To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the draft potato regime proposals to be next considered by the EC Council.

The December Agriculture Council decided to consider the proposals again as soon as the European Parliament has given its opinion.

With regard to the supply of potatoes from within the United Kingdom, does the Minister question, as I do, the sense of restricting what is grown here while permitting broad access for potato products from Europe?

My hon. Friend has a good point. At the moment there is no Community regime. The United Kingdom has its own system, based on acreage quotas and guaranteed payments. Nobody else has that system. If we moved to a Europewide regime and maintained our existing system intact, United Kingdom growers, uniquely, would face limitations while nobody else would. We should have to reflect on whether that would be in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

As the Minister here, rather than a Minister at Stormont, has the responsibility of making representations on the potato industry to the European Community, and as there is a major crisis in the Northern Ireland potato industry due to poor weather conditions throughout the year, has the Minister yet made any representations to the Community about special support for that industry in Northern Ireland?

No, we have not. We have to discuss the future of the potato regime, which is crucial to the United Kingdom, especially as we now import more than half a million tonnes per year mainly of frozen chips. Our overwhelming priority is to settle the uncertainty that follows on the proposals, so that we all know exactly where we stand. Where we can give particular help to areas with particular problems, we shall find out what realistic opportunity there is to do so, consistent with Community rules and being fair to all producers in the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister not aware that in the European Parliament a resolution was passed unanimously because of what happened to the recent potato harvest both in the Irish Republic and in Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware of what the Commissioner said, and the promise that he gave? Why are the Government so slow? Why have they not made representations when the Irish Government are doing so and are to get something for their producers?

The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the certainties in life is that whatever the Irish Republic gets the Northern Irish ask for the same treatment. We have an extremely good record in ensuring that we can deliver that. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have some experience of resolutions in the European Parliament. If I may say so, there are forms of persuasion that I sometimes find more persuasive.

Who is winding up Ministers about the need to abolish the potato marketing scheme? Could it possibly be McCain or United Biscuits—food processors, and two of Britain's largest crisp producers —companies which just happen to have paid £300,000 to the Conservative party in the past two years? Are they the people who now determine Government policy in these important areas? Are they the people pushing Ministers?

The hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theory comes a little earlier in the day today, but we always welcome an old friend and I suppose that it is better to hear it sooner rather than later. What he says is transparent nonsense. Our concern about the present scheme is entirely due to the fact that a very large part of the growth market is in processed potato products, and that market has gone more and more to imports. We want to ensure that the investment in processed products goes into the United Kingdom. We do not want to export our jobs, our manufacturing or our acreage. Our whole policy will be governed by the need to ensure that we create a climate for investment in Britain, so that jobs come here, acreage is planted here and added value comes to the United Kingdom. That is how we can do a good job for farmers, processors and consumers, based on what we can produce ourselves.

Will my hon. Friend continue to keep in mind the fact that the growers of Lincolnshire, the main potato-growing area of Britain, strongly support the retention of the present potato marketing board and are deeply apprehensive about any proposal to change it to some sort of European scheme under which they feel that their interests will be sacrificed?

I believe that the one thing that would sacrifice their interests would be if we agreed a scheme in which everyone in the Community could plant what they wanted and there was free trade within the Community but the United Kingdom alone was pegged back by acreage quotas. That would not be fair to British farmers. At all events, we will take care that the important research and development facilities of the board, and its important marketing activities, can carry on.

Does the Minister accept that throwing the potato industry to the free market is not a solution to anyone's problems? Will he take into account the special needs of the Scottish seed potato industry? Many of the producers and growers have invested huge sums of money recently to profit from and ensure progress under the existing system; they are telling Scottish Members that if the system is not broken it does not need fixing.

The system is not broken, but it has its problems, the main one being that in the main growth area of the market we have been increasingly supplied by imports. We now import 530,000 tonnes of processed products per year, and many of the chips in the great British fish and chips meal are imported.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the provisions of the permanent set-aside scheme.

We are awaiting a Commission proposal on non-rotational set-aside under the arable area payments scheme and expect decisions later in the year. We are also considering how to implement a scheme for the 20-year withdrawal of land from production as part of the agri-environmental programme. We shall be consulting on both schemes shortly.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the love that the British people have for the patchwork neatness of the British countryside in areas such as Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and the anxiety of the public and of farmers about the possibility of growing weeds and brambles on good quality agricultural land? Will he push the Commission hard to come up with a scheme that will ensure that some set-aside money goes into planting broadleaf woodland such as the good old English oak?

