To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent proposals have been agreed to combat fraud under the reformed CAP.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) on his first appearance on the Opposition Front Bench.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. I am sure that he is aware that, for city dwellers in places such as Portsmouth, it is often the horror stories and the costs of the CAP which are more obvious than its benefits. How will the new measures be enforced effectively through the institutions of the EC so that my constituents can be assured that their hard-earned cash will not go to line the pockets of continental con men?

I would not be too nationalistic about con men. There are people who use systems and they need to be stopped. The new anti-fraud devices will be effective. The Commission has greater powers to inspect inspectorates, and rules will be more clearly and transparently controlled. I remind my hon. Friend that recently it was the Italian Government who discovered Italian fraud and reported it to the Commission, which makes a major change of which I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents will approve.

Will the Minister confirm that last year there was a report that the fraud was of the order of £7,000 million? Although there is fraud in Italy, with olive trees being paid for which exist only on paper, is not it true that fraud also takes place in Britain? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that cattle are moved across the border from southern Ireland into Northern Ireland, back and for'ard, back and for'ard; the cattle have done it so often that they know the road themselves and money is made every time? Is not it high time that the right hon. Gentleman looked into not just what is happening on the continent, because that is big, but what is happening here as well?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman noticed that I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) that one should not restrict one's complaints to those in the rest of the Community. The very point that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has raised will be precisely covered in the part of the new measures concerning the identification of cattle. I am sure that that will have his full support.

Will my right hon. Friend commend the measures in the Maastricht treaty that provide for the European Parliament the same kind of research that the Public Accounts Committee does in Britain, allowing the European Commission to carry out a proper standard of inspection and investigation into fraud under the CAP?

My hon. Friend is right. Another advantage of the Maastricht treaty will be that countries that do not carry out the regulations to which they have given their vote and their name will be able to be brought before the European Court of Justice and fined; what they have supported will then be enforced.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by when he expects the European veterinary committee to reach a decision on the application by his Department for approval to be given for the use of the Torry process for processing bivalve molluscs.

The Standing Veterinary Committee approved the principles of the Torry process on 18 November.

The Council of Ministers approved two directives relevant to that matter on 22 July last year, so why did it take the Minister's Department a year before an application for the Torry process was made to the European veterinary committee so that, today, none of the cockle gatherers of Penclawdd know that that process has been approved? The Minister has sounded the death knell of that industry from 1 January next year, because there is no way that those cockle gatherers can implement the process by the time that the directives come into force. This week, I referred the Ministry to the Parliamentary Commissioner because of its maladministration. I want to know from the Minister what is the recipe for those of my constituents who have worked in an industry that has existed since the middle ages, but which will be closed down on 1 January because the Minister's incompetence.

The hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions, but clearly he does not understand the answers, which are very clear. Nobody will be closed down on 1 January or 2 January. We will make sure that the regulations are in place, and we will give clear indications to environmental health officers in the hon. Gentleman's local authority that where it is clear that the operator will take the necessary measures to protect public health—

In three weeks?

after 1 January, he will be continuing in business. We will apply the regulations with common sense. If the hon. Gentleman fears that a producer is going out of business, he can bring the case to my attention and we will investigate it—but the hon. Gentleman will have precious little to report.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that the services offered by the Agricultural Training Board in central England continue to be at the level required to meet the needs of the region.

We are carefully considering reactions to our plans to change the status of the Agricultural Training Board.

Does my hon. Friend agree that training groups are a marvellous way of farmers getting together and provide a perfect forum for disseminating training information to other farmers? Does he also agree that United Kingdom farmers are very strapped for cash at the moment? Will he make a statement confirming that core funding for training, together with some additional funding for overheads, will continue?

It is clear from the response and from comments received that ATB training groups are highly valued by the industry and other agencies operating in the land-based sector. I confirm that if Agriculture Ministers decide, following the consultation exercise, to implement their proposals for changing the status of ATB funding, core funding will continue.

