To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will be taking to reduce bureaucracy involved in the beef special premium.

We are operating the new beef special premium scheme as simply and as flexibly as we can, within the framework laid down by the European Community rules and remembering the need to make sure that public money is fully accounted for.

Does the Minister agree with Mr. Richard Cowan, the head of the Ministry's beef division, that no sane person could have devised the beef special premium scheme? Does he agree that the introduction of the CID passports will create immense problems for farmers, particularly in relation to the larger cattle markets? Does he further agree that in conjunction with the integrated administration and control scheme—IACS—bureaucracy, which will come in too late for farmers, they will have too little time to complete the forms, so many of them may be brought close to despair? Will he further agree that if he can take decisive steps to ameliorate this nonsense, he will have done something tangible to put alongside the vaunted campaign by the President of the Board of Trade to reduce over-regulation and red tape?

I am extremely enthusiastic about getting rid of over-regulation and red tape. That is why I introduced a Bill to abolish the milk marketing boards and to take powers to abolish the Potato Marketing Board. I am sad that the hon. Gentleman was here voting against both those deregulation measures two days ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in addition to the extra office work that this involves, it will also involve farmers in a considerable amount of extra work handling cattle—they have to be handled on several more occasions, to check their tags and the documentation? My right hon. Friend will not be aware, but he may be interested to know, that my next-door neighbour has 200 cattle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I have asked a question. It took three men almost half a day to sort those cattle out. Is it really impossible to go back to the old system?

I am sorry, but it is impossible; otherwise, my hon. Friend's neighbour would not be able to get the money that he deserves, and it is likely that the money would go to people who should not get it. If my hon. Friend's neighbour fails to get the money that he wants, deserves and needs, the first person to whom he will complain will be my hon. Friend. I am insistent that he should not be put to that trouble as well.

May I press the Minister a little more on the timing of the integrated administration and control scheme forms? He said just now that farmers would have six weeks to fill them in. Can he guarantee that the forms will be in farmers' hands by 1 April, All Fools' day? Can he tell us, if he cannot give that guarantee and six weeks cannot therefore be used for the purpose, whether he will postpone the deadline?

There will be no question of a delay, because we are trying to stop fraud throughout the Community. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are always pressing on that matter, and I entirely support that. We will meet the deadline. The forms will be out to farmers by 2 April—I chose that date as being a little more elegant than the one the hon. Gentleman would like—and that will give people six weeks to fill in the forms.

We all sympathise very deeply with the difficulty in which my right hon. Friend finds himself. However, if the scheme runs into the sand, as some people believe is likely, could my right hon. Friend send a party to Italy to see how they do it there, because I am sure that they will have it fixed up quite nicely?

If my hon. Friend had supported the Government in the Lobbies last night and on previous nights, we should be in a position to deal with such matters much more effectively. If my hon. Friend would put his vote where his mouth is, that would be much more helpful.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the state of the English fishing industry.

The most pressing immediate problem facing the fish catching industry is the weak state of the market.

Instead of blaming the fishermen for the bankruptcy that they face and instead of compounding that bankruptcy by the insanity of days-at-sea limitations, why does not the Minister act? Why does he not deal with the small haddock crisis by increasing the minimum landing sizes? Why does he not ban the landing of round fish? Why does he not increase mesh sizes? Why does he not deal with Russian imports on a temporary basis, with a dumping ban? Why does he not provide the same kind of financial support for the industry as that provided by the French? Why does he not suspend the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill and talk to the industry? Most of all, why does he not stand up for fishing instead of lecturing—[Interruption.]

And why does the hon. Gentleman not think for himself instead of simply repeating every prejudice of the fishing industry? He would do fishermen a greater service if he did that. And why does he not think of his own constituents and the large number of people in the processing industry whose jobs depend on an adequate supply of fish? We will tackle the problem of small fish if the whole of the British industry will agree. We are asking its opinion and we will await the response from Northern Ireland and Scotland. I can act only if there is agreement. We will wait and see whether there is agreement. I have my doubts.