I am as pro-tree as my hon. Friend is. We hope to be able to implement two schemes that will answer his concern. The first is the so-called non-rotational scheme, which can use land set aside for periods longer than a year for things like woodlands, biomass, wildlife habitats and archaeological sites. A long-term, 20-year scheme will be heavily targeted at the creation of habitats. The two schemes will show that we can build many sensible environmental benefits into the set-aside programme.

Can the Minister not see the sheer injustice of the situation in which farmers are paid not to grow things while miners are thrown out of work? If farmers can be paid not to grow things, why cannot miners be paid not to mine things?

Farmers are not being paid not to grow things: they are being paid for the penalty of a loss of income on land which would otherwise cost every person in the United Kingdom too much money. The whole purpose of what we are trying to do is to build sensible environmental benefits into the programme. I know that the hon. Gentleman is greatly concerned about that aspect of policy. I am sure that he will find when he makes trips into the countryside that when the schemes are operational not only will they result in cheaper cereals, which will benefit his constituents, but the countryside will benefit from being environmentally enhanced.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made towards the establishment of new environmentally sensitive areas.

I announced the launch of six new environmentally sensitive areas last week.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that news. Does he agree that environmentally sensitive areas are as invaluable to those who live in towns as they are to those who live in the country, because they make the countryside more attractive to visit, visits result in tourism, and tourism results in jobs?

I agree with my hon. Friend. There are a number of environmentally sensitive areas within easy reach of her constituents. ESAs enable us to target money to improve the countryside, to keep that which we especially want to keep and to ensure that farmers are able to look after the countryside in the way that townspeople and suburban dwellers want. ESAs have been recognised by the rest of Europe as perhaps the most enlightened advance in environmentalism since the war.

What constitutes an environmentally sensitive area? Does the category include areas in which there are badger setts? Will the Minister take account of the fact that in some instances dogs have been allowed into badger setts and that recently on the land of a Mr. David Samworth of Melton Mowbray setts were blocked with steel drums? Will he try to ensure that my Badgers Act 1991 is operated in both spirit and letter?

As nearly 12 per cent. of the land area of England will be covered by environmentally sensitive areas, it would be difficult to imagine there not being badger setts in some of those areas. I do not think that in any of the prescriptions for environmentally sensitive areas we have a specific point about badger setts. I should not like the hon. Gentleman to think that he had edged his question into a different one, but I will look into the question of badger setts and environmentally sensitive areas.

May I assure my right hon. Friend that the people of West Dorset are delighted to see the establishment of the South Wessex downs environmentally sensitive area? They will greatly appreciate that in future. My right hon. Friend knows that part of the world well. The area finishes at Maiden Newton, but it would be extremely nice if it could extend to my home town of Beaminster. May I make future representations to him about that ?

I should be happy to have representations. When I was Minister of State and piloted the first ESA scheme through Committee, all the criticisms were that it would not be taken up and that farmers and conservationists would not like it. The Labour party said that we should not do it like that, and that it should not be done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but by conservationists. It has turned out that farmers have learnt from conservationists, and conservationists have learnt from farmers. The Ministry's involvement has meant that many more of my officials have been trained in conservation as well as in production. The scheme has been most successful and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) whose idea it was.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average income for mostly sheep farms in severely disadvantaged areas in 1988–89 and in each subsequent year for which figures are available for England and Wales.

Full details of farm income indices are in the Library. Hill sheep farmers' incomes in 1992–93 were higher than in any year since 1984–85.

I am sorry that the Minister did not choose to answer the question on the Order Paper. Had he done so, it would have been obvious that although farm incomes have risen during the past 18 months, it has been from a very low base. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has reduced hill livestock compensatory allowance by 26 per cent. Having taken that unprecedented step, will he give the House a firm promise that should the EC-funded payments for ewe premiums go down, he will put up HLCAs to compensate?

I hoped that I had answered the hon. Gentleman's question as well as I could. There is a long series of figures available in the Library which will probably answer it. I hope that he will look at them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has clearly said that although the income of hill farmers, especially sheep farmers, has risen marginally, it has been from a very low level? Does he accept that in some cases the cuts that he is making in HLCAs can turn a small profit into a loss?