In the light of that response, should not the question posed be not so much about core funding for the board in central England but whether or not the boards have a future? Given the Government's negative response in respect of wages councils and similar bodies, will the Minister give a commitment that ATBs will continue with Government support, even if core funding is changed?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and he is right to make such an inquiry. We have a high opinion of the Agricultural Training Board's work, and seek to explore with the ATB ways of making its operations more efficient and less bureaucratic. We have every intention of ensuring that the board continues its good work.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of land are to be taken out of agricultural use in the United Kingdom under the recent reforms of the CAP; and if he will make a statement on the progress made on his alternative land use policy.

It is not yet possible to say precisely how much land will be fallowed in the first year of the arable area payment scheme. The Commission has estimated that some 634,000 hectares would be set aside in the United Kingdom as a whole.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's excellent work for farmers throughout the country and particularly in my area. Am I right in thinking that an area of land five times the size of Devon will have to be taken out of agriculture? If so, will that be done by eating into green-field sites on the edges of towns and smaller market villages; by land being taken by recreational, leisure, and tourist interests; or by increasing the number of gardens that people can have? Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is less dangerous to walk across Dartmoor, where the military can fire freely 300 days a year, than in many other parts of my constituency because of the number of golf balls that fly around there?

My hon. Friend knows that fallowing was part of the rotation of crops for many years, but was stopped recently. Land will be taken out in different ways all over the country. My main concern is that the process should be as environmentally friendly as possible and that we should keep the land in good heart, because there may come a time when we shall need it. No student of history could support the idea that surpluses go on for ever. I hope that people will be imaginative. I agree with my hon. Friend that even gardens may be available, and I hope that no one will try to frustrate that.

The Minister is aware that there are few alternative uses for hill areas in my constituency and in other parts of Britain. Golf is not an option, as nobody has invented a vertical golf course yet. Will he assure me that the GATT negotiations on the common agricultural policy will not further erode hill livestock compensatory amounts and the ewe premium?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be little set-aside in the hillier areas of his constituency. I assure him that the GATT agreement is consonant with the common agricultural policy reform and that the payments that he mentioned will not be disciplined under the GATT because they are not production connected.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that many people are deeply concerned about the principle of setting aside fertile agricultural land. Concern is being expressed about the amount of land set aside in Britain and other European countries. Although we do not want our farmers to behave like French farmers, will he assure the House that no more than the 15 per cent. already agreed will be set aside in Britain?

It would be much better if production capacity equalled available land, but it is surely better to set aside land than to have mountains and lakes, which cost a great deal, and surely better to keep the land in good heart and to pay the farmer for looking after it properly so that it is available when the nation needs it than to allow it to be removed from agriculture permanently. I think that my hon. Friend puts the saddest rather than the best aspect of a reasonable policy. I assure him that the CAP reform package that I have negotiated is very much in the United Kingdom's interests, and is very much better than that proposed at the outset.

Is not it clear that the Government's position has changed in the past seven days since the President of the Board of Trade gave his answer at the Dispatch Box? When I asked a similar question last week, we received a different response. If the NFU, European Community officials and his own Back Benchers believe it, why does not the Minister admit that the GATT agreement will lead to a substantial increase in set-aside—optimistic assumptions suggest 20 per cent., but pessimistic assumptions suggest as much as 40 per cent. Why does he persist in denying the truth from the Dispatch Box?

The hon. Gentleman's intervention—for the second time—suggests a staggering unfamiliarity with the facts. The European Commission has made it clear that GATT is compatible with CAP. If the European Commission says that it is compatible, it cannot mean that there will be an extensive extension of set-aside. The situation is quite clear: set-aside, as part of the programme of CAP reform, will not be radically changed by the GATT agreement. The hon. Gentleman knows that from me, he knows it from the Commission and, indeed, he would know it from what the NFU has said if he read it more carefully.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance his Department is giving to farmers on planning matters.

