To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board; and if he will make a statement.

I have no such plans.

Does the Minister accept that, notwithstanding that farm workers are disgracefully underpaid, they and their unions are firmly of the view that they would be even worse off if the board were abolished? Is the Minister aware that it is the policy of the National Farmers Union to continue to support the board? Will he therefore expand on his reply and make it clear that the Government will neither renounce the relevant International Labour Organisation convention nor take advantage of the window which opens in August next year to initiate steps to abolish the board?

There are many things that I have to deal with. As this matter cannot be dealt with until next year, I do not regard it as necessary to consider it until that moment arises. When it does, I will; and when I do, I will take into account both the facts that the hon. Gentleman has put before me.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to curb the production of sugar beet.

The United Kingdom will be seeking a thorough going reform of the sugar regime which is due to be completed by July next year.

I am grateful to the Minister. He will be aware that the substantial overproduction of sugar beet in the European Community has led to a dreadful situation for world prices and thus for sugar cane producers, who are among the poorest countries in the world. Will he therefore, when he takes over the presidency in July, make sure that the MacSharry proposals, which quite disgracefully ignored the African, Caribbean and Pacific protocol on sugar cane, take account of that overproduction, drastically reduce the production of sugar beet under quota A, abolish quota B, and immediately withdraw the storage premium for quota C? Will he seek those objectives during his presidency?

Proposals for reforming the sugar regime will be coming forward shortly. That is one of the matters that we shall have to deal with in our presidency. It is quite clear that, now that there has been a dramatic reform in the cereals sector, the sugar sector must also be reformed. It is clear also that cutting the price and dealing with the overproduction in Europe must be absolutely central to that reform.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on negotiating an extremely successful set-aside scheme which does not discriminate against arable farmers in my constituency, but does he accept that there is continuing downward pressure on farm incomes? Will he assure my farmers that, in the next round of negotiations, he will press as hard as he can for an increase in the sugar beet quota?

The practical course in reform of the sugar regime is to have a go at C sugar. The problem at present is that the high price for A sugar is used by many continental countries to justify overproduction of C sugar, which is then placed on the world market. If we can tackle that, we shall have dealt with one of the real problems of the regime.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what environmental monitoring duties are currently the responsibility of his Department.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his Department's principal responsibilities for environmental protection.

My Department's policy and monitoring responsibilities are for environmental aspects of farming and for the marine environment.

Is not the Minister's desire to take over some of the primary inspection functions of the National Rivers Authority derived from his determination to protect the interests of the multinational farming fertilisers and pesticides manufacturers? Is he not ashamed that in so doing he protects them from the full rigours of a proper environmental protection regime?

I have no such desire and no such intention. My only desire is to ensure that I continue to be known in Europe as—in the best possible sense—the greenest Minister of Agriculture.

The Minister of Agriculture will be aware that he will be undertaking one of his immediate principal environmental responsibilities for the marine environment at the Glasgow meeting of the International Whaling Commission later this month. What does he propose to do to sustain the position that the Government rightly adopted at the last meeting to ensure that there remains an international and effective ban on whaling in future, as there has been in the recent past?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government's present policy was presented at the last meeting in Bournemouth, at which I represented the Government, together with Sir Peter Scott. Together we presented that change of policy, which we have pursued ever since. I intend to uphold that position clearly in Glasgow. I also want the ban to be spread to the smaller cetaceans, which are under considerable threat and are wrongly classed in some countries as though they were not whales.

That answer will be most welcome to many people who have taken a continuing interest in the future of whales and dolphins. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has established a clear reputation as a green Minister. Will he reaffirm his Ministry's position with regard to the European presidency? Will he say clearly that he intends to put animal welfare at the top of his priorities during our presidency of the European Community?

I have made it clear that the unity of Europe depends on the best things in each country being adopted by others. One of the best things that we can do for Europe is to raise the standards of animal welfare. I hope that we shall learn a little from some other countries about standards of looking after children.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to read a report from the North Atlantic Assembly which highlights the dangers that threaten marine life from chemical weapons which were dumped in the North sea and other seas after the second world war? Does he recognise that such chemicals could pose a considerable threat? Will he be kind enough to look into the matter?

It is obviously important that we examine any threat to the marine environment. I shall be happy to look into the matter.

If the Minister is as green as he claims, why does he allow 35 per cent. of our sites of special scientific interest to be destroyed by farmers? What does he intend to do about that?

