To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the application of rules relating to slaughterhouses.

My right hon. Friend and I have considered carefully the representations that we have received on the regulations. We have taken particular 'care to implement the EC requirements in a way that achieves the necessary improvements in hygiene standards without imposing unnecessary burdens on the industry.

The Minister will know from that answer that a number of European countries give subsidies to the veterinary services. When will we either give an equal subsidy or ensure that there is a level playing field so that we do not operate at a disadvantage?

The hon. Gentleman should understand that we are working hard to achieve a level playing field. We have always adopted this method of charging in the United Kingdom. What is a perfectly true and fair point is that the charges were too high. We have taken considerable steps and made a great effort to get those charges down, and we are happy that they are moving in the right direction.

What success has my hon. Friend had in making more of an equal qualification requirement among those veterinary surgeons who are duty bound to do their business in abattoirs but who are better trained and therefore much more expensive than their European counterparts?

My hon. Friend, unusually, is incorrect in his supposition. Continental European vets are trained to exactly the same standard as British vets. The difference in the system is that in continental Europe ante-mortem inspection and the use of vets for meat hygiene work has always been the norm while in the United Kingdom it is a relatively new involvement and is therefore taking some time to settle down. It should be emphasised to the House that all vets across Europe must achieve the same qualifications, and it takes exactly the same length of time to qualify.

Does the Minister recall that I wrote to him recently on behalf of W and J Parker Ltd., a slaughterhouse company in Leicester, which faced a potential investment of £9 million to £10 million to comply with the new European Community regulations? As a consequence of that investment, the company closed its slaughterhouse in Leicester with the loss of 300 jobs. It subsequently bought a minority holding in a company in Buckinghamshire, but the jobs in Leicester were still lost. Does he accept that it would be grossly unfair to that company and to the 300 people who lost their jobs in Leicester—including my son—if the regulations were weakened for smaller slaughterhouses throughout the United Kingdom?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I am distressed and sorry about the news of the job losses in Leicester. He is correct that we have tried, through the regulations, to achieve a high standard of uniform meat hygiene throughout the country. While we wish to be as sympathetic as we can, we feel that the great importance of the regulations is that they will take us from a dual standard to a single standard, and we shall not resile from that.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to tackle fraud in the common agricultural policy.

Under the United Kingdom presidency, the integrated administration and control system was agreed and will be applied in all member states. It is specifically designed to provide effective control of payments flowing from CAP reforms. We make that clear in the accompanying literature both here and elsewhere.

While I fully support my right hon. Friend's commitment to eradicate CAP fraud and I welcome the contribution that the new integrated administration and control system will make to that, can my right hon. Friend assure me that his Ministry will adopt an understanding and flexible attitude to farmers who are not fraudsters but may have made genuine innocent mistakes in completing their forms?

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. On some matters there are Communitywide rules on how we apply the forms. An example is the date on which the forms have to be returned. If the form is a couple of days late, there is a particular penalty. The rules are purposely Europewide to make sure that everyone obeys the rules. However, wherever there is flexibility, we shall use it. I appeal to farmers to tell us in advance if they find that they have made some mistake. Then we shall know that they are not trying to defraud.

What lessons have been learnt by the various EC countries with land frontiers which could be useful in dealing with the fraud that has taken place across our land frontiers with the Republic of Ireland?

We have learnt several lessons. One of the most important is that we should not start fraud off by paying money to which people are not entitled. Therefore, both the IACS forms and the arrangements for passports and ear-tagging for animals that receive a premium are a basic necessity if we are to save taxpayers' money and ensure that the money goes to the right people.

Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to examine the comparable forms which farmers in other EC member countries have to fill in? Will he guarantee to take a watching brief to ensure that the forms are applied universally throughout the Community?

I have certainly looked at the forms used by our partners. In almost every case, they have been less clear and less well laid out than ours. Only the Danes have a shorter form, but that is because they have had much of the material on computer for some time. Our accompanying literature is also much clearer. That is because we bothered to spend time to make sure that farmers made the fewest possible mistakes. I will ensure that the forms are properly filled in other countries.

