To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent initiatives he has announced concerning animal welfare.

I intend to make animal welfare one of my priorities in the United Kingdom presidency, as I made clear when I wrote to hon. Members on 27 February.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on ensuring that Britain is at the forefront of those countries in Europe that are pressing for improved animal welfare. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that other EC countries emulate our far-reaching rules and regulations to ensure that there is a total ban on veal crates throughout the Community and that the transportation of live animals, particularly horses and ponies, inside the European continent is as stringently controlled as it is in this country under our domestic rules and regulations.

I am sure that, both on veal crates and pig stalls and tethers, the rest of Europe will have to come up to our standards. I am pleased that we have achieved what most people thought that we could not—we have stopped and will continue to stop the export of live horses and ponies. I congratulate all hon. Members on the support that they have given to the Government in fighting that battle. I do not believe that this is a nationalist issue. Horses and ponies in the rest of Europe must have the same sort of protection as they do in this country. I am pleased that the standards on the transport of live animals generally are approaching British standards and are no longer the low standards that once obtained.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is great concern about the quarantine restrictions being lifted on 1 April. Will he clarify the position on pets and dogs? What are the latest developments on foot and mouth in European countries?

We have managed to get the rest of Europe to come up to our standards, get rid of vaccination and introduce a slaughter policy in relation to foot and mouth disease. We already allow animals from countries that have the same policy as us, such as Ireland, to be imported into this country. When the rest of Europe reaches the same standards as us, the same rules will apply. Quite rightly, once we have won the battle to raise everyone's standards so that we all have the same high levels, we can have a single market. We have said clearly that we shall not accept changes in the rules on rabies unless we can have at least the same safeguards as we have today. But we are perfectly prepared to look at scientific evidence—we are not afraid of that. However, we will not make changes unless they benefit the United Kingdom.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the support and praise of all horse lovers for what the Government achieved when securing the continuation of minimum conditions for the export of live horses for slaughter? Will he, however, assure us that he will do all that he can to secure proper transport arrangements for live animals being exported, particularly horses? Will he further assure the House that the same strict safeguards and enforcement of rules on the protection and welfare or horses and other animals that apply in our country will apply in the EC area?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ensured at Maastricht that the British proposals on this matter were passed: first, all countries committed themselves to improving animal welfare, which was a major step forward never agreed between those countries before; and, secondly, in future, the European Court of Justice will be in a position to fine countries that fail to keep their obligations under Community rules. During our presidency we must extend the competence of the Community so that it can ensure that once animal welfare regulations are passed they are enforced—from Spain to Scotland and from Ireland to Greece.

Let me assure the Minister that Labour fully intends to use the opportunities presented by Britain's presidency to make sure that animal welfare is high on the agenda.

It is always dangerous when the hon. Gentleman reads only the first half of a sentence. I told the National Farmers Union that I did not believe that unilateral action would help, because if it is taken, the British housewife tends to buy the cheaper product from the rest of Europe and, therefore, we export animal welfare problems to the rest of Europe. I believe that we should not be nationalistic about animal welfare; we should care for animals in France and Germany as well as for those in Britain.

rose—

Order. We are making slow progress today. Could we please have brief questions and briefer answers?

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990.

The Food Safety Act is working very effectively improving the quality of our food and giving consumers confidence in the integrity of the food supply.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the full implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990 will ensure that Britain is in the forefront of Europe in terms of food safety in years to come? Will he reassure representatives of women's institutes and townswomen's guilds and other voluntary workers that the implementation of the Act is not designed to target their fund-raising activities in the preparation of food in village halls and elsewhere?

I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks, in which he recognised the great step forward that we have taken with the Food Safety Act, but I am concerned about his latter comments. There is nothing in the Food Safety Act that could justify local authorities specially targeting those organisations. The advice of the Government and the Audit Commission is to concentrate on the main risks, and if town halls persist in targeting women's institutes, church fetes, village halls or charity teas, the Government will take action.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the level of production of potatoes.

Estimated potato production in the United Kingdom in 1991 was 6·3 million tonnes.

Does not a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food report show that production of early potatoes fell considerably, and that meant an increase in price? Is not it the case that we do not have widely available anywhere near the diversity of potatoes that is available in other countries, such as the United States? Is not this subject wholly appropriate for the Minister, because his Government have had their chips?