Yet again the hon. Gentleman shows his ignorance of farming and of the environment. The electorate showed him what they thought of him at the last election. That is why the environment is safer in my hands than it would ever have been in his.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of protecting the countryside is to ensure that British agriculture remains profitable and has a viable future? I congratulate him on his tremendous achievements in the common agricultural policy reform discussions, and especially on imposing the requirement that if land is set aside an environmental protective element must be included in the arrangements.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right that the common agricultural policy should have environmental protection at its centre and not as a peripheral matter. That we have sought to do. We have moved environmental protection a long way already. In our presidency we intend to extend it further.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future arrangements for milk marketing in the United Kingdom and the changes he intends to make.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future arrangments for milk marketing in the United Kingdom and the changes he intends to make.

The Government intend to introduce legislation this Session to facilitate the transformation of the milk marketing boards into non-statutory organisations.

The Minister's reply gives rise to some concern. We are looking for an assurance about the continuation of the services provided by the milk marketing boards. Will the Minister assure me that the cherished and ever-demanded supply of milk to the doorstep by the usual milk roundsmen will continue and that there is no fear of the British housewife and family losing that delivery?

The change in the status of the milk marketing boards has no effect on the delivery of milk at the doorstep. That would be endangered if the milk marketing arrangement continued not to allow British milk producers and sellers to achieve the maximum market. Doorstep delivery is unaffected by our decisions.

Is the Minister aware of the growing fear that a threat to the doorstep delivery of milk is one of the things that will flow from a restructuring? Is he also aware that the Freedom campaign—Friends Electing for the Delivery of Milk—has been formed to protect the delivery of milk and Britain's delivery men and women, and that it aims to collect 5 million signatures? Will he give an undertaking that he and his Department will back that campaign and ensure that the delivery of milk to the doorstep is safeguarded?

As a user and an enthusiastic supporter of the doorstep delivery of milk, I wish the campaign well. It is not signatures that the campaign wants, however, but the willingness of consumers to order milk at the doorstep. The best way we can help doorstep deliveries to continue is by buying at the doorstep. That is for the consumer to decide and she can do so under the new system as under the present one.

As my right hon. Friend is aware, many milk producers go to great lengths and are successful in adding value to the raw material by producing locally branded yoghurt, cheese and ice cream. Whatever changes may be made in the milk marketing arrangements, will my right hon. Friend ensure that existing milk producers can continue with that processing and can expand their current efforts?

One of the purposes of our policies is to ensure that those able to add value to milk will be able to get the milk that they need, so that we shall no longer be in the absurd position of not having enough milk for high value products but still putting butter into intervention. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the changes that the milk marketing boards, the Dairy Trade Federation, the Commission and the Government are seeking to produce.

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the statutory milk marketing boards have ensured the availability to the consumer of milk of the highest quality in Europe—with the possible exception of the Danes, to whom we have a lot to be thankful for? Will he bear it in mind that it is absolutely essential, under any new marketing arrangements, that that high quality of milk is preserved for the benefit of the British people?

The proposals, which result from the milk marketing boards deciding that changes are necessary, and which have clearly been endorsed by the fact that the majority of milk producers wish for such change, will defend Britain's position of producing the highest quality milk in Europe. I hope that we shall then be able to raise standards throughout the rest of Europe; that is one of the great advantages of our enthusiastic membership of the Community.

Does the Minister recognise that, just as farmers who are remote from areas of consumption are worried about the prices that will result from the changed arrangement, consumers fear that the delivery of their daily pinta on the doorstep and its price structure will be threatened? Consumers fear that they will not necessarily receive their daily pinta at the same price if they live in areas remote from the points of production.

The hon. Gentleman should remember that under the quota system we have less milk than we need for our national requirements. Therefore, producers even in remote areas need not be concerned, as they might be if there were an overproduction of milk in this country. The hon. Gentleman must also accept that the way to defend the daily pinta is to buy it on the doorstep and not merely to talk about doing so. Too many people who are keen on the daily pinta buy their own milk somewhere else.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward legislation to give RSPCA inspectors the right of entry to factory farming premises.

No, Sir. We have no plans to bring forward such legislation.