Does the Minister accept that fraud involving the common agricultural policy now costs billions of pounds a year? Does he acknowledge that although the IACS forms, if applied effectively throughout the EC, will help to tackle fraud in respect of payments to farmers, they will not deal with the large part of the fraud relating to export refunds? Is it true that some member Governments are concealing information on such fraudulent transactions? Is it not time that the British Government took a decisive stand on the issue and made it clear that they will not agree to any changes in the CAP until fraud is effectively tackled?

The British Government's decisive stand has led to a much more fraud-proof operation than we had before. I am grateful for such support as I have received from the Labour party on the issue—at least we all agree that we do not want fraud. The hon. Gentleman somewhat overstates the amount of fraud, but we agree that there is too much—any amount of fraud is too much and we must stop it. We must now proceed to ensure that the reduced amount of export support which comes from the GATT round will give us the opportunity to carry the much more stringent measures into every aspect of the CAP.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to promote sales of British-produced wine to the EC.

The Government promote exports of English and Welsh wine vigorously. The export services of Food from Britain are also readily available to growers.

Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the merits of the Basildon grape, which is grown by many of my constituents? Will he care to reflect that as Basildon leads the economic recovery of our nation, so perhaps Basildon is well placed to lead the drive of British producers of wine further into EC markets?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Essex wines, like Essex women, are the adornment of the crown of British life—[interruption]—as is my hon. Friend. Just as Basildon is the economic capital and leader of Britain, I have always been told that it drinks for Britain. We will do our very best to promote the Essex grape. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister served Essex wine to the Council of Ministers at an informal meeting and it was much appreciated. We will do all that we can to promote British wine.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made with amending the minimum landing size of lobster in the EC.

The Undersized Lobsters Order 1993 was laid before Parliament today and comes into force on 20 May 1993. It establishes carapace length as the only measurement to determine minimum landing size of lobsters and sets minimum landing size at 85 mm carapace length.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is to the lasting credit of British fishermen that they were so concerned about conservation that they drew this matter to my hon. Friend's attention? Is it not enough to make a blue-blooded Englishman's blood boil and turn red with anger that this particular regulation slipped by officials unnoticed? Or is it yet again the French fishermen's rule that if it is old enough to live in the sea it is ready to be eaten?

It did not slip anybody's notice in the way that my hon. Friend suggests. When the rules were changed, nobody picked this up—and that includes all the fishermen's organisations.

That is what I said.

As soon as we discovered that there was a problem, we sought to have it remedied on a Community basis and we made it clear that if that was not possible we would do it unilaterally. The industry accepted that, and we worked closely together. We have now laid the order. It is an example of how we can work together on technical conservation matters, which is very important.

I note that the Minister conceded that it was the fishermen themselves who pressed for tighter regulations on the minimum landing size of lobsters. Does the Minister agree that fishermen are responsible in relation to conservation measures, and does he recognise the frustration that fishermen feel at the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992? Would he agree to sit round the table with the fishermen to discuss genuine, constructive and workable conservation measures as an alternative to the crude and simplistic days-at-sea measures?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman is behind the times. A meeting took place last Monday between my officials, my scientists and fishermen's representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom in an attempt to work out what would be practical in technical conservation terms. It will be difficult—probably impossible—to find measures of technical conservation that would be acceptable to the industry and would do all of the job that can be done by the other methods. Therefore, we have a mix of remedies to the problems of technical conservation and over-exploitation and we are pursuing that course.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fishermen, particularly in Dorset and the Isle of Wight, were very co-operative on conservation measures for lobsters? They want to ensure that decent sized lobsters are taken out, and the original conservation measures taken had improved the quality of the catch. What is my hon. Friend doing to ensure that the rest of the European Community will keep to the same standard as our inshore fishermen?

This is a case in which we sought to have a defect remedied on a Communitywide basis. We did not succeed in doing that, but we will return to the attack in that regard. The choice was between trying to put it right in our waters, at the demand of our fishermen, or doing nothing. In those circumstances, the sensible cause is to take the remedy that is at hand. We have done that and it is a good example of co-operation. Technical conservation measures are not always acceptable to all fishermen in the United Kingdom. Very often, one group of fishermen in one port is at odds with another group of fishermen in another port. That is part of the problem that we have to face.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to encourage import substitution in the combined food and drink sector.