If there is another blockade by fishermen tomorrow—we hope that there will not be—will my hon. Friend accept that such action stems from a feeling of despair among many of our fishermen, not least in the south-west? However, will he cast some light on imports, particularly from Russia, and tell us exactly how much fish is being imported from Russia and how much cod is being landed by our own fishermen?

I hope that the industry will not resume its saga of blockade, demonstration and destruction of fish, particularly as recent signs are that fish prices have firmed considerably. That is what we said would happen. Perhaps that has happened because fishermen have been demonstrating so much that they have not been catching so many fish and fewer fish have been landed.

Are not the short tempers and insults from the Government Front Bench a combination of panic and guilt about the situation in the fishing industry? When the Minister meets the English fisheries, will he synchronise that meeting with the Scottish fisheries Minister so that they both accept their inescapable responsibility for the destabilisation of the fish market at the present time? What measures is the Minister taking to improve the situation for English and Scottish fishermen?

The English and Welsh fishermen are telling us at the moment that they wish to ban imports of Russian cod. However, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation tells us that it does not want to ban those imports because it depends on the Klondiking fee for the sale of herring later in the season. As the two major parts of the industry are diametrically opposed, it makes it more difficult than it would be for fisheries Ministers if the two parts held the same point of view, and that point of view was sensible.

Will my hon. Friend time and again continue to repeat, for all the people of the fishing industry, the need for conservation? The sort of attacks that we have heard today do not take any account of the need to safeguard fish for the future, which we shall not have without the proper conservation measures.

I will certainly repeat that. My hon. Friend will be happy to know that we think that we are very close to agreement with the industry on a fully fledged conservation forum, to look at all the conservation measures, in which the Scottish and Northern Ireland industries will participate. The only problem is that, yesterday, the English fishing industry suggested that it was getting last-minute hesitations because it wished me to defer the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill entirely before it would talk. As we have made it clear that that was not a possibility and that technical conservation cannot provide all the answers, it would be very silly if it withdrew from that forum at the last minute. Conservation means the future of the fishery—if there are no fish, there is no future. Fish depend on conservation.

Does the Minister accept his responsibility for fisheries management? What kind of management is it that produces a fish famine before Christmas and cod mountains in the new year? Will he take action on round fish and minimum landing sizes? Above all, will he have genuine talks with the fishermen and take the opportunity of surplus fish to bring in proper conservation measures? He should consider them as an alternative to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Bill, which has been widely rejected.

Before the hon. Gentleman invites me to start regulating the amount of fish that must be landed from north Norway and to regulate every single day's catch by the fishing industry, he should think rather harder. We have producer organisations with responsibility for managing the fisheries. We have suggested how they can manage them more effectively, but they do not want to do it that way; they want to be left to do it their own way. We will do our best to eke out the fishery throughout the whole year, but those organisations have their role to play as well. It is not good enough for the industry always to find somebody else to blame for its problems. We will keep talking to the industry, but it must accept that there is a problem in the management which must be solved by the industry, as well as by me.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the duration of United Kingdom self-sufficiency in food in the event of docks and airports being unavailable.

Food stocks would be sufficient to maintain the current levels of supplies in the United Kingdom if port and airport facilities were disrupted. In the unlikely event of long-term disruption, adequate supplies of food would still be likely to be available.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reassurance. Does he accept that we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the farmers of the United Kingdom, and that self-sufficiency in food is of paramount importance? It is no good having the greatest nuclear deterrent in the world and placing ourselves in a position to have to submit through starvation. [Interruption.]

Order. Let us hear the answer.

I think that my hon. Friend would do extremely well in those difficulties. He is perfectly correct in recognising that British farmers and growers are second to none in the world in the efficiency of their production. It is nevertheless true that we need to do more to ensure that the marketing of our food is better. If we were at any time placed in the difficult circumstances that my hon. Friend has described, I hope that he would take comfort from Mr. Jonathan Porritt, as reported in The Star today, and eat squirrels.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet a representative group of south coast fishermen to discuss the implementation of EC fishing regulations.