I think that my hon. Friend cannot be right in his figures. As the total amounts have gone up and every ewe will attract an additional payment of £1.80 this year, those farmers cannot go into loss because of some cut. Overall, there has been no cut for each farmer. A quarter of the farmers that we are discussing receive payments specifically designed to maintain dry stone walls because they are in environmentally sensitive areas. I have yet again increased the amount available for that.

Does the Minister agree that it all depends where we start? Will he confirm that the average level of farm incomes in the upland areas has dropped to almost a quarter of what it was in 1982? An answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) showed that the severely disadvantaged areas have had a cut of 45 per cent. for higher rate sheep and 60 per cent. for lower rate sheep. Will he confirm that had there not been a devaluation of the pound, he would have had to increase HLCA payments this year?

The facts of the matter are that sheep farmers are getting more this year than they were last year and that we considerably subsidise sheep farming. Sheep farmers' incomes have risen by 50 per cent. in the past two years. Many others on low incomes cannot say the same. I am committed to go on helping the sheep farmers in the hills so that they can look after the hills properly. The hon. Gentleman represents a party which rightly asked for compensation when incomes fell, but is not prepared to act accordingly when incomes rise.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would he fairer to see the £20 million recovered across the whole of agriculture rather than from the farmers who are on the most meagre of incomes? My right hon. Friend has already recognised that we are dealing with a low base year, but he knows that, according to the figures that he has placed in the Library, the proportion in terms of income is in the low thousands of pounds. Will my right hon. Friend outline to the House why the cut has not been spread across agriculture as a whole rather than imposed only on the poorest farmers?

My hon. Friend seems to have missed the fact that a further £70 million or £80 million has gone directly to the hill farmers because the additional payment is made on each ewe. In those circumstances, lowland sheep farmers are facing particularly tough problems. I made sure that payments on cattle in the hills and the high hills were kept up because there had been no reduction in incomes there. When we have to make cuts it is right to ensure that they are made in the areas where there are significant increases. We cannot ignore the fact that every farmer in that situation is receiving more from the taxpayer this year than he did last year.

Surely the Minister appreciates that the hundreds of hill farmers who converged on Parliament earlier this week are perfectly well aware of the £1.80 increase in the premium to which he referred. But if income is cut by 50 per cent., as happened to them, an increase of 100 per cent. on that figure is needed to return to the original level. When will the Minister understand that the industry is so disturbed about this because he seems to be saying that he is prepared to cut their incomes in order to prevent them from reaching a level which gives hill farmers a reasonable return for their labour and increases investment in the hill areas?

But £470 million a year of taxpayers' money goes into the hill areas. We are increasing that amount this year at a time when Government expenditure is being severely curtailed. At a time when many have had no increase in income at all and some have seen their incomes fall, we are significantly increasing the incomes of those people. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is talking tosh.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on initiatives to stimulate food exports.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to reduce the balance of trade deficit in food and drink.

I have introduced the group marketing grant and announced an independent review into how best Food From Britain can serve industry's future needs. We are holding seminars with about 150 companies to encourage exports. The Prime Minister's two industry seminars have resulted in important initiatives. David Naish—in a personal capacity—is co-ordinating the follow-up action to these.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Having a commercial port in Portsmouth, we understand the importance of exports to our economy. Will my right hon. Friend continue to do all that he can to encourage food manufacturers and producers in the competitive markets which now exist overseas?

We are doing exactly that, and I am happy to say that exports are rising faster than imports. That is a good start, but there is a long way to go and we need to work at every possible outlet.

While recognising the important contribution made by Scotch whisky to our balance of trade figures, does my right hon. Friend agree that the punitive levels of duty on United Kingdom wine and whisky make those home-produced goods far more expensive in Britain than imported goods? Is that not why many people buy French, Spanish and Italian wine and whisky from abroad? Is it not time to review those levels of duty, end that discrimination against home producers and put British interests first?

That matter is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must weigh a number of factors together. There is no doubt that in the single market the pressures on various excise duties become very noticeable.

Is the Minister aware of the lively debate about the possible impact of his proposed abolition of the potato marketing scheme on the level of potato exports? Will he confirm that he intends to abolish the scheme because he wants to do so, or does he claim that he has no alternative because of the incoming EC regime? Does the Minister know that many people are praying for a change of heart on his part?

