To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the welfare of animals transported from the United Kingdom to the rest of the European Community.

During the United Kingdom presidency of the Community, we will be seeking agreement on further rules to safeguard the welfare of animals during transport. These will apply to all journeys in the Community.

Will the Minister recognise that transporting British calves in veal crates across Europe over many hours, often for the rest of their lives, is an obscene practice? As it was banned in this country two and a half years ago, will he consider welfare labelling so that when animals are recycled and returned to Britain in the form of food, the public will be aware of exactly what they are buying and the cruel practice involved?

The hon. Gentleman will know that it is a principal aim of the Government during our presidency of the Community to press very hard on all animal welfare issues. Further, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue this case, he should encourage his constituents to buy British veal, which is reared to very high standards and in good welfare conditions.

Will my hon. Friend keep up the pressure, because it is monstrous and offensive to British public opinion that hundreds of calves should be cramped and without water on five-hour crossings to Cherbourg and Le Havre and something must be done?

My hon. Friend will know that very strict rules apply to the welfare of animals in transport. We are expecting new Community rules on 1 January 1993. Until then, the whole Community is to consider further questions on journey times, rest periods, loading densities and vehicle standards. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall bear his views in mind and that we are conscious of the need to ensure that the high standards that apply in this country apply across the Community.

Hundreds of thousands of animals of all species are transported from these shores in unacceptable conditions and for intolerable distances for slaughter overseas, often in the most appalling circumstan-ces. The Minister is fully aware of the strength of public opinion, and I assure him that we shall give him all the support we can in his endeavours in the European negotiations. However, the single most effective measure would be to limit journey times to eight hours, as is recognised by many welfare bodies outside the Government. Will the Minister give a guarantee now that when the new transport directive is finalised, he personally will insist on a maximum journey time of eight hours?

The hon. Gentleman rightly raised a very important issue. We are in discussion at the moment, and a great deal of work is being done on journey times and on other suitable transport arrangements for animals which will be enforceable across the Community. He will know that it would be impossible for us to ban exports of farm animals under article 34 of the treaty of Rome. He should also be aware that this is an important export trade for British farmers, and the reason so many people abroad wish to buy British products is that those goods are produced to such a very high standard.

Does my hon. Friend agree that border controls throughout Europe are absolutely vital so that checks can be made on animal welfare and when journey times are eventually agreed throughout Europe, they can also be changed?

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Our aim is to be much tougher than that, and to have checks throughout Europe so that travelling animals may be continually and regularly inspected to ensure that they are transported in proper conditions.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to assist agricultural workers who are made redundant; and if he will make a statement.

Agricultural workers are able to benefit from the same statutory provisions as all other workers.

Does the Minister accept that as a direct result of decisions taken this week at the Agriculture Ministers Council meeting, significantly more farm and other agricultural workers will lose their jobs? Does he accept that those workers are just as deserving, in their own way, as the miners and steelworkers who received enhanced redundancy packages when their industries were run down? Will he carefully consider the possibility of enhanced redundancy packages for farm workers who can show that they have lost their jobs as a direct result of CAP reform?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that had it not been for the campaign waged by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food against the MacSharry proposals, many British farmers would have been unable to continue to exist. Those farmers employ many agricultural workers. When the Liberal Democrats discussed the matter, they said that a little bit of nuancing would be enough to satisfy the United Kingdom. I do not think that nuancing would have saved many jobs.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a viable and confident agriculture industry to halt the scale of redundancies in the agricultural sector? In order to ensure that there is that viability and confidence, we must end all discriminatory practices. Will my hon. Friend think again about the derogation of slaughterhouse regulations, which is likely to add to the dole queues in the farming industry?

We are anxious to do all that we can to ensure that the whole food industry, from primary production to the supermarkets, can obtain the maximum added value and the maximum employment. We have an outstanding primary production sector and a significant export trade, and the more that we can do to ensure that they operate on a level playing field, the better that is for employment. We are committed to that.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the details of the CAP reform proposals to be finalised.