This Department works closely with the Department of the Environment to ensure that the planning system enables farmers to carry out developments that are necessary to sustain the rural economy.

I thank my hon. Friend for that announcement, which will be warmly welcomed in my constituency of Cambridgeshire, North-East. But given the prospects of deteriorating farm incomes as a result of common agricultural policy reform and the GATT adjustments, does not my hon. Friend agree that planning authorities should adopt a far more sensitive and flexible approach to the development needs of farmers and landowners?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right. Planning authorities should adopt a positive approach, and their role must be to facilitate sensible diversification. My hon. Friend will be aware that that was the message of "The Countryside and the Rural Economy"—planning policy guidance note 7—issued by the Department. The document advises planning authorities that the development necessary to sustain the rural economy must be integrated with the protection of what is best in the countryside. Maintaining a healthy rural economy is by far the best way of protecting and enhancing our countryside.

Is the Minister aware that in Renfrewshire we have been inundated with a flood of applications to build housing on farmland? What type of advice is the Department giving to farmers subjected to such pressure? My constituents in some of my Tory heartlands are sick and tired of spending a fortune to prevent houses from being built on farmland.

I am grateful for the fact that that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is important that local planning authorities, as well as allowing and encouraging developments involving surplus farm buildings, should allow the construction of other buildings, too, provided that they are suitably landscaped? Does my hon. Friend agree that all too often vociferous minorities have an influence far beyond what they deserve? Will he use his best offices to discuss with the Department of the Environment ways in which the resolve of local planning authorities may be stiffened to resist some of those vociferous minorities—which all too often come from the Liberal Democratic party?

My hon. Friend is correct. The countryside cannot be preserved in aspic, and only its enemies would propose that it should be.

If it were you would eat it!

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consistency of the GATT agricultural agreement with the recent CAP reforms; and if he will make a statement.

The recent agreement between the European Community and the United States on GATT agriculture paves the way for wider agreement in the round. The Commission has made it clear that it is compatible with the reforms of CAP regimes agreed earlier this year, as I said in reply to question 4.

Even with the reforms, the CAP is protectionist and has considerable subsidy equivalents. Although GATT is not a free trade system, it stands for trade liberalisation. Is the only way in which the circle can be squared between the different principles by taking more and more land out of production, at a time when more and more people in the world are starving?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need to protect the countryside of Europe and to ensure that agriculture can continue sensibly there. If that protection is not afforded, the countryside on which we depend will not be the sort of countryside that town dwellers and surburban people want to see. Of course we must protect agriculture to enable townsmen to enjoy the countryside. That can be done, but at a lower cost and with less protection than in the past, both through CAP reform and through a GATT agreement. That is why the Government have pioneered the CAP reform and why we have been at the centre of the battle to ensure that there is a GATT agreement.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his skilful chairmanship of the EC Agriculture Council during our presidency? Is he now confident that the French will accept the GATT deal and that they will not exercise any vetoes?

The French Government have made it clear that they are unhappy about some of the details of the arrangements made between the European Community and the United States. They have also made it clear that they wish to see the whole GATT deal in the round before they make up their mind. They will then decide what is in the interests of France. It is inconceivable that it could be in the interests of France not to have a GATT deal which, after all, will help Europe to get out of the recession that has led to more than 3 million people being unemployed in France.

Under the GATT agricultural agreement, what are the prospects for cheaper feeding stuffs to give an incentive to our intensive sector in agriculture?

The main ability to reduce the price of feeding stuffs comes from the CAP reform, which is taken up in the GATT agreement. There will be a reduction of 30 per cent. in the support price of cereals, which will have a direct knock-on effect in the price of feeding stuffs. Those feeding stuffs take up a large proportion of the end price of both pigs and poultry.