I say to the hon. Gentleman absolutely frankly that there is a real problem with the situation of the present potato marketing board. We are currently restricting the volume of potatoes that we grow in this country, and there is increasing importation of frozen chips and the like. The growing market sector is processed potato. If we do not take the matter seriously now, our industry will find processors moving abroad and obtaining their potatoes abroad. Anyone who ignores that is ignoring the economic facts and ought to be ashamed of himself.

I assure the Minister that we support a strong export trade in food products. However, when it comes to meat exports we would rather see adequate local slaughter facilities and exports of meat rather than of live animals. Is the Minister aware of the concern felt about his resumption of live animal exports to Spain, and about the impact of the single market on live animal exports? Will the Minister join me in condemning the fact that cattle were left for more than 20 hours in a lorry at Fishguard recently because there was no room at the lairage there? Does he agree that the best way to eliminate such problems is to press for an eight-hour limit on animal transport and for tighter regulations?

I am totally committed to better, Europewide regulations on animal transport. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been fighting for that. I have insisted on retaining national measures in those areas not covered by the Community, even after the opening of the single market. The hon. Gentleman knows that I always condemn any ill treatment of animals, and I support him in that. However, we must have a Europewide arrangement. Otherwise, I will have no powers, for example, to stop the export of live animals to Spanish slaughterhouses that receive Community approval. I could not legally do that. We need a Europewide regulation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that of the 46 per cent. of Scotland's potato crop that is grown in my constituency, much of it is exported? Is he aware that farmers in my constituency are saying that if we scrap the potato marketing board under the present scheme the probability is that, because of the risks involved, farmers will be forced into cereals? Does my right hon. Friend consider that a stimulant or an alternative to exports?

Is it not fundamentally unlikely that whereas every other country has a healthy potato producing industry, ours is the only one that could protect its potato industry only by insisting that we impose restrictions that no other country has? Would my hon. Friend allow me to announce to the House that the Community had decided to allow everyone in Europe to produce as many potatoes as they liked, but that Britain would be restricted to a quota? My goodness!—my hon. Friend would stop talking about Maastricht and give me hell on that.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts he has made in the last year to promote British agriculture.

Agriculture Ministers take every opportunity to promote British agriculture. We have met, individually, representatives of more than 80 food companies, for example, to explore ways of meeting the challenges of the single market.

When the Minister last met officials of the Meat and Livestock Commission, was adequate time spent discussing meat exports to Europe and the general feeling that it is being run on a shoe string? With greater effort, far more meat could be exported to Europe, with Britain enjoying a greater share of exports.

As a matter of fact, I meet the MLC regularly and that is what we discuss. The MLC has its own promotional activities. Indeed, I accompanied it to France a little while ago specifically to promote British meat. Our beef and lamb exports are doing very well; we export one third of all the lamb that we produce and there is also a healthy market for our pork. The MLC is showing the way to other organisations, but what will sell the meat is quality, and we have the quality.

In his attempts to promote British agriculture, will my hon. Friend address with vigour the problems created by poultry meat inspection costs? Is he aware that independent assessments indicate that United Kingdom producers, especially those in my part of the world where the full costs of poultry meat inspection are applied, are some 5p per bird out compared with continental producers? The consequence of that is that we are being denied export opportunities and we are facing import threats as is evinced by Cargill's decision to locate its plant in France instead of in England.

My hon. Friend raises a serious point. We are conscious of the costs of inspection to the industry. Of course that was partly necessitated by the salmonella outbreak in the United Kingdom after which confidence in eggs and poultry meat reached a low level and we have had to build up that confidence. However, there has been a change in economic circumstances because of the devaluation of the pound and our chickens have become relatively more competitive. We will continue to address the problems of inspection to ensure that it is carried out as competitively as possible, always being aware of the need to retain the industry in the United Kingdom, not least Sun Valley, which is an outstanding company.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of agricultural land in Hampshire is currently subject to set-aside under the common agricultural policy; and what is the annual cost.

Some 2,750 hectares of land are currently set aside under the existing five-year scheme at an annual cost of around £500,000. Information on the land set aside under the new arable area payments scheme will not be available until growers have to declare the area later this year.

Are the people of Hampshire getting value for money for that enormous expenditure? Is not set-aside an inefficient and expensive means of reducing agricultural production and an ineffective way of protecting the environment? Would it not be better to use that money, for example, to remove the threat to the Thames Valley environmentally sensitive area and to extend it and, more widely, to reward farmers for farming in a less intensive and more environmentally sensitive manner throughout the county of Hampshire?