I congratulate the Minister on his large presence at the Dispatch Box. Why will he not give RSPCA inspectors the power of entry to factory farming premises? Is he aware that the RSPCA recently published statistics which showed a sharp rise in the number of convictions of cruelty to livestock, particularly to sheep and to cattle? That problem of cruelty could best he stopped by giving RSPCA inspectors the power of entry. If the Minister will not do that, will he instruct his own inspectorate to increase significantly its visits to farms so as to stop such cruelty?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has a fine record on welfare matters. He will know that those arrangements were rehearsed well when the Farm Animal Welfare Council considered the report of its enforcement group. The council recommended that the primary role for on-farm visits should be retained by the state veterinary service and that voluntary bodies should not be given a statutory role. If the hon. Gentleman or any organisation has any complaints to make in that respect, they will be investigated vigorously and speedily, and he should let us know at once.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Is he aware that many of my constituents, ranging from Thai restaurant owners to proprietors of 25,000 acre estates, rejoiced in his appointment as he is the first Minister of food to know quite a lot about food. Will he deny the rumour in the popular press that he is about to exchange his usual breakfast menu of cold grouse and claret for Alpen and apple juice?

I have no plans to do that at present.

I offer my personal congratulations to the Minister. I am sure that his appointment will be welcomed on both sides of the House. Given that we have to have a Tory in that office, I suppose that it had better be him.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will be aware that any area of farming or husbandry is open to abuse. As he knows, we take such abuse seriously. I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's views to the attention of the state veterinary service. I will also write to him in greater detail.

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

I met the chairman of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations earlier this week and I am meeting its national executive on 4 July.

I have just come from a meeting with members of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his achievement in uniting the fishing industry—for the first time in its history—in total opposition to the measure that he will be proposing on Monday. Does he accept that the measure is necessary only because of his long delay in introducing a proper decommissioning scheme, that it will be disruptive, dangerous and financially crippling for the fishing industry, and that the industry is begging him to think again and propose alternative measures which will be really effective in dealing with conservation?

Quite unusually, I agreed with nothing that the hon. Gentleman said. The measures are necessary. It is easy to talk about conservation, but when we have come up with alternative ideas, the industry has tended to oppose every one of them. At the end of the day, we must be serious about conservation. The stocks are in very serious danger, not just in British waters but in waters throughout the world. We can tackle that only by adopting a series of measures, of which decommissioning is one. Effort control, licence extension and industry-led rationalisation are all part of conservation and represent a sensible, balanced package. It is important that all elements of the package should be introduced.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion. Will he agree that one of the biggest threats to the future of the fishing industry is the recent growth in the number of foreign boats being transferred to our register? I refer not just to Spanish boats, but to the large number of Dutch boats coming on to our register. Will the Government use their six months presidency of the European Council to try to achieve some political agreement with other fisheries Ministers to deal with the scourge once and for all and to put an end to that diabolical practice?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a problem. We took measures to deal with some of the problems of beamers on the east coast, which is, of course, a Dutch problem. With regard to the pretentions of the Spanish and Portuguese to fish in some Community waters, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the Advocate General delivered an opinion which was helpful, though the full court ruling has yet to come. Our presidency will be devoted to matters of enforcement and making sure that European fishing grounds are predominantly for Europeans and for the benefit of coastal communities who depend on them.

Is the Minister aware that fishermen greatly resent the measure to be introduced on Monday and allege that there has not been proper consultation between them and the Minister? What has been the level of consultation? Has the hon. Gentleman met the fishermen's organisations before presentation of the Bill?

The Government's measures on fisheries were announced at the end of February. It was stated clearly then that effort control was part of our policy. We then introduced a consultation document, immediately after the general election—it would have been constitutionally improper to do so earlier, even though it was ready just before the election—dealing with all the details of decommissioning and effort control. I very much want detailed consultation and discussion about how this will work in practice. The Bill will give me power to attach to the licence a condition to introduce effort control. All the details of that are still subject to consultation, and that consultation is entirely valid.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what are his objectives during his presidency of the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

I shall seek to carry forward the process of common agricultural policy reform, complete the single market, improve animal welfare and make environmental considerations much more central to the CAP.

May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success in the recent negotiations? It represents one of the more hopeful precursors of the United Kingdom presidency. During that presidency, will he give great emphasis to achieving higher standards where appropriate, effective enforcement and, above all, a level playing field on such matters as national subsidies for environmental purposes, food hygiene and that most important area to which he referred—animal welfare?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. It is clearly important that controls over the cruel production of veal and pigs should be extended to the whole of the Community. We should not take a nationalistic view of animal welfare: it should apply throughout the EC, as our membership of the Community demands.