The major points were finalised yesterday, and the details will be produced as soon as possible.

Since the Minister has been in his post, 25 farm workers and 14 farmers have lost their jobs each day. How much will those daily figures increase as a result of the new common agricultural policy, and what does the Minister propose to do to reduce them?

The hon. Gentleman should examine the figures, which show that the reduction in the numbers of farmers and farm workers have been pretty constant over the past 150 years. That is a fact of life, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that as time goes on. The reform has meant that the European Community is meeting exactly the terms that we wanted, and we can now look forward to a secure future within the common agricultural policy, which will properly defend our extremely good farming, which produces jobs for farmers and farm workers.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the Government's view on the pension provisions for the early retirement of elderly farmers in the United Kingdom, as well as in the Community, bearing in mind that it is important to introduce new young blood to accommodate the changes in agricultural practices?

I am not sure whether the Community's proposals could be used for the purpose that my hon. Friend has in mind. We were determined that there should be a link with the restructuring of very small farms, so that they could provide a viable future for new blood. I do not believe that the same conditions exist in this country—although I should be happy to consider any specific proposal from my hon. Friend. The restructuring proposal was intended especially for countries with very small farms.

The Minister has just said that the CAP reforms were on the terms that we wanted. Is he aware of the following intervention by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) in the House on Monday:

the Court of Auditors described the recent MacSharry proposals accepted by the Agricultural Ministers as 'a recipe for fraud"'—[Official Report, 29 June 1992: Vol. 210, c. 586.]

We have always put the combating of fraud at the top of our priorities. We shall ensure that everything is done to see that the system is transparent and properly carried through. What I said about CAP reform stands. We wanted to make sure that it was fair to all farmers, but did not discriminate against British farmers

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 public demanded the Food Safety Act 1990. As a result, they are now better protected than in any other country in Europe. If they want the safest food, they should buy British.

Although I recognise that the 1990 Act was a most important milestone, does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of training and education about food hygiene cannot be over-emphasised? What action does he propose to take to ensure that the highest standards in that education and training are maintained?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point relating to the Act. The Government are committed to the introduction of food hygiene training, which has an important part to play in raising standards in some parts of the food industry and raising the morale and motivation of staff. Of course, we must take the EC draft directive into account. Nevertheless, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health hopes to make an annoucement soon. I hope that that will please my hon. Friend.

Does the Minister appreciate that local authorities have tremendous responsibilities under the Act to carry out the provisions of that legislation? They are concerned because of the delay in publishing the regulations and about the lack of consultation. Does the Minister appreciate that local authorities are also concerned because the £30 million that was to be available to them to finance the introduction of their responsibilities under the Act was not ring-fenced? Because of that and the fact that local government spending in general has been squeezed because sufficient moneys have not been provided, that money is not available to local authorities to carry out their responsibilities under the Act.

The hon. Gentleman is overdoing it a bit. If local authorities have spent that money on something else, that is thoroughly reprehensible. It is true that we have taken a good deal of time to bring the proposals forward, but that is because we want them to be workable, efficient and effective. We want them to have the broadest effect throughout the industry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall lay them before the House as soon as they are ready.

Bearing in mind the need for the utmost food safety and hygiene, is my hon. Friend aware that over-zealous local authority employees are preventing the provision of food in many church halls and village halls? That food has been served for many years without any evidence of illness and such prevention will cause concern, particularly to those who are able to buy food at a cheaper rate because it is provided by a charity. Surely we should reach a balance. We should not destroy the valuable service which many voluntary workers have given for many years.