My right hon. Friend will be aware from my previous discussions with him of my concern for the largest mushroom grower in the north of England, which is in my constituency. As part of his work on the continuing CAP reforms, will he pay special attention to the unfair subsidies that are paid to rival mushroom growers in a number of other countries? Will he join me in congratulating Pixie House Mushrooms on combating those unfair subsidies and winning this week the award for business of the year in our area, which was sponsored by First Leisure plc and by the local newspapers?

After that short break, we come back to the main programme. I agree with my hon. Friend that there are some practices within the Community that fundamentally distort competition and trade. They underline the need for Community action and decisions made across the country so that trade may be fair. I will continue to fight to ensure that British firms have a fair deal in Europe.

I thank the Minister for his earlier congratulations. Is he aware that the Labour party wants international agreement on an overall GATT deal as soon as possible? However, measures will be required to protect the livelihoods of our farmers and farm workers, not least because of the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the food and drink industries which are dependent on home agricultural produce. If concessions are made to secure a French agreement on GATT, will the Minister ensure that such concessions do not discriminate against our agriculture and that the British, as consumers and taxpayers, do not bear a disproportionate share of the cost?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that a trade deal in GATT is essential. That point has all-party support. I do not see how any agreement under GATT could disproportionately disadvantage the United Kingdom. I am looking closely at the small print of the discussions so far to ensure that that does not happen. I do not believe that the French can object to the agreement under the CAP reform to which they added their vote. It follows that if CAP reform is consonant with GATT and GATT is consonant with CAP reform, there is no place for changes that would benefit one country rather than the others. Any changes that take place over the next few months must, as with any other changes, be fair for all countries, neither disproportionately costing nor disproportionately benefiting countries merely because they have made a lot of noise.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an official visit to food producers in Basildon to discuss the needs of the food production industry in the United Kingdom.

I would consider an invitation to visit Basildon irresistable.

With that excellent news, will my hon. Friend join me at Basildon Dairy Products and, while tasting the finest yoghurt in the world, listen to the company's concerns about its projected increased cost of raw materials next year and then join me at Faux Brand Products and, while tasting the finest ham in Europe, listen to the company's plans for expansion next year and its concern that while this country honours European directives at increased costs, other member states appear not to do that?

I am looking forward to tasting the products at the plants in my hon. Friend's constituency. Experience tells me that when I am invited to taste products, I am usually required to sing for my supper and I will certainly listen to what those companies have to say.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the arrangements that have been made for the distribution of EC surplus butter.

Three thousand seven hundred tonnes of butter will be distributed by 1,300 voluntary organisations.

What does the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food do to ensure that there is adequate publicity so that the people who are entitled to the butter know where and when it is going to be distributed? What checks are carried out afterwards to ensure that the butter has gone to the people who are entitled to it and does not end up on market stalls and in shops?

The publicity must be handled by the organisations concerned. We send the butter to voluntary organisations. It would be an enormous task for MAFF to advertise the locations at which 1,300 organisations make the butter available. The arrangements are subjected to very detailed checks. We check about one third of all recipients annually. We check the records of the produce received and the record of the produce that has gone out. We also check the number of recipients, how much each received and how eligibility was established. Organisations that are shown not to have followed the rules will find it extremely difficult to participate in the scheme the following year.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sums have been awarded to what groups under the MAFF group marketing grant since 1 April.

The Department has so far issued 11 approvals under the scheme to a total value of just over £180,000 in England.

Is the Minister aware that that is a very disappointing and pathetic take-up after all the hype about the introduction of the scheme? Will the Minister comment on whether too high a proportion of the cost is laid on the groups or whether it has something to do with the criteria for acceptance within the Ministry? At the end of the financial year, will any unallocated funds be sucked back into the Treasury?