Yes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the fishermen in my area are very responsible—they have been following my advice not to involve themselves in any illegal or criminal action—but their patience is wearing thin? Is he further aware that a group of them went over to continental ports and found that there was no effective operation by fisheries inspectors and that the fishermen were getting away with murder by landing undersized fish and not obeying quotas? Is not it about time that we had a level playing field in the fishing industry?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Effective control means effective conservation in fisheries. Our proposals will tighten up the controls and inspect the inspectorate. We are considering the use of more advanced technology to discover what is happening in the fishing industry. I shall take those matters up with the new French Government immediately. There does not seem to be a great deal of point in taking them up with the old French Government. My hon. Friend will accept that we are not wholly innocent in these matters, as Opposition Members will acknowledge.

Is the Minister aware that last week I was in the Commission building with Mr. Paleokrassas's chef de cabinet, who was abusive of nation states that did not implement the regulations that the Commission issued on 22 and 25 February on the size, health, quantity and minimum price of fish? Is he further aware that fishermen in Britain still complain that, in some markets, the minimum price is not being reached? What does he intend to do about that?

As I explained to the fishing organisations yesterday, we have been in touch with Customs and Excise and we have made sure that we have a proper system of control, not merely on the minimum import price but on the weight of the fish being landed, to ensure that there is no fiddling. That will put a floor in the market. The answer lies not in banning imports, given the damage that that would do to our processing sector and the ultimate consumer, but in ensuring that fish is landed at a fair price. This afternoon, the Commission will make proposals for more effective monitoring of landings by third-country vessels to ensure that they, too, observe the minimum price and hygiene rules. That is a measured response to a crisis. We must not let it get out of proportion, but the marketplaces suggest that what we expected to happen is happening, and that is good news for fishermen.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effects agriculture support policies have on the prices charged to consumers.

The consumer will benefit from the move to lower support prices, which form the basis of the recent CAP reform.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the work of Dr. Brian Burkitt, a specialist on EC finances at Bradford university, who has produced a report that says that most of the £10 billion net that we have contributed went to the CAP? He also tells us in that report that for every £3 spent by the British people on food, £1 could be saved if we were to open our markets to food imports from other parts of the world. Is that not a better way to put a bit of butter on people's bread than paying out to the farmers?

I hope that my hon. Friend would not wish the farmers of Essex in and surrounding her excellent constituency to find themselves unable to look after the land or to produce the food to which our hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) referred earlier. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we are proud of what our farmers do in producing a high proportion of the food that we eat. We want to encourage them to sell more in the new home market of the single market. I know that my hon. Friend will want to support us in doing that, through her support for the Maastricht treaty.

Does the Minister recognise that there is considerable public hostility to the CAP, especially as so many of its resources are devoted to the storage and disposal of unwanted surpluses, and when 80 per cent. of its resources go to the 20 per cent. richest farmers? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that money needs to be redirected towards environmental protection, improving the landscape and more extensive agriculture, all of which would help to support more small farmers?

Surely the hon. Gentleman, who represents an agricultural constituency, has noticed that, in the CAP reform, the British Government were able to secure a wholehearted change from the original proposals so that environmental improvement is now at the heart of that policy. That is a British achievement and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, even if he is partisan in other things, would wish to congratulate the Government on that success.

To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new measures are being contemplated to assist small farms.

Our policy does not distinguish between farms according to size. Our plans to reform agricultural tenancies should, however, help people to enter the industry through liberalising the rented sector.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the 28 farms and smallholdings in my constituency of Basildon welcome the proposals that he has just outlined? Will he recognise that many of those farmers support the deregulation of farming as they complain to me that they seem to have more forms to fill in than animals to feed?

The people of Basildon are the first to demand firm controls and clear accountability when spending taxpayers' money. That is why they re-elected my hon. Friend to represent them—the result which shook the world, or at least the BBC. My hon. Friend can assure the smallholders and taxpayers of Basildon that we have the lightest and simplest controls consistent with ensuring that their money is properly spent.