Is the Minister satisfied that the proposals for the reform of the CAP will reduce the major, and in some sectors increasing, discrepancy between farm and retail prices? Is he further satisfied that there will be opportunities for producers in all sectors to benefit from the proposals without the risk of increased prices to the consumer?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment on this occasion, his first appearance in his new role. We have to face the fact that under present policies, which I understand the hon. Gentleman's party supports, prices paid by consumers are higher than they would otherwise be. CAP reform has led to a reduction in consumer support and an increase in taxpayer support. At the same time, the farmer is being asked to take a price which is much closer to the market value. In those circumstances, we have the fairest situation between farmers and countries.

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on the success of the recent price round. Will he assure us that the cereal market will continue to be supported by intervention and that the prices will apply to feed-quality cereals?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to support the cereal producer, not simply by intervention, which will he properly diminished, but by compulsory set-aside, compensation and area payments. That is what the United Kingdom has demanded arid that is another example of the way in which the EC has increasingly taken on Britain's views.

The House will be disappointed that the Minister has not decided to highlight food hygiene as one of the key issues of his presidency. Does not he understand that the majority of British people want high-quality food? Has not he seen the recent study of the trading standards officers in Birmingham which shows that 90 per cent. of eggs sampled were substandard and that most of those were imported? When will he stand up and speak for the British consumer?

I do not need to stand up and speak for the British consumer. I have put through the House the most extensive food safety legislation of any country. The hon. Gentleman is constantly selling short British food. He is the man who told us not to eat British sausages or British apples. The hon. Gentleman has no right to speak for British food producers and the electorate told him that in no uncertain terms.

My right hon. Friend is a very fair man. During his presidency of the Council, will he make his main aim the fairest possible application of rules and regulations governing agriculture throughout the EC, which is a matter of great concern to us all? In particular, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the devastating effect that the unfair application of rules and regulations is having on the poultry-processing industry in my constituency in Suffolk where veterinary inspection charges are crippling, putting the industry at a severe disadvantage compared with its competitors in Europe.

I will and I am.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the welfare of animals at slaughter.

We shall improve the training of slaughtermen, implement outstanding Farm Animal Welfare Council recommendations as soon as possible and make sure that Britain's high standards are adopted throughout the rest of the Community.

I thank the new Minister for his helpful answer and I hope that he will continue to give such answers. What advice has the Ministry sought on the slaughter of animals according to religious custom so that those customs are respected while cruelty to the animals is avoided? Will he seek advice from any religious bodies that consider it helpful to offer such advice?

The hon. Lady raises an important point. The law on the welfare of animals at slaughter applies equally to religiously slaughtered animals, apart from the requirement for pre-stunning. In 1990, the Government introduced new legal safeguards on religious slaughter. In particular, the use of casting pens for cattle is being phased out and, from July this year, cattle will be required to be slaughtered in an upright, specially approved restraining pen. In expressing their concern, the hon. Lady and her constituents speak for many, and I hope that my reply reassures them.

Does my hon. Friend accept that improving welfare standards at slaughter should embrace the transportation of animals to the place of slaughter? Will he and my right hon. Friend the Minister do all that they can during my right hon. Friend's presidency to ensure that European practices and behaviour are raised to the levels that obtain in Britain? Quite frankly, far too often standards in Europe are totally unacceptable.

Yes, we shall do just that. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to raise that point. We shall seek to raise the standards observed by our partners in the European Community to the same high levels that apply in this country.

On behalf of my hon. Friends, I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. We all welcome the Government's efforts to ensure the welfare of animals at slaughter. Does the Minister agree that of equal, if not greater, importance is the welfare of the consumers of the end products? What assurance can he give that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure that even the minimum use of illegal substances for growth promotion can be detected at abattoirs?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we run the most extensive and vigorous checks in this country. We are always alert to any possible dangers. Despite regular testing, illegal substances have never been found in this country—but we will continue vigorously to police that aspect.

Does my hon. Friend accept that great cruelty occurs not only at slaughter on the continent but in the transportation of animals to slaughter on the continent? Does he agree that animals in this country and in continental countries should be slaughtered as closely as possible to their place of origin?

