that view, which is why I declined to sign the social chapter. I believe that it would cost jobs and cost prosperity in this country. It is noticeable that a number of other politicians abroad have made it perfectly clear that this country becomes a more attractive place for investment—and therefore for jobs and prosperity—because we are not committed to the costs of the social chapter.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

Why have pensions dropped from 20 per cent. of average earnings to 16 per cent. under the Tories? Does the Prime Minister believe that pensioners were paid too much in 1979, or will he express regret at that meanness and raise pensions in line with Labour's plans?

The hon. Gentleman should look at history. If he talks about pensioners, he should let the facts speak for themselves: under the previous Labour Government, the real average income of pensioners rose by only 3 per cent. and their income from savings fell by 16 per cent. The Labour party had no place for pensioners in the past and no promises that it can properly meet for the future.

The Prime Minister will no doubt have noticed the interesting exception that President Bush made in his state of the union message to Congress, when he said that his Government were too big and spent too much. The exception was that he proposed to maintain research expenditure at the record level of $77 billion and to make permanent the fiscal allowances for research and development. If my right hon. Friend should be considering with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor any largesse over the next two or three weeks, will he ensure that a few crumbs from the Treasury table fall in that direction?

My hon. Friend will know that there was a real-terms increase in the science and technology budget this year, a point that has been readily acknowledged by scientists up and down the country. As for potential largesse, there is no lack of applications for any that there might be.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

May I thank the Prime Minister for allowing his Ministers to vote as they wish on the Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill on Friday 14 February, St. Valentine's day? If the Bill is passed, it will stop the massacre of harmless creatures like deer, hares and foxes. No one expects the Prime Minister to be here to vote on Friday 14 February, but will he tell the House and the country whether he supports the abolition of fox hunting, deer hunting and hare coursing? I hope that his answer is yes.

It is a matter for the individual conscience of every hon. Member, which is precisely why I am allowing a free vote by my Ministers on the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill in question goes a good deal wider than just the matters that he has been addressing. Because it goes a good deal wider, I will not myself be supporting it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend send a message today to the leaders of the National Association of Local Government Officers who are spending some £2 million on a shoddy and inaccurate advertising campaign, telling them that their policies of abandoning competitive tendering, abolishing the Audit Commission and introducing a minimum wage would be acceptable only to a party which has already sold its soul to the trade union bosses?

My hon. Friend makes a very sound point. It is clear that the advertisements appearing today show that now, as in the past, the Labour party remains in hock to the trade unions.