My hon. Friend is correct. We have issued forceful guidelines to ensure that events such as church fetes and other charitable functions, which have always met the highest standards of food hygiene and for which voluntary workers go to a great deal of trouble to prepare food for other people, are considered low-risk events in food safety terms. Local authorities have far higher priority areas at which to target their resources. I assure my hon. Friend that we watch this matter carefully. Some of the reports have been exaggerated, but some are true and we shall keep a careful eye on the matter.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the number of reported cases of BSE for the past 12 months.

The number of cases of BSE reported in Great Britain in the 12 months to 20 June 1992 was 38,654.

The House will be reassured to know that, so far, grouse are not affected by BSE, so the Minister can continue to eat his favourite breakfast. The figures that he announced are extremely dramatic. Is it not a fact that, since 1988, there has been an alarming increase in the number of reported cases of BSE and that nearly 800 confirmed new cases a week are recorded? It might be okay for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to force-feed his children with hamburgers, but would it not be advisable for pet owners not to feed their animals any beef products? In view of the alarming figures that the Minister announced, is it not now time to have another new, public, independent inquiry to discover whether there is any threat to public health'?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we already have an independent committee. However, earlier, the Southwood working party estimated that there would be about 300 to 400 cases a month. The Southwood figure was heavily qualified and made it clear that no account had been taken of any recycling of the infective agent through feed derived from cattle. The figure quoted by the hon. Gentleman has been widely misunderstood. It actually reflects the increased administrative effort to ensure that our data base is up to date. In fact, we are seeing on average about 700 suspect cases a week, not all of which will be confirmed. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that those figures are fully consistent with our expectations that, thanks to the bans, the disease will disappear in the years to come.

Bearing in mind that the very long incubation period makes it difficult to forecast the progress of the disease, is it not excellent news that the present situation is as forecast by the Southwood and Tyrrell reports? What particular help will the scaremongering debate on an Opposition day on Monday have in respect of the food and farming industries?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Many of us believe that the scares are a scare too far. The Government's response has been vigorous and effective. It has been widely endorsed, most recently by the OIE—the

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the International Whaling Commission's meeting in Glasgow.

The meeting has yet to conclude. There is encouraging progress on a number of key points, although there are also the very grave difficulties of the attitudes of the Norwegians and Icelanders.

The moral persuasion at the Minister's command to try to persuade the otherwise very civilised country of Norway away from recidivism and the barbarities of whale hunting would be redoubled, if only he would join Opposition Members in asking for a statutory ban on fox hunting, as the Norwegian Government have already pointed out. Does the Minister therefore agree that if he is to return to Glasgow and make greater efforts to dissuade the Norwegians, there might be some chance that he could stop the very civilised whale hunting ban coming to an end with more of a wimp than a banger?

The hon. Gentleman does his case no good. We are talking about an international stock dealt with under an international commission. The Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, who is responsible for a report on this subject, stated in her introduction:

"Perhaps our most urgent task today is to persuade nations of the need to return to multi-lateralism … These challenges cut across the divides of national sovereignty, of limited strategies for economic gain and of separated disciplines of science."

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received more letters from my constituents on that issue than about any other? They are deeply concerned about what is happening in Glasgow at the moment, particularly with the announcement that two other countries may end the moratorium on whale hunting. I pass on the good wishes of my constituents to my right hon. Friend as he tries to persuade those countries at the conference not to end the moratorium. If those two countries decide to try to go it alone, what action can my right hon. Friend take?

It is necessary to bring home to people that this is not an issue which can be decided unilaterally. There is an International Whaling Commission, and that commission regulates the way in which we deal with whales and cetaceans generally. Opposition Members do not do much good to their cause by trying to make the issue a means of promoting some other matter about which they happen to feel strongly. The issue is based on an international agreement which was solemnly signed by the Norwegians and to which they should keep. If they wish to lecture other people about how to run their lives, they should remember to keep their international obligations as well.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of lobbying by the Japanese Government and others behind the scenes to try to ensure that the French proposal for a sanctuary for whales was not accepted at the conference? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do everything that he can and that the British Government will join the French Government in trying to ensure that all the necessary background work is done to make sure that that sanctuary proposal is accepted?