Yes, my hon. Friend is perfectly correct. As I said earlier, we seek to raise standards in the rest of the European Community to the high levels that prevail in this country.

Is the Minister aware that because of the high standards in slaughterhouses in this country, the poultry sector in particular is disadvantaged? Because the standards observed by European competitors do not reach the same level, they enjoy a cost advantage on imports. If the Government accept that some slaughterhouses on the continent do not meet our high standards, what will the Minister do about British producers that drag animals many hundreds of miles over long periods of time, to be slaughtered in poor-quality slaughterhouses abroad?

My right hon. Friend the Minister dealt earlier with the question of cost. We intend to raise the question of standards and costs with the Community, to ensure that our producers are in no way disadvantaged. Transport is a matter to which we attach the highest importance. During our presidency, we shall seek to raise it to the top of the agenda.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations within the European Community on the subject of plant passports; and if he will make a statement.

Under pressure from this Government, the Commission has undertaken to bring forward proposals in the near future.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion and thank him for that reply. Is he aware of the concern of United Kingdom growers about the greater bureaucracy and cost implicit in the proposals? Can he give an assurance that they will not be disadvantaged by comparison with our European Community partners, in respect of the financing of the inspections required under the proposed plant health arrangements?

We intend this to be a measure of deregulation. The word "passport" can be misleading. There is no passport officer and no physical passport; the term refers to a mark that can be applied by the propagator himself. We intend the regime to be as light as possible, but we also want it to be applied as sensibly as possible and—this is most important—as universally as possible, so that we can ensure that we are on a level playing field.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his plans for improving the marketing of British agricultural products.

We are encouraging better marketing through collaboration between producers. The group marketing grant will help them to develop large, professionally managed groups.

Is it not a pretty crass piece of marketing to move the manufacture of Wensleydale cheese from Yorkshire to Lancashire? Can my hon. Friend do anything to persuade Dairy Crest to sell the Wensleydale factory in Hawes, either to an outside buyer or through a management buy-out?

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) has been actively engaged in this regard. As a fellow North Yorkshire Member, I can only endorse the view that Wensleydale cheese is far better coming from Yorkshire than from Lancashire—but that is true of all the other cheeses as well.

What steps will the Minister take to help three farmers in Bolsover to market their products? Does he recall that, nearly 12 months ago, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food promised the House that they would not lose out? According to Farmers Weekly, the Minister is not going to pay those farmers any more money. They have lost their livelihoods and the Bolsover people are fed up with contamination by dioxins. It is time that those farmers were paid and it is time that a public inquiry was carried out.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has dealt fully with points about the matter on many occasions.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the accessibility of the British market to Latin American bananas.

The Commission has published a working paper on banana imports aiming to fulfil all the Community's international obligations.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the Latin American republics from which bananas come are third world countries just as deserving of our consideration as the Caribbean islands? Are not British consumers entitled to those bananas, which are larger, cheaper and, by and large, of higher quality than the ones that are currently being imported?

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that British consumers do indeed benefit from those bananas. Last year, about 28 per cent. of bananas consumed in Britain came from Latin America and we believe that this year the quantity could comfortably be 100,000 tonnes. However, we have an obligation to protect the position of our traditional suppliers in Jamaica and the Windward islands. It is entirely possible for us to do that while ensuring adequate access for Latin American bananas.

May I remind the Minister that many of those engaged in the production of Latin American bananas are employed in lousy conditions by big American firms? Will he ensure that the producers—the small farmers in the Windward islands and elsewhere—are protected from the obduracy of the Germans in regard to exports to the Community of their very fine product?

We have made it absolutely clear that we stand by our obligations to the Windward islands and Jamaica, enabling them to continue to have full access to our market. The European Community seems likely to introduce proposals to impose a quota on dollar bananas. To be fair, the dollar bananas are likely to take any increase in the market, because they are better placed; but our stance is that producers from the ACP—African Caribbean Pacific—countries must be fully protected, because of the importance of that crop to their industries and economies.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his proposals for meat hygiene.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has announced that a national meat hygiene service is to be established as an agency of his Department.

I welcome today's announcement that an agency is to be set up to replace the former piecemeal arrangements. When will that agency be fully operational, and what charging policy will be introduced? The Department should bear in mind the necessity to keep costs low and provide good value for money, to ensure that excellent British meat and meat products are available to the consumer at competitive prices.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Subject to the will of Parliament, the new agency will take over in late 1994 or early 1995. It will enable us to achieve consistent enforcement standards and a uniform basis for charging in Great Britain. By putting our own house in order, we shall be better placed to put pressure on the Commission and other member states to achieve the same standards across the Community. We are wholly committed to securing improvements in what is currently an unsatisfactory situation.