The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that cereal production was too high and had to be brought down quickly. The introduction of quotas and set-aside does that. We have never concealed the fact that we would have preferred to do it by price. The advantage of set-aside is that, first, it acts quickly and, secondly, one can build in environmental advantages. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement about the environmentally sensitive areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but at a time when people are crying out for environmentally sensitive areas it must be sheer common sense to make sure that people take advantage of those areas and we get the best value for money. My right hon. Friend has that very much in mind.

Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers in Hampshire and elsewhere will much more readily accept the idea of set-aside if they can be confident that it will be implemented properly throughout the European Community? Will he do his utmost to ensure that other national Governments implement their regulations with a zeal equal to that always shown by his Department?

I admire my hon. Friend's dexterity in moving from Hampshire to North Yorkshire so rapidly. That does wonders for the road network. Of course we shall pay particular attention to the problems that he highlights. I am just as concerned as he is, as my constituency is next to his.

Does the Minister acknowledge that the more land that is set aside, the more jobs will be lost? Is it not a matter of concern that the level of set-aside in Britain is above the EC average because of our better farming structure? Is it not a disgrace that under the current set-aside scheme, farmers are compensated for not producing, but the farm workers who lose their jobs in Hampshire and elsewhere as a consequence of the scheme do not receive a penny?

It is a matter of record that the United Kingdom has larger average farm sizes, so that the de minimis rule applies relatively less to the United Kingdom than elsewhere. But other countries are setting aside a far greater amount of land. The problem we faced was simple. There was over-production, people were paying too much for a product that was in surplus and the market was not allowed to operate. By introducing set-aside and compensatory payments, we have brought down the price of cereals, which is a major step in the reform of the CAP.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the introduction of the new beef regime under the reformed CAP.

Arrangements are now well in hand for the operation of the beef special premium scheme to begin on-farm during March.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is uncertainty among some farmers about the marketing of their stock during the transitional period, which I believe will be April and May? Will he comment on that?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his comprehension of a very complex scheme. We have arranged for producers to claim premium in respect of April and May at the same time as they apply for their cattle identification documents under the new scheme. The forms are already available at regional offices and will remain available until the end of March.

Why do we have stockpiles of beef which elderly people in my constituency cannot claim and who fear that that beef is being thrown away? Why can we not have proper criteria to enable people to claim from the beef mountains?

The hon. Lady will know that there is a scheme for the distribution of beef and butter. It is not a very good scheme and it is not designed to tackle surpluses. Pensioners in the hon. Lady's constituency, like pensioners in mine, will be better served by the regime being reformed in such a way that beef is made more accessible to them; and perhaps we could have rather less panic from Labour Members about how bad beef is to eat, because it is not. The fundamental point of the reform is that we reduce intervention. We are encouraging the specialist producer, and I hope that Labour Members will do their bit by telling people that we produce very good beef and that they should eat more of it.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the export earnings of Scotch whisky from the European Community in the current year and each of the previous five years; and if he will make a statement.

With permission, Madam Speaker, I will publish the information in the Official Report. The value for the first 11 months of last year was £720 million, which was more than for the whole of the preceding year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that negotiations on level playing fields and the harmonisation of duties are more likely to succeed if in Britain we treat our products in the same way as products are treated elsewhere on the continent? Is he aware that British Scotch pays nearly three times more in tax than whisky produced in Italy? Does he consider that to be fair? Will he discuss the matter with the Chancellor?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Chancellor is in purdah at present but I have no doubt that we shall be able to get a message to him to that effect.

Is the Minister aware that at a time when hon. Members in all parts of the House are arguing strongly for a level playing field, United Distilleries has announced the closure of five distilleries—four malt and one grain—with the loss in Scotland of 831 jobs? Will he consider the matter carefully, not only in connection with the whisky industry but in terms of the knock-on effects for those who grow grain for the distilleries?

The Scotch whisky industry is the fifth biggest United Kingdom exporter, so its future matters to all who are concerned about the future of our economy. My Department will take all steps possible to safeguard and promote that future.

Will the Minister congratulate the English Vineyard Association for forming a consortium to set up a stall on the docks—

Order. The hon. Member is, as usual, most ingenious, but I remind him that the question relates to Scotch whisky.

Exactly, Madam Speaker, and as I was saying—

Order. A good try. Does the hon. Member wish to rephrase his question?