The hon. Gentleman has his facts diametrically wrong. There are 131 varieties of commercial potatoes in the United Kingdom, which is a great deal more than in any other country. I know that because I grow at least a dozen of them in my allotment.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the widespread concern among arable farmers in my constituency about the EC Commission's proposals to review potato marketing. As the Potato Marketing Board has for many years worked successfully for the benefit of processors, consumers and producers, does he agree that any proposals to scrap the PMB should be strongly resisted?

The Potato Marketing Board is doing an excellent job, and we fully support it. Changes introduced a couple of years ago are working well and the aggressive marketing that is now taking place is very much to be desired. We have to face the European proposals and we shall tackle them as we tackle all other European proposals—in the interests of British farmers and British consumers.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet his European agricultural colleagues to discuss reforming the common agricultural policy.

At the next Agriculture Council on 30 and 31 March.

Does the Minister agree that reform of the common agricultural policy—which costs £25 billion a year, consumes 65 per cent. of the Community budget and costs the average British family £17 per week—would be assisted by the introduction of an organic farming policy? Does he recall that more than two years ago he announced that an organic scheme would be introduced in a matter of months? What on earth has happened to that scheme?

As I have said, the European Community has failed to produce the legislation under which we could do that. I have made it clear that the reform must include legislation enabling us to do that. We have led the way in organic farming, both by the introduction of the United Kingdom register of organic food standards and by ensuring that European standards follow British standards. The hon. Gentleman's figures on the payment per family are not correct. One issue that is particularly damaging is the decision by the Labour party that if it were in power it would tax British farmers and give the money to the farmers of Spain, Portugal and Greece.

It is good to give credit where credit is due. Is my hon. Friend aware that he has earned the widespread respect of British farmers by standing up for their interests? Furthermore they know that they can trust him because he will not filch money from the common agricultural policy, as Labour would do, to use it for other purposes. Will he confirm that he does not stand alone in the European Community but that other countries support his firm stand?

I am pleased to say that more and more European Community countries are coming to the views that we have pioneered on reform. I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition has announced that he would take money from British farmers and contribute it to those in southern Europe. That is the wrong way to use common agricultural policy reforms.

After all these years in office, does not the Minister yet understand that the British consumer simply cannot afford the exorbitant cost of the CAP, which does not exactly help the British farmer either? Has not he realised that the CAP is the only agricultural support system under which consumers pay a subsidy to farmers and end up paying more for their food than if they had not paid the subsidy in the first place? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in his swan song at the Dispatch Box, admit that not only has he been the most expensive Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, supporting an increase in CAP spending of 55 per cent., but that, by his failure to get meaningful reform of the CAP, he has been the most unsuccessful one, as well?

The hon. Gentleman is in no position to make any of those comments. His party has now signed up to Mr. MacSharry and his basic philosophy. The Leader of the Opposition has said in the House that CAP reform would mean that he would take money from British farmers and spend it on farmers in southern countries. That has been contradicted by the Labour spokesman on Treasury matters, who has said that his party would take money from British farmers and divert it to regional policy. That has been contradicted by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who has said that he would take money from British farmers with one hand and give part of it back to them with the other. It is the usual example of the Labour party spending money that it does not have and will not get. It proposes to do so three times, and those from whom the money would come would not get any benefit.

Is the Minister aware that the Commissioner for Agriculture is now the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development? A major part of the reform of the CAP is focused on rural development, and that is important for less-favoured areas where there are smaller farms. What steps has the Ministry taken to encourage farmers in those areas to consider alternative land use and to recognise that agriculture policy is no longer about prices only but embraces rural development, rural housing and rural agriculture that is based on their products? Is there a planned approach by the Government to make maximum use of such a policy to develop employment in the poorer rural areas?

Yes, certainly. We oppose Mr. MacSharry's proposals because hardly any farmers will be able to gain by his support for rural development. To Mr. MacSharry, rural development means no help for the farmers of Wales and more help for the farmers of southern Ireland. It means no help for the farmers of Scotland and more help for the farmers of Portugal and Bavaria. That is a divisive policy, not a rural development policy, which would affect countries and areas of the European Community. That is why we oppose it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British farmer is the most efficient farmer in Europe? Does he agree also that the MacSharry proposals will have an extremely damaging effect on the British farmer? Will he do everything to ensure that the recent announcement by the European Community, which reflects the attitude of the French and those who agree with them in respect of the general agreement on tariffs and trade proposals, will not be immensely damaging to British farming and world trade as a whole? Will my right hon. Friend do something about that?