I hope very much that, towards the end of this afternoon, with very considerable support and pressure from the British Government, there will be a majority vote in favour of work being done on that sanctuary proposal, on the scientific background material being produced and on a proposal that could be brought back at the next IWC conference, which is what we intended in the first place. The French said that the proposal is not yet ready for decision, although we have said that we arc looking at it in the most favourable way and will do our best to promote it.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the majority of whales are not in British waters and that therefore there must be an international agreement. Will he explain what the French announced yesterday, because their point of view within the International Whaling Commission was not clear?

I do not think that it was unclear; it had been reported in a curious manner. The French said that they accepted that the details of the proposal were not yet ready. Indeed, I said in my answer on the press comments that the proposal was not yet ready in detail for presentation and for voting this year and that, if we were to set up the scientific apparatus and the rest of the things with which we in Britain have promised to help, it might be—I very much hope that it will be—ready for agreement next year.

Does the Minister appreciate that he would take the good will of the whole House with him if he would see the Prime Minister and urge upon him the importance of his impressing upon the Japanese Prime Minister, when he meets him on Saturday, that the British people and Parliament would take a very dim view if the Japanese broke the moratorium on whaling?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will bring very clearly to the Japanese Prime Minister the feelings of people in this country. The whale is an extremely advanced animal. It cannot be taken except in circumstances in which we are assured of the three pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions have not begun to be met. Therefore, there can be no question of raising that moratorium. The Japanese should be in no doubt whatsoever that civilised countries do not break international agreements, particularly when they are very keen on reminding other people that they should not break them.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what particular factors the Minister will take into account when renegotiating the EC sugar regime.

We want a thorough review which takes proper account of our beet and cane interests and brings benefit to sugar users.

My hon. Friend will be aware that sugar production is an extremely important sector of the United Kingdom farming industry. The present United Kingdom quota system is a long way short of consumption levels. In the circumstances, would it not be intolerable, when reforming the EC sugar regime, if that quota were to be reduced still further?

I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that the United Kingdom has obligations to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, and it intends to honour those obligations. Therefore, half of our consumption comes from cane sugar. However, it is true that the United Kingdom produces a lot less of our requirements than other countries produce, and if we have to see a reform of the sugar regime which involves cutting quotas, it would be appropriate for the United Kingdom relatively to do better than other countries in that process.

Does the Minister agree that in the sugar beet sector, as in others, the proposed changes in inheritance tax, which have been discussed in Standing Committee, are likely to have some contradictory effects? I welcome the changes in inheritance tax because the industry obviously needs them, but does the Minister agree that over a range of agricultural changes introduced as a result of the common agricultural policy, it will be necessary to avoid preventing the achievement of major environmental access and recreational agreements? The good work that the Minister has done in the past could be undone. Does the Minister agree that some steps will have to be taken to mitigate those effects?

We shall have to examine the practical consequences to which the hon. Gentleman refers. We are committed to maintaining and improving access. If they are sensible, farmers are also committed to obtaining greater benefits from giving access and to using the environment as an asset of mutual benefit to everyone. We shall certainly pursue those proposals and ideas.

Will my hon. Friend take into account that some EC countries such as flavour-of-the-month Denmark have quotas that are twice their consumption while Britain has a quota which is half its consumption? Will he bear in mind that Britain therefore contributes nothing to the overall surplus and that the surplus comes from the rest of the EC countries?

That is why in any reform that entails cutting quotas, it will be fair for other countries to take the lion's share of the cuts. We must also ensure that the reform addresses price. Otherwise there will be a serious imbalance between the sugar sector and other parts of the arable sectors.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters he has received about animal welfare, and especially on whaling, in the last 12 months; and how many officials are involved in reading the correspondence and dealing with advice and information on the Government position.