The English Vineyard Association together with the Scotch whisky industry plans to set up a stall on the docks of Calais to sell British alcohol—Scotch whisky and English wine—to English passengers travelling back from France to England so that they can save pounds in duty by buying English products at the French docks. Does he agree that that is quite outrageous?

I think we must congratulate both industries for recognising with such alacrity the laws of the marketplace and allowing consumers to benefit from them.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been achieved in the current GATT negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

The compromise that the European Community and the United States reached on agriculture last November provides a good basis for multilateral agreement. Negotiations are continuing in Geneva.

In view of the announcement of import tariffs on steel made by the United States of America last night can the Minister say what effect it will have on the agricultural agreement or on any agreement we might reach on the textile industry, which I consider to be equally important?

The United States should consider carefully its use of this instrument. There is no doubt that the United States has fought its own corner extremely hard and I deprecate some people in this country who suggest that the European Community should not stand up to them.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

I have been asked to reply.

Notwithstanding that extremely good news, on a slightly different subject, has my right hon. Friend had time today to see the deeply disturbing allegations of fraud in Hackney, coming on top of the discovery of possibly record local government fraud in the Labour London borough of Lambeth? Will he assure the House of the Government's determination to root out the systematic cheating and defrauding of charge payers?

Yes. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend of our determination in that respect and I have no doubt that we shall be joined in it by the Opposition Front Bench. I have also, I may say, been doing some research on what the commentators have been saying and I came across this one which said:

"in many areas … Labour local government is lacklustre and incompetent. In a few it is simply corrupt and nepotistic.

"This is nothing new. Ineffectual or rotten Labour councils … have been a feature of British political life for as long as anyone can remember".

rose—

If that was in Tribune what about New Statesman?

Order.

Is the Lord President aware that the December trade deficit of more than £1.5 billion is the worst for two and a half years and that whatever gloss he may put on it, the country is still in deep recession and deep trouble with no sign that the Government are prepared to do anything about it?

What I am aware of is that the trade figures recently have shown that for the first time for a very long time our share of world trade in manufactures has stabilised and that the figures—[Interruption.] that is, after decades of decline. The figures today, which inevitably reflect to some extent the consequence on import prices of the depreciation of the pound, also show that export volumes were at record levels for the three months to December; they were up 5.5 per cent. on the year before in the face of a slowdown in world trade, and there are particularly encouraging signs of a continuing increase in car and other manufactured exports.

I suppose that that was the gloss. The reality is that, despite a huge devaluation, exports this month are down, while imports continue to rise. That is unprecedented during a recession.

The reality is that inflation is at its lowest for six years, that interest rates are at their lowest for 15 years, that productivity is at an all-time high and that all surveys show an increase in business confidence. As I said on Tuesday, it is time that the Opposition stopped trying to talk that confidence down again.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

I have been asked to reply.

Crime in Basildon has fallen over the past year. Does my right hon. Friend think it right for a mass murderer to be interviewed on television about his crimes, on the grounds that it is of educational value and in the public interest, when common sense tells us that it might well put ideas into the mind of a disturbed person? Does my right hon. Friend think that right? The majority of my constituents in Basildon do not.

I think that I can safely say that the same is likely to go for the majority of my constituents in Braintree. I can do no better than reply to my hon. Friend by referring to what my vigorous right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said on the radio this morning. He said:

"it is in my opinion contrary to public interest for somebody who is a mass murderer of his kind"—

Order. Very amusing, but I think that the Leader of the House wants to get on.

The Leader of the House wants to complete the quotation, Madam Speaker.

"a mass murderer of his kind to be allowed publicly to relate his offences in this way—it's bad taste, bad judgment and it's totally insensitive to the feelings of the victims of people he killed".

If things are so wonderful, as the Leader of the House claims, will he tell us whether he can recall a time when any Government have presided over unemployment of 3 million, while borrowing £1 billion a week and running up a trade deficit that is heading towards £20 billion a year? Is not that, by any standards, the mark of an economic policy that is floundering and a Government who have failed?

I am somewhat surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman joining Labour Front Benchers in their exercise of talking the economy down again. I repeat that the conditions for recovery are in place, and confidence is growing. I would expect to have the right hon. Gentleman's support in ensuring that that continues.

Will my right hon. Friend welcome the reduction in interest rates that was announced this week? It has saved British industry £1 billion. Is it not particularly helpful for our manufacturing industry, and to all those with mortgages and overdrafts? Is not some good news coming out of all the gloom? [Interruption.]

rose—

Order. All this hilarity is a waste of valuable question time.