Does the Minister agree that the best thing that he could do to help small farms would be to make productive the set-aside land that is now running to waste? If it were used to grow biodiesel fuels, 750,000 tonnes could be grown, 7,000 jobs would be created and we should become less dependent on imported fuel. Biodiesel fuel is environmentally friendly. Why have France and Germany roared ahead with the mass production of biodiesels when all that we have is three buses running on such fuel? Why have we been so laggardly?

The very small farmers do not have to set aside land. The real answer lies with the non-rotational scheme. That gives the possibility of planting crops, of biomass, of woodland and of recreational purposes—opportunities which are not realistic under rotational set-aside. We plan to build the non-rotational scheme to give just those advantages.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current number of bovines diagnosed as suffering from BSE.

Up to 19 March, 89,014 cases have been confirmed since 1986. New suspects are being reported at a higher rate than last year because animals born immediately before the July 1988 ruminant feed ban are now reaching the age at which disease is most likely to occur. However, the rate of increase has slowed dramatically.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that if we had listened to the rantings of that lot opposite, there would not be a British beef industry? It is only as a result of my hon. Friend and his Ministry keeping their nerve that the British beef industry is in such good heart. When these beasts get the disease, do they jump up and down, do they shake their heads, do they lose their way and do they have glazed eyes? Does that remind my hon. Friend of that lot opposite? Would it be a good idea for my hon. Friend to send a senior vet down to Walworth road this afternoon?

The House will be pleased to hear that a live test is about to become a fact of life. My hon. Friend may find it convenient to offer that test to the Leader of the Opposition. My hon. Friend is perfectly correct on the more substantial point. The scaremongering attached to this serious matter has not helped. My hon. Friend is also entirely correct in that the findings of the Southwood report and of the Tyrrell report, all the proper, fully constituted and substantiated scientific evidence that has been placed before the House and everything that we have laid before the House are going entirely according to plan. The disease is working its way through the system and we hope that we shall shortly see some substantial progress.

As the experiment that the Minister set up to establish whether there is maternal transmission of BSE from cow to calf will not be concluded for another three years, would it be a wise, precautionary measure to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on Agriculture and to extend the offal sales ban to all animals, including animals under the age of six months?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. There is no evidence that there is maternal transmission; if it were a significant factor in the epidemic, we should have seen it now. Even if it does occur, it will not prevent the epidemic from disappearing. The question of the various other animal feeds has been around for some time, and both our professional scientific advisers have not felt it necessary to implement a ban.

Will my hon. Friend endorse the basic scientific research into BSE which is being conducted by the Medical Research Council, whose painstaking work on the different types of scrapie is most likely to bring the answer soonest, although it does not seem likely to be the answer offered by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang)?

My hon. Friend is right. The scientific research into this difficult and serious matter has been painstakingly and brilliantly conducted by a wide range of scientists from not only the Medical Research Council but the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Central Veterinary Laboratory and others. My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that the increase in newly reported cases has slowed dramatically. There was an 80 per cent. increase between early 1991 and early 1992, but an increase of only 8 per cent. between early 1992 and 1993. Science has done us well and we look forward to the proper conclusion of this matter as the disease gradually works its way out of the system.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate in pound sterling of total expenditure throughout the EC under the CAP for 1993.

A total of £28,000 million to about 8 million farmers, who provide the food for more than 320 million people.

When will the Government take an initiative to reduce the spiralling costs of the CAP, which already are unacceptable? Does he agree with Michael Jacquot, the EC controller, that they will remain within the 1994 budget guidelines only by creative accounting? Do not the MacSharry proposals only increase the costs of this policy to the EC taxpayer?

That is why we got rid of the MacSharry proposals and replaced them with our own. That is what the CAP reform achieved. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we are seeking to reduce, and have reduced, the resource costs of the CAP. I hope that he will accept that the nation that battles most to keep the CAP within budget is the United Kingdom. I hope that he will ask his hon. Friends to accept that, if we manage to do so, they cannot continue to demand more and more for different groups of farmers while complaining about the bill.