The answer to the last question is no. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the take-up. We have had 39 applications and 18 approvals in the United Kingdom. We deliberately set ourselves to work sensibly to develop schemes and we deliberately decided not to go for a great theatrical send-off for a scheme that might not be well founded. The important point is that we are encouraging people to talk about, discuss and develop schemes with us and we are very encouraged by what is happening. We are now talking to the catering and retail sectors about how they can get hold of the products that they want to help British farmers and to give British consumers the best of British produce.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the coming together of a competitive exchange rate, the CAP reform and the GATT settlement provides the best opportunity for a generation of British food manufacturers to make inroads into our huge trade deficit in food products? The marketing grant scheme is crucial to that. Does he also agree that the labelling directive which is under consideration would help our manufacturers a great deal if we could put on the labels of our food the origin of those food products?

I note my hon. Friend's final point. I agree with him entirely. The whole purpose of the scheme is not to persuade people to do things for patriotic purposes, but to ensure that they can get first-rate products from the United Kingdom for our consumers and for the export market. We have some quite remarkable products and we are not justly represented overseas in many of the markets in which we should be. The whole point of the scheme is to ensure that British food acquires a worldwide reputation for quality, reliability and innovation.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in introducing the new set-aside proposals.

A detailed booklet on the arable area payments scheme for 1992–93 was published in early September and copies were placed in the House Library.

Does the Minister accept that while it may be seen as folly to pay farmers not to produce when millions of people in the world are starving, if we have to have a set-aside policy, we must be sure that the farmers will know the rules of the non-rotational scheme in time to plan for the next growing year?

I certainly want to make sure that when we have the non-rotational scheme which was inserted at British insistence, it will be early enough for people to make that choice and to include within it the areas which they have set aside under the rotational scheme as the first year of a non-rotational project.

What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to the effect of set-aside on tenant values when dilapidations are settled at the end of a farm tenancy?

My hon. Friend raises a point which we have looked at carefully and it is one of the things that are informing our present discussions about the reform of landlord-tenant arrangements. I hope very much to be able to make decisions on that and, when legislative time is available, wholly to reform our landlord-tenant arrangements which are wildly out of date and do not provide enough land for tenants to take up.

Does the Minister accept that his policy on set-aside is quite unsatisfactory? It applies to no other industry; it has a very dubious effect on the environment and there is the further danger that farmers will increase the productivity of their remaining land to make up what they have lost on set-aside. Would it not be wiser to encourage less intensive agriculture?

The hon. Member has obviously not read our statements, which show that we are doing precisely that. It is our purpose to encourage less intensive arrangements, but set-aside is a necessary part of the whole policy and he does not do his own farmers any good by perpetuating myths about set-aside which they would disagree with.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), my right hon. Friend will be aware, having completed his consultation on landlord and tenant reform, that there is a window of goodwill from all organisations that this reform should succeed. May I urge him to come forward with a White Paper or legislative proposals as soon as possible?

The point about set-aside is that it again underlines the need for the arrangements between landlords and tenants to be left to the landlords and tenants and not to a panoply of legal arrangements. I do not believe that we shall get sufficient land forward, so that tenants who want to come into the industry will be able to take it, unless we ensure that decisions are made between two grown-up people and not interfered with by a lot of people who have arrangements that are based on laws that are long out of date.

Does the Minister agree that we would be less dependent on set-aside if farmers in this and other countries in the Community were more able to meet their agricultural feedstuff requirements from their own resources? Will he look particularly at the exports of maize gluten and other feedstuffs from America in the context of the GATT round?

We have been discussing this, not in the context of the GATT round but in the context of the GATT panel finding on two separate occasions that we in Europe have for too long excluded the products of the United States and other countries, having given them tariff-free entry.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that without constructive and positive uses for set-aside land, we shall face a new wasteland policy in this country because of land that is left uncultivated. We are looking forward to proper proposals to ensure that land is used constructively, without a negative waste of public funds. Bearing in mind what the Minister has said about the impact of the GATT agreement, can we take it that he is giving the House an assurance that no more than 15 per cent. of agricultural land will be set aside in this country?