More than 60,000 letters and cards about animal welfare have been received in the past 12 months, of which more than 38,000 were on whaling. Up to 36 officials have been involved in dealing with this correspondence.

As my right hon. Friend's robust and consistent opposition to whaling both in the House and throughout the country, has been well known for a long time, does he agree that it would be far better if the many thousands of people who write to him at a cost to the taxpayer, should direct their attention to the ambassadors of Norway, Iceland and other countries, let my right hon. Friend get on with his job and allow his officials to spend their time doing the things that they should be doing? Will he make a statement this afternoon saying that people throughout the country should direct their attention elsewhere?

I am sure that it would help if those who are considering beginning to whale again received large numbers of letters. Not only should ambassadors receive letters but it might be better to direct letters to the Prime Ministers who make the decisions so that they know precisely what it means to say that when a country decides that it can tell the Pope how to run religion and Brazil how to look after its rain forests, it should not refuse to tell its own whalers not to whale.

Does the Minister accept that many people write because they are worried about the undoubted cruelty involved in whaling? The Minister rightly pointed that out at the Glasgow conference. Does he also accept that the people of Britain are worried about all forms of cruelty to animals? The position of the country and the Government would be a great deal stronger with the Norwegians if the Minister joined others in promoting a protection of wild mammals Bill to stop the undoubtedly and equally cruel practice of inflicting dogs on wild animals.

I read the hon. Gentleman's letter in today's The Independent. He repeats the basic argument of the Norwegian whalers and therefore supports them. He is doing harm to our case because he fails to distinguish the fundamental issue which is that an international body deals with an international activity affecting animals in international waters. That body has made clear the rules under which we operate. The Norwegians belong to that body, as did the Icelanders. They ought to obey the body to which they belong.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the total public expenditure on support for United Kingdom farmers (a) from the Exchequer, (b) individually via the European Community and (c) in total.

Details of public expenditure on agriculture are given in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom: 1991" in table 9.1.

Would it surprise my right hon. Friend to know that in 1991–92 the British taxpayer spent £4,120 million on agricultural support, which would be enough for my right hon. Friend to send a cheque for about £17,095.35 to every one of the 241,000 farms—small and large—in this country? As British farmers are clearly not receiving that level of benefit and, even after the changes to it, the common agricultural policy will not give good value for money to taxpayers, consumers or farmers and will not benefit the countryside, what further CAP reforms will my right hon. Friend press for?

My hon. Friend has never been a great enthusiast of the European Community or the common agricultural policy, and he might well have asked that question using different figures at any time during the past 10 years. There has been a major reform and we are able to support the production of food and care for the countryside, which is the farmers' duty. That system is right for the whole of Europe. I believe that our environmental heritage is not limited to the United Kingdom; I want it to prevail in Europe. I am sure that my hon. Friend's children, and my own, will benefit from a system that ensures that we look after the countryside, from Scotland to Sicily.

Does the Minister recognise the need for a comprehensive strategy to enable young people to enter farming, including the possibility of low interest loans and start-up grants, perhaps based on the French model? Does he also recognise the need for measures to control or limit the fragmentation and amalgamation of farms? Does he recognise that there would be a broad welcome for such measures in rural communities, specifically in rural Wales?

I am sure that people in rural Wales will be pleased that we have been able to prevent the discrimination against them that would have occurred under the MacSharry plan, and which would have placed them in a worse position than the people of rural Ireland. The basis of our reform is exactly as the hon. Gentleman would want it. I wonder whether he would want the low rate of interest loans that the French have if, at the same time, he was subject to the French inheritance laws under which the French have to pay back large sums of money to every other member of the family when they inherit a farm. That is one of the reasons for their low interest rates, and the hon. Gentleman would have to accept both features. I do not think that his proposals would be sensible for rural Wales or for the rest of the country.