As Opposition Members have clearly come to the sophisticated and intelligent conclusion that trade barriers and subsidies for agriculture harm taxpayers and consumers, why have they not reached the same conclusion for coal? As they are such keen advocates—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving away from the CAP. Can he keep his question to the CAP?

As they are such keen advocates of industrial policy and intervention, which is exactly what the common agricultural policy is, why do not they praise the results of the policy—immense damage to third-world sugar producers, huge burdens on taxpayers and consumers and unsustainable surpluses?

My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to fight the Labour party with the enthusiasm that is so characteristic of him, but he would not find it so easy to do so if the farmers of Amber Valley and of surrounding areas were not given reasonable support to look after the land and produce the food that we need. I hope that he will support the way in which the Government have fought to ensure that developing countries, particularly those to which we owe so much in the West Indies, have a continued market for their bananas.

We all welcome the Fontainebleau rebate, but has not its existence prevented British Ministers from demanding a fundamental review of CAP finances? Are not we, in effect, compromised?

No, certainly not. The hon. Gentleman has not grasped the fact that British Ministers have won their battles in the European Community and that the CAP reform is designed on what Britain wanted. There was no single major element of our negotiating list that we failed to secure in those negotiations. The hon. Gentleman would do well to follow that example, but he will not have the opportunity of doing so.

When my right hon. Friend meets the new French Minister for Agriculture, who will be appointed soon following the annihilation of the socialists in France, will he remind him that the common agricultural policy reforms ensured a level field for producers and that there will be no going back on those reforms and the need for a GATT settlement?

I look forward to meeting my new French counterpart when he or she is appointed and to discussing with that person the need for Britain and France to ensure that the European Community provides a proper basis for competitive farming, from which both British and French farmers will benefit. I join in my hon. Friend's pleasure at seeing sister parties winning the elections in France and proving again that socialism is dead.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the French authorities to protect consignments of British fish from attacks by French fishermen; and if he will make a statement.

Both the French Agriculture and Fisheries Ministers gave my right hon. Friend and myself undertakings in Brussels last week about the safety of British agriculture and fish products. We may need to update those shortly.

Given the obvious frustration among both the French and British fishing communities, not least because of the massive downturn in fish prices at the quayside which they are having to put up with, why do prices in the shops remain at a high level? Given that fact, will the Minister instigate an inquiry?

The hon. Gentleman has to distinguish between fish arriving in frozen blocks for processing—the largest part—and fresh fish that is landed. There is no great surplus of certain types of fish. The heart of the problem is the large-scale landing, both of cod into Humberside and of small fish into the Scottish and other ports, which are pulling down the market. There is a similar problem in France. The answer lies in tackling any abuses of imports, which the Community has acted to do, and in addressing how to manage fisheries better within the United Kingdom and France, including control.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there are many more people employed in the fish processing industry than in fishing and that it is important that there are adequate supplies of fish for the industry to process and for the consumer to eat?

That is exactly the case. The largest part of fish is sold not on the fresh market but in the processed market. It goes into fish fingers and fish and chip shops. That market depends heavily on imported products. The last thing that would help the long-term future of the industry would be to drive the consumer away through shortage when there are readily available competing proteins at low prices.

Although it is clear that compensation for British fishermen and imports must be tackled, does the Minister accept that we shall not solve the crisis in the fishing industry as long as the traditional distrust between those who catch and those who process persists? Therefore, will the Minister get together with both sides of the industry and look at ways to regulate the market better and, perhaps even more important, at ways in which the market for fish can be expanded, so that this wholesome food becomes a regular part of people's diet rather than an occasional product that they have when they can afford it?

I have tried to do exactly what the hon. Gentleman suggested. Yesterday, I met fishing industry representatives from the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the processors. I suggested to each side that they might like to meet the other, either under my chairmanship or simply in my office. The processors were agreeable, but the fishing industry refused to do so.