It is most important that we have a GATT solution. Britain, together with most of our partners, made sure that the next step towards that was taken on Monday. The French and one or two other countries were outvoted on that issue.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the implications for United Kingdom agriculture of the MacSharry proposals; and if he will make a statement.

The GATT round is regularly discussed at the Agriculture Council and I expect it to be considered again at the Council on 30 and 31 March.

The Minister obviously recognises that there is continuing concern, not least in Scottish agriculture, including north of Scotland agriculture, about the likely effect of the MacSharry proposals as presently cast. Does he agree that Scottish agriculture, including north of Scotland agriculture, can hardly have been—

The Minister gave the wrong answer.

I am happy to apologise.

I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those two issues are closely connected, but I should like the Minister to say a little more about the specific question that I raised.

It is important to secure the GATT solution first, if we are to have one. That must be done within a reasonable period. Until we know what we have signed up to in GATT, it will be difficult to tell how much we must alter the CAP to meet our obligations. Many alterations will have to be made in any event, and there is no question of CAP reform depending on the GATT solution.

Will my right hon. Friend continue his robust and effective opposition to the MacSharry proposals? Will he bring home to Ministers on the continent the fact that the headage basis would prove devastating for hill and upland farmers in the United Kingdom and will he do everything possible to make those Ministers see our point of view?

The Spanish, Dutch, Danish and Belgian Ministers have now committed themselves to the view that such discrimination is unacceptable. That is a great improvement, and I hope very much that the Commission will soon understand that headage limits do not reduce overproduction but merely discriminate against some of the poorest parts of the United Kingdom. Some of the farmers concerned—especially those in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the backbone of England—suffer particularly from the low prices.

Does the Minister realise the damage that the current MacSharry proposals will do to family farms in my constituency, Vale of Glamorgan? Does he share the concern that I now feel, following my recent meeting with MacSharry, that any MacSharry proposals that include price support will penalise our farmers?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the danger of MacSharry's proposals, particularly in areas such as Wales, which are so dependent on farmers who are not big farmers in the general sense of the term but who need the support that they now have. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman will explain to the Leader of the Opposition that Welsh farmers could not afford to have their incomes cuts so that the money could be spent on Spanish, Greek and Portuguese farmers. That is what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he would do if he were Prime Minister.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he expects to have talks with other European Ministers about GATT.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.

In anticipation of the meeting of the Agriculture Council, will my right hon. Friend re-commit the Government to the search for an equitable basis on which to reduce farm prices within the European Community and worldwide and to reduce trade barriers as well?

I am wholly concerned to fight for the achievement of an equitable GATT solution as rapidly as possible. It must be a solution that reduces prices across the board, not only equitably throughout Europe but in the United States. This is a proper negotiation, in which both sides will have to give ground if we are to achieve a solution. I look to the current discussions, and also to the United States, to give the ground that is needed.

What reassurance can the Minister give the dairy farmers of Monmouthshire that during his discussions on GATT their interests will be protected? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those farmers have seen a decline in their incomes and an increase in their costs, and are worried about their capacity to invest in the future? What reassurance can he give them that they will be able to invest in dairy production in Monmouthshire?

The reassurance is that there will be a Conservative Government to fight for them, and that after the next election they will be represented by a Conservative Member for Monmouth.

Pursuant to the reply that the Minister gave earlier to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy), and as there has been much speculation that there will be no GATT settlement at all this year, will the Minister confirm that, should there be no GATT settlement, he will oppose the MacSharry proposals for the rest of this year?

If there is no GATT settlement, during our presidency we shall seek to achieve the necessary reform of the common agricultural policy. That reform will be based not on the discriminatory attitudes of Mr. MacSharry but on a sensible policy of supporting agriculture fairly throughout the Community, bringing agriculture closer to the market and ensuring that the environment is a central concern of the CAP. It will also ensure that economic farmers are enabled to compete throughout the world. There will have to be specific help for those in the least favoured areas, and particular help for restructuring in the southern countries of Europe.