There is no question of the GATT agreement increasing substantially the costs of the common agricultural policy reform for the farmer, and among those is set-aside. I do not change from that position. The hon. Gentleman talks about set-aside as if it were an innovation, when there has been crop rotation throughout the history of agriculture. Large areas of land have always been left to rest, and the hon. Gentleman cannot start some terrible scare about it. Farmers are being paid to look after the land. The rules that I have laid down are tougher than in other European countries because I have environmental support—[Interruption.]—if hon. Gentlemen ask questions and expect answers, they should not interrupt people when they are trying to answer.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on official procedures for informing fishermen when their right to fish is to be stopped.

Fishermen are informed of fishery closures by means of variations to their licences, wherever possible immediately before a closure.

While fish quota management is extremely difficult, surely there is something seriously wrong with the system when the fishermen of Harwich and the Thames estuary can be told their quotas for the rest of the year on 27 October, and they plan on that basis, only to be told two weeks later that the quotas have been slashed by three quarters and a week later that they have been abandoned all together, thus wiping out their livelihood for the last six weeks of the year. Can my hon. Friend assure me that he is looking for, and will find, a more fair and effective method of quota control?

If my hon. Friend wishes us to move to individual transferable quotas, where the fisherman is given a clear quota to exploit throughout the year, I shall be happy to examine that, but the fishing industry has shown strong hostility to it. Under the present rules, the one thing that we cannot control is how frequently fishermen go to sea and how much they catch. There is always a delay of a couple of weeks before statistics are available. If we say that we are going to close a fishery in five or six days, every fisherman in creation will set out to sea, stay there for as long as possible, and come back with a large catch, which will represent a significant overfish. I understand the problem, and have told each group of fishermen where problems occur. If there is any justification for reopening I shall do it, and I have already met a significant number of groups of fishermen. If we can improve management we shall be open to doing so.

The Minister is going to have to stop a lot of other fishermen, in the dictatorial way in which he has just stopped the Grimsby producer organisations' cod quota, if the multi-annual guidance programme targets that he has just agreed in Brussels come into effect. How can the Minister justify an agreement which cuts by one fifth the British fishing effort—the nation which provides the majority of the fish stocks in the Common Market pool—and leaves the massive Spanish effort with a 4 per cent. cut only?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the flag of convenience that he is wearing. As usual, he has got his facts wrong. The multi-annual guidance programme targets are identical for all member states. The effort that they have to apply to each sector depends on how their fleet is divided between various sectors. We shall monitor carefully what the Spanish and everyone else is doing. We have an outstandingly good deal for the British fleet, which I shall explain to him at length and very slowly if he so wishes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Cornish fishermen, especially those from my constituency, are hopping mad because of what they regard as the premature closure of the hake fishery? Two days ago they were suddenly told, without warning, that the Minister had closed that fishery, even though the Cornish fish producers organisation has 20 tonnes of unused quota at its disposal. Surely they are being penalised because they have managed their sector of the quota well, whereas others have managed it badly.

The people who are hopping mad are the quota hoppers, because they are the people who are most affected by this closure. When we have the up-to-date figures, I am sure that my hon. Friend will find that there is no deficiency left on the tonnages which have been taken. I give him an assurance, as I do all fishermen, that if we find that there is so much as one fish left, we will authorise them to go and catch it.

The Minister claimed in Standing Committee that opinion in the industry was divided on the question of borrowing forward on the haddock quota. Given that the entire Scottish industry was in favour of this proposal, can the Minister name the fishing organisation that was against it?