As the Minister has acknowledged that imports are part of the problem in both the French and the British markets, was not it unhelpful, to say the least, for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to say earlier this week that prime responsibility for the problems facing the British industry lies with British fishermen? As the Council of Fisheries Ministers has accepted that the minimum import price arrangements have not been working, are not we entitled to attach a great deal of store to its proposals for more effective control of direct landings by ships of third countries, which the Minister announced that the Commission was to make public earlier today?

The Commission proposal on making sure that landings from third-country vessels observe the same standards as we require came from me, so I am very pleased that, as I understand it, that is to be carried forward by the Commission. My right hon. Friend was stating the obvious. There are various strands in this crisis. One of them is imported fish, but it has been very much exaggerated. There have also been very large landings on Humberside of fish from north Norway. Some estimates put this at double the amount landed by this time last year. There is also a lot of very small fish on the market. It is true that the Government have responsibility, but the industry, too, must look at how it can manage its fisheries more effectively. That is why we are consulting on certain measures that might address the problem of small fish on the market.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has heard the reports from Weymouth. Despite the fishing disputes all round France and Britain, our port has been open to all fishermen. We gave a warm welcome to French fishermen who wanted to unload their catches there. Will he ask his colleagues in the European Community if they would like to be as communautaire as Weymouth fishermen and Weymouth fish docks and perhaps follow the example that we are setting in Dorset?

The fishermen in my hon. Friend's constituency are behaving in the long-term interests of their industry. We have had some 89 requests now for safe passage of our products through France according to the system that we set up. They have been responded to and trade is now flowing much more normally. We should give credit for the fact that, after a period of delays, we are now getting free access to the French market, as we demanded, and the promises are being observed.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on current progress towards improving welfare provision for animals exported live for slaughter.

I raised this at the last Agriculture Council and the Commission has agreed to bring forward proposals for further measures to protect the welfare of animals in transit. The present circumstances are not satisfactory and we will continue to press until we get a very much better answer.

I accept the Minister's response, but may I remind him of his statements during our EC presidency when he gave every indication that the matter was to be tackled more urgently? Is he aware that there has been a very large increase in the numbers of animals being exported? He will be aware that we have recommenced exporting to Spain. That cannot be good for the animals and every welfare organisation in the country is opposed to what is going on at the moment. I ask for even more urgency on a matter that we have discussed on many occasions in the House.

The hon. Gentleman and I are not far apart on the matter. We are seeking to ensure that the standards of animal transport throughout Europe are raised to the standards in this country. I hope very much that we can ensure that the rest of Europe learns about animal welfare from us. We have a lot to learn from them, perhaps, in our treatment of children and old people, but we have much to teach them on animals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while some issues can benefit from subsidiarity, environmental matters in general, and animal welfare matters in particular, require a European approach? Will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to any standards for animal welfare, particularly with regard to animals in transit in Europe, that are lower than those that constitute current practice in the United Kingdom?

There is no question of the welfare of farm animals being dealt with as a matter of subsidiarity. These are matters which bear directly on a common agricultural policy and we want the same standards throughout Europe. I have made it clear that I am not introducing unilateral measures in this country; I am insisting that the standards rise throughout Europe. There are very important areas in which subsidiarity should be applied, but this is not one of them.

The Minister will agree that the best thing for animal welfare would be for all animals to be slaughtered as close as possible to the point of production. What measures is he taking, in conjunction with the Agriculture Council, to encourage that in Europe generally and in Britain in particular?

It will be a great help when we have, throughout Europe, slaughterhouses that are recognised by every part of Europe as reaching the same standards. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the more meat that can be carried on the hook and the less on the hoof, the better, but within the Community there will be transport of live animals. I am determined that that transport shall be at a standard that is proper and that it reaches the high standards we have in Britain and reaches from the north of Scotland to the south of Sicily.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve efficiency and profitability in dairy farming.