It is reported on the front page of The Times today that the common agricultural policy—that squalid policy which is costing British families an average of £18·50 a week each—will destroy the world free trade talks, which have been going on for four or five years, and involve just about every country in the world. Is it not clear, in retrospect, that our right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) was absolutely right when she went to Rome in October 1990 and warned our partners that the talks should be about world free trade, and not about cloud cuckoo land—that is, political and economic union, which was doomed to failure in any event?

The fact is that The Times report is not correct. The second fact is that there has been a great deal of obfuscation and obstruction from the United States in the negotiations. It is wholly wrong to suggest that it is the European Community alone which has difficulties with the agriculture dossier. We must both find a way through this, and I demand that we in this country support the Commission in its negotiations, demanding that the United States come further towards us, so that together we can find a solution for the whole world, instead of throwing batons at each other across the Atlantic.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on European Community proposals to restrict the availability of dietary supplements.

The Government will support the continuing availability of safe and clearly labelled products in the forthcoming EC negotiations.

The Government propose to Brussels that the same upper limits be set on dosages of dietary supplements for ordinary consumers buying off the shelves as for professional practitioners of alternative medicine, even though such practitioners may have good reasons for recommending higher doses to their patients. Surely the Government should exempt them. Otherwise, 18 million people who depend on food supplements—including healthy eaters such as yourself, Mr. Speaker—will be discriminated against.

I entirely reject that suggestion. To suggest, as do other countries in the European Community, and the Commission itself, that there could be maximum daily doses of individual tablets prescribed, is not incompatible with saying that the products will continue to be freely available to all those who wish to use them.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has no proposals to set up some absurd bureaucratic organisation to tell farmers what bureaucrats think that people ought to eat, as is proposed by the Labour party?

I entirely agree. The more I read about Opposition policy the more convinced I am that if they were in government there would be no food left to eat in this country. They would adopt ridiculous food safety measures.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure that early payments are made to farmers in respect of hill livestock compensatory allowances in response to the current economic climate.

Payments to farmers under the 1992 hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme have already begun. That will put nearly £150 million into the rural economy.

I thank the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that there is already considerable delay in these payments? As the farming community has suffered a substantial reduction in real income in 1991—to the extent of 17 per cent. of income in the north of Ireland—and that the hill livestock farmer depends very much on such payments at this time of year, will he ensure that these payments and other headage payments are made in accordance with the rules and regulations and thus assist the distraught financial circumstances especially of the small farmer who has been paid scant regard in the House this afternoon?

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We have been paying them in England since 21 February and virtually a third of claims have been met. It is the same in Wales. Almost a third have been met in Northern Ireland and £17.4 million has already been paid out. We cannot pay if farmers do not make the claims. In previous years about 20 per cent. have not claimed until April. If the hon. Gentleman will urge his farmers to ensure that claims are on time, we shall deal with them as soon as humanly possible.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the good farmers of Hexham are grateful for his sincere effort to look after the interests of farmers in the less-favoured areas? However, does he also accept that they are worried about two things—first, proposals to put 50p on a gallon of petrol and, secondly, proposals for environment controls which would strangle them to death—proposals made by the Opposition parties?

I speak to many farmers—large and small —including some in my hon. Friend's constituency. They are terrified by Labour party proposals to create a great new machine spitting out red tape all over the countryside. Labour's planning controls and proposals for access would be directly contrary to the interests of farmers in the United Kingdom.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his Ministry's contribution to the citizens charter.

We are developing citizens charter principles in various sectors of the Ministry and, as part of that, I am today announcing a comprehensive food safety and consumer protection programme.

It is difficult to understand how the Government can claim to be concerned about looking after the welfare of citizens when there has been a fourfold increase in the incidence of food poisoning in the past 10 years. Why do the Government continue to extol the virtues of this obnoxious Gummerburger food culture instead of instituting an independent food standards agency as the Labour Government will do in a few weeks' time?

It used to be that Opposition spokesmen quoted figures that were four years out of date, but the hon. Gentleman depends on statistics that go back 10 years. Let me tell him about the previous 12 months' statistics which increase in the incidence of food poisoning in the past 10 years. Why do the show a decrease in salmonella food poisoning and that the Food Safety Act 1990 is working. For the first time in many years the statistics are going down. I note that the first thing that the Labour party would do in my Department, if it came to power, would be to change the name of MAFF to FAFF.