The reduction in interest rates is indeed extremely good news. My hon. Friend might have extended the point that he made in his question by saying that, with the interest reductions that have taken place since 1990, we have seen £11 billion cut off the costs of British industry, and £160 off an average mortgage payment.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House inform the Prime Minister, when he returns, that in the western part of the United Kingdom there is a great deal of concern about the fact that the Government are failing to give British Rail the necessary resources to upgrade the west coast main line? Does he agree that, without that investment, the economies of the west midlands, north Wales, the north-west of England, Cumbria, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be grossly disadvantaged? Does the Leader of the House agree also that it would be nonsensical for the Prime Minister to underestimate the political influence of areas that account for one third of Members of Parliament?

Should I be able to find the necessary extensive opportunity, in the wake of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall, of course, report his views to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have no doubt, however, that my right hon. Friend will disagree with the hon. Gentleman just as much as I do, against the background of the fact that British Rail's external financing limit next year is to be nearly £1.5 billion.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

I have been asked to reply.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to request the Prime Minister to review the policies of the British Government and of the European Community towards Israel in the light of the horrible deportations that have taken place there and of the upholding of those deportations by the Israeli supreme court yesterday, and thus bring pressure on the Israeli Government to accept as swiftly as possible United Nations Security Council resolution 799?

It is obvious from the response to my hon. Friend's question that his concern is widely shared in the House. He will know that the British Government continue to urge the Israelis to comply with United Nations Security Council resolution 799. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent a personal message to the Israeli Foreign Minister last week, and they will meet in Brussels on 1 February, when, as my right hon. Friend has already told the House, he will emphasise the need for the Israeli Government to take urgent steps to solve the problem of the deportees.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Leader of the House give his estimate of the total number of jobs, in both the public and the private sectors, that are at risk through rail privatisation? Does he agree with Lord Prior's assessment that there will be 12,000 potential job losses in the areas of rolling stock and signalling? While I welcome the news for Leeds about the Challenger tank, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he agrees that more Yorkshire jobs will be lost in railway engineering factories in Hunslet, York, Wakefield and Doncaster as a result of these threats, unless there is action within weeks, rather than months or years?

I do not agree. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend's proposals for rail privatisation and the development of competition are the best means of ensuring an effective and efficient railway system and of guaranteeing jobs for many people in the long term. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that his area, Leeds, and Newcastle, because of the Vickers presence there, are among those that will benefit from the work that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done on his visit abroad.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend spare some sympathy today for our Community partners, the Irish, whose traditional luck seems temporarily to have deserted them? Whereas Irish overnight interest rates have gone up to 100 per cent., we in liberated Britain have the lowest rates for 15 years, to the great benefit of business, industry and millions of home owners.

I very much share the pleasure that my hon. Friend has expressed in what we have been able to do over interest rates. It shows that we are now moving in the sort of direction that both British industry and the whole of the British people want to see in achieving economic recovery.

I remind the Committee that we are also considering the following: Amendment No. 110, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert

'but in respect of paragraph 9 on page 11 of Cm. 1934, Her Majesty's Government as part of their formal process of ratification shall state that so far as the definition of the single market is related to an area without internal frontiers (to be enshrined in Article 7a of the amended Treaty establishing the Community) they regard absence of such frontiers only as not impeding the operation of that market and without prejudice to any action related to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.'.

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) made a justifiable complaint about the nature of the amendment paper and the difficulty of following the order of debate.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive suggestion, which I shall certainly consider. However, before any changes are made, they would have to be put to the Chairmen's Panel because they would have implications beyond the Committee stage of the Bill that is now before us.

On a point of order, Mr. Morris. At the beginning of yesterday's debate, I raised with the Second Deputy Chairman the singular nature of three amendments under consideration —amendment No. 110, and new clauses 12 and 13. I asked in particular whether consideration could be given to a separate vote on them at the end of the debate. The Second Deputy Chairman replied:

"The occupant of the Chair always takes note of requests for Divisions. However, the Division that the right hon. Gentleman seeks would take place not at the end of this debate, but when the appropriate point on the selection list is reached."—[Official Report, 27 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1087.]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He may not be quite correct. I do not think that amendment No. 110 can be voted on immediately following amendment No. 8, which I invite the right hon. Gentleman to resume debating.