At last week's Agriculture Council, the United Kingdom opposed further cuts to the milk quota.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and assume that he will recognise the quality of the grassland in my constituency and the quality of its dairy herds. Will my right hon. Friend promote diversification in agriculture by encouraging the breeding of buffalo and the eating of buffalo meat, which not only tastes good but is low in cholesterol?

My hon. Friend failed to mention the importance of buffalo milk, which is very important in import substitution because of the production of mozzarella cheese. I am very proud of the kind of mozzarella cheese that we can now produce in the United Kingdom and I hope that we shall be able to export it to Italy and elsewhere.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 March.

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

The House will well recall the promises made by the Prime Minister and many of his fellow Ministers before the last general election about the future of the coal mining industry. Now that, today, we are about to hear about the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, will the Prime Minister apologise to those coalfield communities for what the Government are about to do?

The hon. Gentleman will have to curb his impatience for a few moments until my right hon. Friend's statement. He has very little time to wait and then he will be able to judge how right he is or how wrong he is.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the 1992 results from Vauxhall Motors today showing huge increase in profits as a result of improved sales, improved market share and a huge increase in exports? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the work force and all concerned, particularly those living in north Hertfordshire?

Yes, I did see those results. They are certainly excellent and I am delighted to congratulate the company on its results, which show what a well-managed company with the right product range can achieve, even in difficult world trading circumstances.

Does the Prime Minister now understand how foolish he was to claim last October that the closure of 31 pits was—and I quote him directly—"economically unavoidable and better done cleanly and quickly"?

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we carried out a full review of these matters and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will set out in full detail the outcome of that review shortly. It is the most thorough review of the coal industry that has been undertaken for very many years. It posed many difficult issues which we have been prepared to face. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might also acknowledge the fact that we have supported the industry over the past 14 years to the extent of £18 billion.

The House and the country will have noticed that the Prime Minister does not, indeed cannot, deny that his original intention, as he said himself, was to close all 31 pits immediately. How does he account for that appalling error of judgment?

I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is desperately keen to get his usual fix on the early evening news, but he will have to wait for my right hon. Friend's statement.

In the course of the Prime Minister's twisting and turning over the past five months, has he yet begun to appreciate the vital importance of Britain's coal industry to our future energy security? Whatever is or is not in his White Paper, does the Prime Minister now realise that the rigging of the market to secure short-term profits for privatised electricity companies has put at risk the long-term security of energy supplies which should be the cornerstone of any Government's energy policy?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will find it difficult to rewrite his own history. He should remember Labour's record on pit closures. The last Labour Government closed 313 pits and more than 200,000 of the work force lost their jobs. The Labour party cannot live down its past. It backed the National Union of Mineworkers when that union was holding the country to ransom during a year-long strike in the 1980s; it backed demands for unrealistic wages; and it backed demands for overmanning and bad working practices. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not backed those things in the 1980s, many more pits might be open today.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that charge capping and council tax capping are necessary evils to protect the payer from the worst excesses of socialist local government administration? Will he abhor the proposal of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that capping be abolished and that control of local government spending be handed over to the unions?

My hon. Friend is right. The capping of spendthrift local authorities is necessary in order to protect taxpayers. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will cap wherever necessary this year, as in other years. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) may be keen to know that it is most unlikely that Conservative Basildon this year, unlike Labour Basildon in previous years, will require capping.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 March.

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that, whatever is in the statement to come, what public opinion outside the House wants is the saving not of 10, 12 or 15 pits but of all 31? It is not out of sentimentality that public opinion demands this. Whatever the short-term interest of the privatised fuel industry, it would be madness, in the long term, for this country to become dependent upon foreign coal and it would be madness to add to the standing army of the long-term unemployed.

The hon. Lady cannot have heard what I said about the Labour Government's record in closing pits. In carrying the review forward, we have had to balance two conflicting factors—our desire to save as many jobs and pits as possible and the hard, cold, real fact that British Coal is producing more coal than its customers want or it can sell. I am confident that my right hon. Friend's review offers the best way forward, both for the coal industry and for the country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House have watched with admiration President Yeltsin's courageous struggle to bring both economic and political freedom to Russia? Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to send the good wishes of the House to President Yeltsin at this very critical time?