I can name the organisation that failed to administer its quota effectively this year, and that is the producer organisation that is supposed to be disputing that decision on haddock. Those haddock are on the margin of the minimum landing size. If they are caught next year they will be bigger fish, better fish and worth a great deal more to the industry. The sensible thing is to catch them next year when they have a reasonable and sensible quota.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

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.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many businesses are finding it difficult enough without the added burden of bureaucratic interference and excessive regulation? Can he assure businesses in my constituency that he will do everything he can to reduce the number of petty rules and regulations emanating both from Whitehall and from Brussels?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I think that it is time that we stood back again and looked at the whole burden of regulation—that imposed by the House, that imposed by the Community and that imposed by local authorities. That is precisely what I have asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to do. I shall be calling in all Cabinet Ministers in the new year to discuss how we can cut that red tape still further. Today I have announced a new scrutiny involving the private sector, which will look at the way in which EC regulations impact upon business. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will announce details of this shortly.

On the day when the Post Office has made a staggering announcement of 15,000 job losses, will the Prime Minister tell the House what action he proposes to take to stern the rising tide of unemployment?

Everyone, of course, regrets job losses wherever they occur. In the case of the Post Office, I am glad that these are both to be spread and to be sought voluntarily. The only way to create long-term sustainable jobs is to create the right policies that produce long-term sustainable growth. That is precisely what we are putting in place.

Does the Prime Minister not realise that we have heard both these regrets and these excuses in every month of the two years in which he has been Prime Minister? Does he not accept the reality of modern Britain, that there are 52 unemployed people seeking every job vacant in the west midlands and 72 seeking every job vacant in London? What does he propose to do about it?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have been listening a moment or so ago. If he is really concerned about jobs, why does he not drop his commitment to a payroll tax, the social chapter and the minimum wage? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should remember what happened last time a Labour Government—of which he was a member—tried to buy its way out of recession: 27 per cent. inflation and no growth.

Is it not pathetic that, after 15 years of Conservative Government and after the Prime Minister has been in office for two years, he is still seeking to blame others for unemployment? Does he not realise that redundancy does not just affect the Post Office; in this week alone, we have the Post Office, Ford and Cammell Laird? Does he not understand that unemployment is now a cancer eating up the fabric of British society? When, at long last, will he take some action against unemployment?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman expresses concern about Cammell Laird. The defence policies that his party espouses would put hundreds of thousands of people out of work. He conveniently forgets that labour spent the first half of this year calling for swingeing tax increases that would have put many other people out of work. Our priority has been to create the right conditions for growth. We have cut inflation to under 4 per cent., we have cut tax rates for businesses and earners and we have reduced interest rates to 7 per cent., the lowest in the Community and half the level of two years ago.

Against the background of the further attempts by the IRA to mount a bombing campaign in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, did my right hon. Friend note in the recent elections in the Republic of Ireland that Sinn Fein massed the masive total of 1·6 per cent. of support and that of the 42 candidates who stood, 40 lost their deposits? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that demonstrates that any attempt to pretend that there is popular democratic support for the campaign of violence is totally fraudulent?

I certainly noted the statistics to which my right hon. Friend refers. They reflect the disgust that is felt not only in this country but in the Republic of Ireland about the way in which the IRA seeks to bomb, kill and damage people's lives indiscriminately.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister recall that in September 1986 he filled in a questionnaire sent to him by the author Mr. Martin Short agreeing that police officers, magistrates, Members of Parliament, councillors and other public officials who were Freemasons should disclose that fact? If he has forgotten, I have with me a copy of the questionnaire with his signature at the bottom of it. Is that still his position and, if so, may I expect his support for my Secret Societies (Declaration) Bill which comes up for Second Reading on 29 January?

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his ingenuity and research. It remains my personal view, as set out at that time. I shall examine his Bill and my timetable and see what answer I come up with.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the last week alone, 17 convoys of British troops have delivered nearly 1,000 tonnes of food to the stricken citizens of Bosnia? Will he reassure the House that it is not the Government's intention to deploy British troops in a combat role, whatever the merits of enforcing a no-fly zone, in what is essentially a civil war?