On food safety, my hon. Friend will be aware of the crippling effect of veterinary inspection charges on chicken-producing companies such as John Rannoch and Sovereign Chicken in my constituency, which are making it impossible for them to compete with their European counterparts. Will he please take the most urgent steps to correct that, because it is not only deeply damaging to companies in my constituency but harmful to the image of the Community?

We shall do our utmost to ensure that we have a level playing field throughout Europe. If my hon. Friend has any evidence that other countries might not be implementing the regulations as carefully as we are, we shall certainly take action. However, at the same time I must say that we have very high welfare and hygiene standards in this country. That guarantees that the consumer feels safe with our food supply and that is in the best interests of all our chicken producers.

If the Minister claims to be so concerned about the consumer, can he explain why his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting last month, produced a list of nearly 100 regulations from the Ministry and promised to discuss their relevance and implementation with the farmers? Why does he refuse to meet any groups other than farmers, as he confirmed to me in the House on 17 February? Why does he refuse to discuss the regulations on the welfare of animals in transit with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals? Why does he refuse to discuss the reduction of salmonella controls with the consumer organisations? Why does he refuse to talk to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about licensing to kill birds? It is not the citizens charter that the consumers of this country want; they want a Ministry of Food and Farming which the incoming Labour Government will introduce.

That is absolute nonsense and it is nonsense that is years out of date. Only last week my right hon. Friend concluded yet another of his quarterly meetings with 15 consumer organisations. Those meetings are held every quarter to discuss issues of food and consumer concern. We have set up the consumer panel and I meet consumers regularly when I have discussions in the Ministry. Never before has the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had so many detailed discussions with consumers and consumer organisations. They know that; it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not.

Knowing my right hon. Friend's concern for birds and particularly for our very valuable poultry industry, will he keep an eye on the latest scare for our "bootiful" turkey industry and ensure that that nonsense about which we are hearing—podo dermatitus—does not turn out to be a load of gobbledegook?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to spot gobbledegook whenever it arises. I assure her that we are having discussions in Europe on various aspects of animal health and welfare. However, there is no intention to include turkeys in the EC's zoonoses proposals and that seems to be very sensible.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account he takes of proposals for public access to the areas concerned when considering set-aside schemes and schemes relating to environmentally sensitive areas.

Considerations concerning public access do not feature in either of these schemes. Separate grants for providing public access to set-aside land are available in certain counties under the Countryside Commission premium scheme, a scheme which, in the reform of the common agricultural policy, we hope will have the powers to extend to the rest of the country.

Is the Minister aware that the Ramblers Association has published a manifesto for access? Will the Government endorse that manifesto? Will the Government support the Common Land Forum in its proposals? If they are re-elected, is there any chance that such proposals will be carried out this time?

The Government are determined to ensure that the kind of access proposals that have been pioneered, particularly by the Countryside Commission, are extended. However, we recognise that the countryside is also a place for conservation, for bird lovers, for agriculture and for a whole range of people. Access is not the only requisite in the countryside. We have to keep a proper balance or we will continue to see destruction in the countryside that we have seen in some areas where there is too much access and where what used to be a path has become as wide as the M1.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the Milk Marketing Board's proposals for changes in the milk marketing scheme,

I have received a number of representations from milk producers and processors, hon. Members and members of the public.

My right hon. Friend is putting forward and considering proposals for reform. I notice that the Milk Marketing Board has come forward with propositions. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to ensure that any changes in the milk marketing regulations are introduced in an orderly manner? There are a very large number of cows munching in the green pastures of my constituency, but there are also a large number of people who are employed by the Milk Marketing Board.

The Milk Marketing Board has produced proposals for reform. When the Government are re-elected, they will enable the Milk Marketing Board to carry forward those proposals as far as possible through the Commission and through the House. They will do that because the Milk Marketing Board has put forward those proposals for reform. I note that the Labour party knows better than the Milk Marketing Board and has said that it would not help the Milk Marketing Board to get the reform that is necessary for British farmers and British consumers. Recently, British milk producers have received less for their milk than most of the other countries in Europe, and the housewife has paid more for milk on the doorstep than housewives in Europe. The Milk Marketing Board wants to improve that situation. The Labour party will make sure that it could not.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss fishing matters.