Should we not add to the huge direct subsidy that farmers receive the massive extra burden borne by consumers to protect farmers from foreign produce? At a time when many members of the farming lobby in Britain are complaining about the possibility of job losses as a result of the reform of the common agricultural policy, should we not remind them of the huge number of jobs lost in Europe over the past 40 years as a result of the artificial diversion of huge sums of money into the agricultural industry? That money could have been more efficiently deployed in other industries, thus creating more jobs in them.

I deeply disagree with my hon. Friend. If we had carried out his proposals, countries such as the United States, which heavily subsidise farmers, would have been able to take over the whole of our agricultural industry and we would find it impossible to produce our own food or look after our countryside. There will always be a need for proper support for agriculture in a country like ours, as in the rest of Europe, as we place upon farmers environmental responsibilities which they cannot afford from their returns from the market. We need to strike a proper balance, which we will come closer to achieving through CAP reform. That is the beginning of what will be the continuing business of adapting our system to the realities of life, not to some theoretical free market that does not exist in the world in which most farmers are supported.

Is the Minister aware that in Bolsover, where every family has to pay more than £18 a week to bail out rich farmers because of the common agricultural policy, people are saying that it is high time that this wart of a Minister got something done about the dioxin in the area? Is he also aware that last week it was announced that one family was found to have up to six times more than the normal level of dioxin in their blood? On top of that, he is refusing to pay farmers compensation. Why does he not have a public inquiry, settle the matter and ensure that the people of Bolsover are able to lay their complaints at the door where they really belong—the Government and this little squirt of a Minister.

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will regret—

I meant every word.

Order. I am asking——[Interruption.] Order. I am asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.

I will not.

I am asking the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Order. I also ask the House to leave this matter to me. I ask the hon. Member for Bolsover if he will withdraw the word that he has just used.

I know "Erskine May" a little. I know that that word is not in it. I know that not long ago my right hon. Friend referred to a Tory as a jerk. I am not prepared to withdraw because that is how I picture the Minister.

Order. I am very reluctant to use the authority that the House has given me and I again ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his remark—[Interruption.] Order. I am well aware that the remark that he made is not in "Erskine May" but there are some phrases and a vocabulary that should not be used in the House. Once again, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark that he made.

No.

I am most reluctant to use my disciplinary powers. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover withdraw that remark?

No.

That being the case I have no alternative but to ask the hon. Member for Bolsover to withdraw from the House for this days's sitting.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the labelling of food.

There are proposals for food labelling before the Council of Ministers, covering a variety of matters. We expect further proposals from the Commission on statements claiming that food stuffs have particular properties. I expect to announce shortly my decisions on the recommendations of the Food Advisory Committee's review of food labelling in the United Kingdom—[Interruption.]

Order. Would the House calm down so that we can get on with our proceedings.

May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, especially after the removal of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Surely my hon. Friend would agree that it is of the utmost importance to the consumer that food is always kept in its best possible condition. Therefore, it should always be clearly marked with the date on which its shelf life expires and the date on which it should cease being used by the housewife. That is the best protection to ensure that the fine food produced by our farmers is delivered in the same quality to housewives in their homes.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are committed to going further down the road of ensuring the provision of more informative labelling. Most pre-packed foods are now marked with the "best before" date. It is our intention to keep this matter under review. There are, of course, microbiologically highly perishable foods which are likely, after a short period, to pose immediate danger to human health. These foods must carry a "use by" date.

Does the Minister agree that if the food labelling regulations required disclosure that the animal had been killed in a small butcher-owned abattoir, that would be likely to increase the sales of the meat? Will he look once again at the pettifogging requirements which are putting small butcher-owned abattoirs here out of business while other countries, such as Greece, are not adopting the same standards?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. This is a matter of great concern to the Government. We have secured a derogation on smaller units and we intend to see a level playing field throughout the European Community in this as in all other matters of European legislation.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the forthcoming Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe summit in Helsinki.