Does the Minister accept that very small abattoirs, which have to take into consideration the cost of visits by meat inspectors and vets, are very worried about the high costs of those visits when the new regulations come into force? Does he also accept that small abattoirs are very important to rural economies? Will he take on board representations made to him that those costs should be kept as low as possible?

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We agree entirely that small slaughterhouses are vital to rural communities. We have secured a special derogation for 12-to-20-animal units. Welfare and hygiene standards will apply to large or small slaughterhouses, but the point on charges is well taken.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

May I first congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on joining Her Majesty's Privy Council this morning. As you did so, I was presiding over 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.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the smaller countries have a vital part to play in the life of the European Community? Does he further agree that Denmark should not be sidelined or pressurised, merely because its people expressed their views in a democratic way about the Maastricht treaty?

I emphatically agree with my hon. Friend about that. The work of the Community will go on, and Denmark and all the other small member states will play their full part in it. We have no wish whatsoever to slam the doors in the face of Denmark or to rule out any procedures whatsoever that will help Denmark in her present difficulties and enable her to join the Maastricht treaty. But it is unrealistic to think that everything has been changed by the Danish vote, just as it is unrealistic to think that nothing has been changed by it.

But does not the Prime Minister accept, in the wake of the mess that the Common Market is happily in now, as a result of the Danish referendum, that if he brings back a renegotiated treaty and some sort of deal with the Danish Government, there will be a great deal of pressure in this country to require the Government to hold a referendum here over any constitutional alterations which might be involved in that new treaty?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I made the Government's position about a referendum entirely clear yesterday, and I have nothing whatsoever to add to that today. On the subject of the treaty itself, there is a great deal in it that represents concessions by our partners to what we have long sought in this country. That would also be open to renegotiation, if any renegotiations were to take place. I hope that today in Oslo, where my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is attending a meeting, they will begin to examine in detail the way to deal with the particular difficulties, following the referendum in Denmark.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing unease of both listeners and viewers about the coverage of live sport? Irrespective of the long-term implications of the deal over the premier league football coverage, is my right hon. Friend aware that there was genuine resentment, among my constituents at least, during the recent world cup coverage from Australia? There is uncertainty over the future of the ball-by-ball cricket commentaries. Is it not a fact that the arrangements that were designed to give greater opportunities to listen or to watch seem, in practice, to be having the reverse effect?

As my hon. Friend knows—I am pleased about this, as he is—ball-by-ball cricket commentaries are now continuing, albeit on a different wavelength. I know that some people have been and are concerned whenever areas of activity are opened up by market forces—that has often been the case in the past—but in time many of those anxieties have disappeared and the beneficial effects have found their way through. The net effect of new television channels is that there is more and better coverage of sport on a wider number of channels.

Does the Prime Minister recall the statement on 26 March that an asylum Bill would be the first action of a new Conservative Government? Why did he change his mind?

The right hon. Gentleman will see the asylum Bill before too long.

The Prime Minister characteristically tried to evade the question. On 26 March the asylum Bill was to be the first priority, to be introduced before anything else. Why was that Bill needed so urgently before the election, but not afterwards?

I am intrigued at the right hon. Gentleman's sudden enthusiasm for the Bill. I can put his mind at rest. The Government are committed to reintroducing the asylum Bill at an early opportunity and we propose to do so.

Nobody should be surprised that the Prime Minister is ashamed to give the real answer. The Asylum Bill was introduced in an attempt to legitimise many of the scare stories about immigration put about by the Tory party. It is to the Prime Minister's shame that he is not prepared to denounce that policy and attitude now.

The right hon. Gentleman should know better than to make remarks such as that. As we have said in the past, it was the first Bill that we decided to reintroduce and put into the Queen's Speech. It remains essential now, as it was then, to streamline the decision-making process. We intend to resist the misuse of asylum procedures and to ensure that genuine refugees are properly protected. That is the position of the Bill, and it will be introduced shortly.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming case for the enlargement of the European Community has been in no way diminished by the result of the Danish referendum? Can he assure my constituents in Swindon and the entire country that he will use the opportunity presented by the United Kingdom's presidency of the Community in the next six months to press the case as vigorously as he can for the enlargement of the Community to include the countries of the European Free Trade Association and the countries of central and eastern Europe when they are ready to join?