I am constantly meeting fishing organisations.

When the Minister next meets them, will he tell them why he stood on his head over a decommissioning—[Interruption.]

Order.

Why he stood on his head over a decommissioning scheme which is too little, too late? [Interruption.] Will the Minister tell them how he proposes to cut the days-at-sea restriction by introducing effective conservation measures, including a one-net rule, square mesh panels and a ban on industrial fishing? Will he tell them why, if there is to be a days-at-sea restriction, he cannot pay fishermen the same financial support that farmers get when their land goes awry?

The industry demanded a proper conservation package. That is what it has. It has a combination of decommissioning; we are extending the licensing rules; we are attacking the problem of the effort directed against fishing; and we are going to control fishing boats. In other words, we have delivered precisely what we promised—a measure which would guarantee the long-term future of the fishing industry. We remain committed to that. Happily, we will have many years to carry it out.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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 be having further meetings later today.

As the Prime Minister savours one of his last few busy days before the deluge, will he think back to the dinner that he gave at No. 10 Downing street last November on behalf of the Tory party [Interruption.] for what The Sun—I must quote it accurately because it is from The Sun—[Interruption.]

Order. No quoting; paraphrase, please.

In that case, I will paraphrase, Mr. Speaker. For The Sun told us of members of Britain's Asian community being brought together to win the votes of that community. [Interruption.] Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that nine of his 21 guests were tax exiles in this country who cannot even vote here? Will he also confirm that he was able to tell them that the loophole in the tax law which enables them to pay virtually no tax in this country will not be closed by his Government? Finally, will he tell us whether they were asked—[Interruption.]

Order. It is a terrible long question.

The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken, and I will set out the position clearly for him. I give a number of dinners for industrialists at Downing street, and the dinner for business men was no different. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I should not have such occasions with business men. He also shows his usual willingness to exploit every leak that comes to him. He may care now to listen carefully.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the encouragement of savings is important not simply because it gives security to the saver but because it provides funds for investment in the future of our country? Will he give an assurance that a future Conservative Government will take measures further to encourage savings? Will he condemn the narrow-minded and vindictive savings tax proposed by the Labour party?

I shall happily do both those things. My hon. Friend makes a good point. We shall continue to encourage personal savings by keeping income tax rates low, and through special schemes such as the tax-exempt special savings account, which has been a remarkable success. The savings tax proposed by the Labour party is one of the most poorly thought out and damaging of its proposals. It would hit widows on ordinary incomes. It would hit people taking early retirement such as miners, policemen and soldiers. Now that the Labour party has finally decided to publish its phoney budget, it should think again and drop those damaging and vindictive proposals.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this morning the University College hospital cancer specialist, Dr. Jeffrey Tobias, said:

"30 per cent. of the time I have to say to my patients, 'Sorry, I had planned to give you chemotherapy today but that is not possible—

But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, things have been made much better. Waiting lists are improving—are falling. More people are being treated and there are more resources for the national health service. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to swap quotes, perhaps he will listen to what Dr. David Colin Thorne, a Labour party member who stood for Parliament, said on fundholding. He said:

"I'm aware that what we're saying may be used … but we do believe … it is the most energising thing that has happened in my 21 years as a GP … It has been good for care, public health and management."

Why does the Prime Minister never even try to answer the question? The reality is that cancer specialists are unable to treat patients because of a shortage of beds. Why do not the Government even now get rid of the tax concessions for private health insurance and put the £60 million saved straight into fighting cancer? That is what the Labour Government will do. That is the right thing to do.

That would have more credibility if we were not spending more on the health service than the right hon. Gentleman even promised to spend. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party was not pledged to introduce a minimum wage that would cost the health service £500 million. It would have even more credibility if the Labour party would claim and set out the funding that it would provide for the national health service, which it has expressly failed to do. We have repeatedly indicated in public expenditure round after public expenditure round that we are increasing over and above inflation substantial resources for the health service —far more even than the right hon. Gentleman dared to promise.

Just in recent weeks we have had public reports of a cardiologist who has had to turn seriously ill patients away because of the budget system—[Interruption.] I am telling the truth about the health—[Interruption.]