As my hon. Friend knows, we already have 2,000 troops in Yugoslavia. They are there to deliver humanitarian aid. They are, as my hon. Friend points out, doing that with great skill, persistence and bravery. We have taken a leading role in many aspects in Yugoslavia, in sanctions monitoring in the Adriatic, and that has now been stepped up. We have, of course, supported the establishment of a no-fly zone. If further action is needed to enforce that no-fly zone, we should wish to consider that with our allies and partners in the United Nations, but we have no immediate plans to go further.

Does the Prime Minister not yet realise that, despite the best efforts of our troops on the ground, the situation in and around Bosnia is not getting better but worse? Does he not realise that time is running out for saving lives and for stopping the spread of the conflict? Does he further not realise that whether it is in London in August or in Geneva in two weeks' time, peace efforts will continue to fail for so long as agreements on paper are not backed by the will to enforce them on the ground?

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the London conference on Yugoslavia, which this country called and which set a new framework for negotiations. He is right in saying that when those negotiations are there it is necessary for those who reach agreements to keep them, and we will certainly do what we can to ensure that.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our European Community partners understand clearly that any attempt to interfere with the rebate of Britain's excessive contributions to the EC budget would have a dramatic effect on his ability to secure a smooth passage for the Maastricht Bill through the House?

I am sure that my hon. Friend has just made his own point in an inimitable fashion, and I note it. I am grateful for what he had to say.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moment ago.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this year more than 2,500 jobs have been lost in manufacturing in my city of Birmingham, and that, every working day that he has been Prime Minister, 750 manufacturing jobs have been lost? Given the virtual vote of no confidence which the Engineering Employers Federation gave to the President of the Board of Trade last week, when will he start listening to what the manufacturing industry is saying?

I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the "Autumn Statement". He obviously missed it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moment ago.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of this country never wanted to celebrate the Marxist anniversay of May day? Given the new spirit of European co-operation, will my right hon. Friend consider replacing the May day bank holiday with a bank holiday to mark the anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, the battle of Agincourt or, better still, the battle of Waterloo?

I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for removing the May day bank holiday in precisely the same way in which are seeing the removal of the political system that it supports. Perhaps Trafalgar day would be appropriate; perhaps other days, but certainly not May day.

Which does the Prime Minister think would most increase the choices available to a poor family—all the charters that he has announced, some of which he relaunched this morning, or £10 a week more on child benefit?

The right hon. Gentleman should realise that many people in this country want to ensure that they get a better quality of public service than they have had in the past. We are determined under the charter programme to ensure that they get that better quality of service. I find it astonishing that the Labour party talks about public service, but does nothing in reality to ensure that people receive it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that competitive tendering has brought real improvement and value for money where it has been introduced in local authority services? Does he, like me, welcome the fact that compulsory competitive tendering is to be introduced into housing management?

I certainly agree that competitive tendering has produced substantial cost savings so far, and will no doubt continue to do so in future. It has done so with the same or improved standards of performance. I welcome the extension of compulsory competitive tendering to housing management—it is a little overdue, but now it is there, I very much welcome it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 3 December.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that the main underlying message of the churches lobby on housing this week was that, despite the slight change of direction announced in the autumn statement, that has only touched the surface of the many housing problems created as a result of Government policies during the past 14 years? Will the Government make more resources available to tackle the problems, reduce unemployment, improve the market sector and improve the British economy?

As the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know, the plans that the Government have announced enable them to meet the manifesto pledge of 153,000 new homes. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the housing market should benefit significantly from the extra £750 million set aside to reduce the overhang of empty properties. That should provide another 20,000 properties for the public sector. The reduction in interest rates will help both the public and private sectors.

Order. Time is up; we now move to the private notice question—Mr. Ron Davies.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be in order for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to convey the Government's sympathy to the victims of the bombings in Manchester?

Order. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity to raise his point of order later. However, as he knows, I cannot take it now, however sympathetic I might feel.