I am happy to offer my support to President Yeltsin and to express my support for the reform programme. Over the weekend, I sent the President a message precisely about that and I received a reply from him earlier this week. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary plans to visit Moscow next week.

In the—[Interruption.]

Order. These interruptions take up time.

In the shadow of last week's atrocity in Warrington, which has claimed yet another life today, was the Prime Minister as moved as I was by the spontaneous and powerful expressions of sympathy and support from the people of Dublin for the people of Warrington, who suffered in that atrocity at the hands of the IRA? Does he agree that people such as Susan McHugh and Gordon Wilson speak for millions when they say that enough is enough? Is it not the case that if the people of Dublin can put the past behind them in their search for peace, the politicians of the whole of Ireland should be able to do the same?

The tragedy of another young life lost, sadly, this morning will have touched the hearts of many people in this country and far beyond. The events of last week demonstrate that terrorism brings nothing but agony and misery. But as we condemn terrorism, we must bear it in mind that there are many people in Dublin and elsewhere in the Republic of Ireland, elsewhere in Northern Ireland and Irish citizens in this country, who condemn and detest the terrorists as much as do hon. Members.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how much I welcome the further progress that he has made in the Budget to extending the 20p basic rate of tax? Will he make further extensions in the years ahead?

I assure my hon. Friend that it is our intention to seek to do that. Our aim is a 20p basic rate of tax. We propose to move towards that as rapidly and prudently as we can by extending the 20p rate.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 March.

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

In the continuing context of the Budget, is the Prime Minister aware that changes in the tax regime threaten jobs both offshore and onshore in the oil and gas industries in the north and north-east of Scotland, while the imposition of VAT on domestic fuel represents a threat to the welfare and lives of the elderly and needy in society? Is not it a travesty of justice that the Prime Minister should have introduced a Budget by which, in an energy-rich nation such as Scotland, we gain neither employment nor social benefits?

The support that the Government have given the oil industry over many years has brought many tens of thousands of jobs to Scotland, as the hon. Lady knows. There have been changes in the oil regime for offshore drilling in Scotland. That has been welcomed by many of the companies that work there.

Knowing him, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will already have sent a message of sympathy to the parents and family of Tim Parry. I hope that he included in that message the good wishes, thoughts and prayers of hon. Members in all parts of the House. Will he find time today to send another message, to the President of the United States, asking him to condemn the people in America who collect money that is paid to the IRA?

There is no doubt, as I said, about the feeling in this country—which I know will be shared by President Clinton—over the very sad death of Tim Parry. I know that the American Administration view terrorism in the same way as we do. It is a matter which I have discussed with President Clinton and with his predecessor.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 March.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the document "Implementing Caring for People: Assessment," which can only be described as sinister, advises practitioners and local authorities that any unmet need should not be recorded, on the ground, in the explanatory note, that, due to the idea now of freedom of access to information, it would be wrong for that information to be recorded just in case the patients or the clients found out what their rights were?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have done more than any previous Administration to ensure that people are aware of their rights in the social security and health spheres. The new community care arrangements that will exist from 1 April will add to that remarkable record.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the disgraceful decision of railway workers to bring this country's transport network to a standstill on 2 April? While he is about it, will he invite the Leader of the Opposition to issue a similar condemnation?

I am certainly happy to condemn the suggestion that passengers should be severely inconvenienced by strikes of this kind. I hope that that feeling will be shared by the Leader of the Opposition and many others.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 25 March.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that under his Government total taxation for most people is far higher than it was under previous Labour Governments? What advice will he give to constituents such as mine, Mr. and Mrs. Cook, who have worked all their lives for a little bit of works pension which is 36p a week above any kind of benefit level? What kind of assistance will they get with the crippling increase in gas and electricity charges when value added tax is applied?

If the hon. Gentleman was really concerned about the tax burden, which allegedly he is said to be, perhaps he would withdraw his support from all the spending increases that Opposition Members propose week after week after week.