Order. The right hon. to put his question. Member has a right to put his question.

We have had other public reports of closed accident and emergency units. We have had public reports of a mortally ill little girl being unable to gain treatment in a paediatric intensive care unit. Now we have a physician reporting that he cannot treat 30 per cent. of his cancer patients because of a lack of beds. Why does not the Prime Minister address those issues of life and death instead of parading false claims about his Government?

We have addressed those issues. That is why the waiting lists are falling by record amounts at this moment. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what was the test for our new health service reforms set by his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The standard test. The hon. Gentleman invented it. He asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health whether he was prepared to measure the success by the simple test of whether the trusts did more or less work for the national health service. They have done more work. During the first six months of operations English trusts treated 6·5 per cent. more patients than in the months before they became managed. They have treated 5 per cent. more out-patients. That is the Cook test, not mine. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept it? [Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to settle down.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the launching of the first Trident submarine yesterday, and the fact that three more are under construction, is the minimum insurance policy that the country can afford to accept in a dangerous and uncertain world? Does he further agree that, at this critical time of ordering, building and commissioning that submarine fleet, we should not pay attention to the recommendations of the two main Opposition parties, whose opinion appears to vary, not merely from day to day, but from hour to hour?

My hon. Friend is right about defence and we have no intention of gambling with this country's defence. My hon. Friend is also right about the Opposition's position on Trident. They have said that they would order it, they have said that they would not order it, and they have even suggested that they would order it and send it to sea without any weapons. Frankly, one has no idea what they will say next on defence. This morning the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that Labour

"have nothing whatsoever to do with CND. We have no connection with CND."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

The Prime Minister has made much of the citizens charter and the need for openness in Government. Does he realise that many of our citizens would like to know whether and how much Mr. Vijau Mallya, an Indian millionaire, and Mr. Adam Polemos, a Greek shipping magnate, contributed to the funds of the Conservative party?—[Interruption.]

Order. This is very unseemly behaviour.

Will the Prime Minister emulate the Labour party by publishing the accounts of the Conservative party, so that citizens of this country may know the truth before the general election, about who donates to the finances of the Tory party?

It is difficult to take that seriously from someone whose party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the trade union movement. According to Labour's own figures, in 1987 the Transport and General Workers Union gave more money to the Labour party than the whole of industry gave to the Tory party, and it gets votes for it, even on the leadership of the party.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had time to study the reaction of the CBI to the proposal for a national minimum wage? Has he seen its estimates, which suggest that it would increase business costs by an extra £50 million and cut 150,000 jobs? Does he agree that to propose such a policy at this time is the economics of the mad house and that the Labour party should stop it at once?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I have read reports of the CBI's views. The Labour party claims that it listens to the views of business. The views of the CBI could scarcely be clearer than they have been on the subject of the minimum wage. As I said a moment ago, even in the national health service that policy would cost £400 million to £500 million a year. I wonder what the Labour party would cut elsewhere in the health service to make up for that loss of revenue.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

The crime rate in the United Kingdom is the highest ever, the detection rate is the lowest ever and our prisons are the fullest ever. Would the Prime Minister explain why he thinks that deplorable situation exists?

I shall take lectures from the hon. Gentleman when he and the Labour party support the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

I offer my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for the crucial personal role that he played in securing compensation for the three injured Grenadiers. Will he now look personally into the cases of some other very obvious cases of severe injuries to service men, in particular those of Mark Booth and Andy Konalyck of the Parachute Regiment and Martin Ketterick of the Royal Marines? In those obvious cases, they have not been compensated properly because they were not covered due to a lapse of cover in the law. Surely, it is time that some form of flexibility was introduced into the compensation legislation for armed services personnel who are severely injured in the course of their duties.

I am not aware of the particular cases to which my hon. Friend draws attention. He knows that wide-ranging compensation schemes are available. I will certainly ask to see the details of the cases that he mentioned.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 March.

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that, when the people of Scotland vote for independence, Scotland will become an equal partner with England in the European Community?

I think that the hon. Lady is unwise to assume that Scotland will react as she proposes, but in any event, were that unlikely event to occur, Scotland would have to reapply for membership of the European Community. Every member state would have a vote on that application. The United Kingdom's existing membership of the European Community would continue, but Scotland would have to apply.