No one in this country or within the Community can be in any doubt about my total commitment to opening up the Community to the EFTAns and, in due course, to those from eastern Europe. Nothing that has happened in recent days changes my belief that that is necessary and urgent, and we will continue with it. I do not accept that anything has put enlargement at risk. I can assure my hon. Friend that this will have a high priority during our presidency.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the dismay felt by a number of hon. Members and many historians at the fact that the papers relating to Rudolf Hess are still not being fully disclosed? Is he aware that it is the view of many people that there is a continuing Establishment cover-up which should now be revealed and that the undisclosed papers reveal matters relating to the non-royal status of the Duchess of Windsor?

I am afraid that I cannot share the hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theory. If there has been a cover-up, it has been covered up from me as well.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

My right hon. Friend will have noted early-day motion 174, which has been signed by a substantial number of Conservative Members. Is he aware of their deep desire that the British presidency should promote the Conservative principles of free trade and intergovernmental co-operation and not the socialist diktats of Jacques Delors?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall certainly use the presidency to pursue issues that are in our interests and those of the whole Community: the introduction of the single market, reform of the CAP, developing relations with the EFTA and eastern countries, future financing and deregulation—matters for which this party and this country have stood for so long. We shall pursue all of them during our presidency.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that, in the face of the Danish announcement today that they will not attempt to renegotiate, to reintroduce the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which we would have discussed yesterday and today, would be like reintroducing a Bill for the resurrection of Shergar?

I do not accept that premise and the hon. Gentleman would be rather surprised if I did. The Maastricht treaty was the result of a lot of difficult negotiations that were conducted over some time. If we went back to square one, I do not think that we could assume that our partners would agree all the matters that are of interest to this country. We must wait and see how events fall out.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

Following the collapse of socialism in Basildon, does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that last month's local election results in Basildon, which ensured the success of every Conservative candidate, showed that residents were fed up with an inefficient, high-spending socialist council and believed that only Conservatives could provide good services at a low cost? Does the Prime Minister have any advice for the new council on where it might stick the nuclear-free-zone signs? That was another daft socialist idea.

I feel sure that my hon. Friend will already have passed any advice that is necessary to the new Basildon council. I very much doubt whether I would dissent from what he said. The electors in Basildon made an extremely wise choice in the local elections and in the general election, and I am sure that it is a choice which they will repeat many times in the future.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

As part of his "taking stock" of the situation in Scotland, has the Prime Minister made any representations to the EC to have the European central bank set up in Scotland? If not, will he agree to do so now?

I have made no representations, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, on this matter, but we shall certainly do what we can to ensure that, whenever possible, Community institutions, including the bank, are situated in the right place in the United Kingdom.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent launch of the campaign for physics and of a survey of sixth-formers which showed that 90 per cent. of them believe that physics is essential to solve the world's environmental problems? Does he agree that good science is preferable to slick pressure group campaigning, to ensure that the Earth summit at Rio leads to a good future for our planet?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of understanding physics, although I must confess that I cannot claim to be among those who understand it very well at all. However, environmental education is an important theme of education these days and I hope that it will be a growing theme. It will certainly enable people to understand the deeply important issues to be discussed at Rio.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 June.

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

When the Prime Minister took his present post, he described the notion of a society at ease with itself. Does he feel that when he goes to the Earth summit next week, against a background of a dismal record on the environment in Britain and development aid having been cut from 0·51 per cent. of gross domestic product to 0·27 per cent. during his years in the House, he will be representing a society at ease with itself?

I think that the hon. Gentleman, perhaps uncharacteristically, runs down what this nation has done and is doing to assist with aid. He conveniently ignores the fact that we have the sixth largest aid budget in the world, that it is one of the most effective programmes that the OECD recognises—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has been cut in half."] It most certainly has not been cut in half as was inaccurately stated earlier this week. He ignores the fact that there are other forms of aid that we can and do give, that the Toronto terms originated with my former right hon. Friend, Nigel Lawson, that the Trinidad terms originated under this Government and that they are two of the biggest debt write-offs that there have ever been, and that there is no other country with a comparable record and no previous Government with a comparable record to that of this Government.