The CSCE sets standards of democratic behaviour for the 52 countries of Europe and North America that belong to it. Britain wants it to play a more prominent role in peacekeeping, with the help of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western European Union, in bringing pressure to bear on members who fail to meet democratic standards, in providing early warning of disputes between its members and in the conciliation and arbitration of disputes. We have put forward proposals in all these areas for decision at the summit.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing ethnic conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union are in total contradiction of the Paris charter, signed at the last CSCE summit in November 1990? What new measures will he be supporting, or indeed proposing, at next week's CSCE summit in Helsinki which will bring such wars in Europe to an end and avoid any new ones in the future?

My hon. Friend is quite right in his strictures about present performance. The CSCE can press the parties involved both to negotiate in good faith and to settle their differences peacefully. The proposals that we have put forward for the summit are aimed at making the conference more effective in both these areas.

The CSCE should surely be discussing, among other things, the eventual replacement of NATO by a European defence organisation. Does the Prime Minister agree that NATO is coming to the end of its days and that what is needed is a European defence organisation that is not dominated by American political and military leaders?

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I believe that NATO's contribution in the period since the war has helped to keep Europe safe. I believe that it will continue to be the best guarantor of our security in the future. Although we see a growing role for the Western European Union, it can have that only as the European arm of NATO, with the Europeans paying a proportionately greater share of the defence of Europe. NATO must remain. It is our security both in Europe and beyond.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 June.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports that show how dramatically the living standards of the British people have risen over the last 20 years—all the British people? Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that there is no coincidence other than the fact that we have had 15 years of Conservative government?

I have seen the headline about that particular report, though I confess that I have not yet read every detail of the report. There is no doubt that the living standards of people right across the nation have soared dramatically in recent years. Although some hon. Members below the Gangway may scoff, it is the fact that they are that out of touch which helped them lose the last election.

Would the Prime Minister be satisfied if his children's schools were to be inspected by anyone who had nothing more than a few days' training for the task?

There is a strong case for independent inspection of schools by lay people of experience in life. That is the right way to proceed and it is what we will do.

If those lay people, who are supposed to be independent despite the fact that they are freelance contractors, were to report that a primary school was not coming up to standard because there were more than 30 children in its classes, would the Government then provide more resources to ensure that there were more teachers in order to bring those class sizes down?

There has been a reduction in class sizes, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He also knows that independent inspectors will be registered by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools. We have made it perfectly clear in the parents charter that there will be regular reports on schools by independent inspectors. That is now a matter of law. It was put on the statute book by the Education (Schools) Act 1992.

It is a pity that the Prime Minister did not respond to the question of what he will do to improve the quality of education if those inspectors report—when they report—that standards are deficient because of a shortage of teachers. More than 1 million British school children in primary schools are in classes of more than 30 and, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman says, the number is increasing. When will he start paying attention to the real problems of education and acknowledge that the privatisation of the inspectorate has nothing to do with overcoming those deep-seated problems?

We have a wide range of education policies to improve the quality of education in schools. One part of that, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, is the independent inspection of schools. We believe that independent inspection by people not related to the education profession is a better way of ensuring that we have reports that are fully independent and which reflect more accurately those things that parents wish to learn about the schools at which their children are educated.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the remarks by Mr. De Gruchy, the general secretary of the National Association of Headmasters—

"Schoolmasters".

Order. We are all allowed a slip of the tongue sometimes.

It is the same Mr. De Gruchy who said recently that spelling does not matter very much. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is just another example—[Interruption.]

Order. This is all taking up time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is just another example of the education establishment's trendy attitude which bears no relationship at all to the needs of pupils and parents or to the views of those teachers who do worry about standards in schools?

I believe that my hon. Friend is right to say that the majority of the British people want the basics of education taught, and taught from the earliest days in school. That self-evidently means reading, writing and adding up. My hon. Friend's comments will be echoed by parents throughout the country.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the circumstances surrounding the case of Mr. Roy Cornes, a Birmingham factory worker, who knowingly infected four women with the AIDS virus, one of whom has since died? Is he aware that that is a severe criminal offence in America and France, yet the Secretary of State for Health refuses to introduce legislation, saying that the existing laws are adequate? If that is the case, why have there been no prosecution?

I do not want to refer to the case that the hon. Gentleman cites. I do not know what will happen in that particular instance, but it would be unwise for me to interfere. The underlying problem of HIV notification is that of driving it further underground and thereby creating a further health hazard. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that genuine dilemma. However, no one will push to one side without concern the problem that he raises.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the works of Shakespeare have a central place in the teaching of English in our schools? Is he not appalled at the negative view taken by the National Union of Teachers, which describes Shakespeare as boring and irrelevant? Is that not another example of how out of touch the NUT is with teachers, parents and the needs of pupils?

Many people would agree with my hon. Friend that Shakespeare's works should be an important part of the school curriculum. "Much Ado About Nothing" is something with which the House is often familiar—[Interruption.] In my defence, Madam Speaker, I will say only that "NUT or not NUT", which I heard uttered by a member of the Opposition Front Bench, was even less amusing.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

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

Given that a few months ago the Prime Minister and his party were campaigning on the strategy that, despite recent increases in unemployment, more people were in work, how does he answer the report published by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), which clearly demonstrates that the employed labour force fell by 191,000 in 1991, and that by April this year another 94,000 were added to that total? When will the Prime Minister start to deal with this country's massive unemployment?

No one takes the unemployment situation lightly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is the case. The advice that I received when I read an article about that report this morning was that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) had taken some liberties with the figures—including ignoring people who are at work on Government programmes.

Will my right hon. Friend have time today to reflect on the recent statements by Arthur Scargill, president of the National Union of Mineworkers, regarding the impending privatisation of the coal industry? Does not my right hon. Friend deprecate Mr. Scargill's attempts to revive the damaging strike of the early 1980s? Will he give an assurance that the Government will not in any way be deflected from privatising coal, which will be in the interests of the industry and its workers?

Yes, I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want a modern and efficient coal industry I hat offers its employees a chance to share in the future. Mr. Scargill and his friends do not realise that privatisation is in the best interests of the industry and of those who work in it. As Labour has over the years closed more coal mines than we ever have, it should realise that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 2 July.

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

When the Prime Minister stated recently that he wants a green theme to develop during Britain's presidency of the EEC, was he aware that the Treasury is planning to abolish the Advisory Committee on International Green Policy and to cut by half the Joint Nature Conservation Committee's senior staff? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what he will do to those Treasury mandarins who seem hell-bent, so early in the right hon. Gentleman's presidency, on cutting him off and making him appear to be a Johnny-come-lately?

Environmental matters spread across all policies and do not relate just to the appointment of particular bodies. We have already made it clear that throughout our presidency of the Community and in our domestic policies we will take environmental improvement very seriously. It will be considered in all the policies that we put forward.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on his achievement yesterday in terms of all-party talks on constitutional matters? Does my right hon. Friend share my view that the brutal murders in south Armagh overnight underline the need for peaceful progress and for the involvement of all lawful political parties joining together for the defeat of terrorism?

I believe that my hon. Friend, in his last remark, will carry the whole House with him. The discovery of the three bodies in Armagh last night, and the subsequent admission by the provisional IRA that it is responsible, demonstrates yet again the true nature of terrorism. The historic agreement of the Northern Ireland parties yesterday to start strands 2 and 3 of the talks deserves unreserved welcome, and I certainly join in the congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his colleagues. I hope that we shall see the strand 2 meetings convened under Sir Ninian Stephen, and that the first meeting will take place as soon as possible. Although it would be premature to make predictions about the eventual outcome, the way is now open for the Northern Ireland parties to explore new relationships face to face with the Irish Government, and that is a great step forward.