We are working to encourage the British food and drink industry to win markets through its efficiency and through the quality and safety of its products.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that this country has a trade deficit of about £5·5 billion in the food and drink sector, whereas Holland has a trade surplus of about £10 billion, including sales to this country of £1·6 billion. Does he agree that the key to reversing that trend lies in better marketing of agricultural produce? Will he examine the effectiveness of Food From Britain and any other measures to find out whether the promotion of British agricultural products can be improved so that we can sell more in the home market and prevent imports from being sold in this country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Food From Britain is being reviewed and we expect a report shortly. Marketing is the key and I hope that the improvements in farm incomes and commodity prices will not make farmers think that marketing has become less important. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that a fortnight ago in Tewkesbury the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Sainsbury's ran a seminar on marketing for farmers and 60 of them turned up, which demonstrates how seriously we take the matter.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will list all of the subsidies and import barriers affecting food products.

The European Community agricultural policy, in common with similar policies in the United States and elsewhere, supports agriculture; in that sense, therefore, most of the food that we buy has had the benefit of that support.

As a member of a Government who believe in open markets and freedom of choice, is my right hon. Friend not a little ashamed to preside over a regime with so many impediments to choice in trade that he cannot read them all out during Question Time? Is not one of the most pernicious aspects of that illiberal regime its effect on eastern Europe, particularly the strict import quotas and restrictions on imports of soft fruit from Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary? How can we expect the eastern European countries, to which we have for so long preached the benefits of free markets, to reform themselves successfully when we cold shoulder the very products that they can successfully sell to us?

I am proud that the farmers of the Amber Valley and elsewhere are able to get a return on their hard work which keeps our land looked after and home-produced food supplied. I do not believe that it is possible to run a system which does not give support to those farmers. As for strawberries, I am pleased that farmers who are producing raspberries and other soft fruit, especially in Scotland, have fair competition within a sensible regime, rather than finding themselves unable to produce at all.

Does the Minister accept that the cost of bringing milk across the channel acts as a non-tariff barrier for imports of raw milk into the United Kingdom? If so, does he accept that to talk about a free market in milk, after the wind-up of the milk marketing scheme, is something of a nonsense?

We have the natural advantage that those who wish to export products such as milk and potatoes to us have to pay the cost of transport. We also have the natural disadvantage that if we wish to export to others we have to pay the cost of transport. I find it difficult to equate that with a non-tariff barrier: it is a geographical fact of life and even the Opposition have to accept such facts of life.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the raspberry growers of Tayside believe that he and his team have introduced measures which have given them the opportunity to compete in the marketplace in a way that did not exist before? In addition, they have been able to improve substantially the way they market their products, which has had a remarkable effect on the economy of north Tayside.

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. There is a balance to be achieved. I want there to be as much opportunity as possible for eastern European countries to sell in this country and in the rest of the European Community, but that must be consonant with the retention and expansion of a healthy British agriculture, if it is to be able to look after the land and to produce the food that we need. As my hon. Friend says, one cannot do that without some protection for our raspberry growers.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his final recommendations to the European Commission for non-rotational set-aside.

We are pressing the Commission to come forward with its proposals for non-rotational set-aside as soon as possible. It reported at our last meeting that it would do so.

The House may share my hope that the Commission's proposals, when we see them, will be based on my right hon. Friend's recommendations for non-rotational set-aside. At present, 15 per cent. of our countryside, which at this time of year should be looking a picture, is a mess. The farmers are frustrated, the public are getting angry, and a much better method must be found to take this 15 per cent. of land out of arable production.

I am not quite sure that that sweeping generalisation is true. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is rather enthusiastic about rotational set-aside. After all, a high proportion of land has historically always been set aside rotationally as part of the fallowing process. I think that a mixture of non-rotational and rotational set-aside, chosen by the farmer, must be the best answer. I should like that to be attended by environmental requirements so that the public good is respected. That is what we hope the Commission will propose.

Does the Minister agree that we have reached a sorry state of affairs when, after 20 years in the Common Market, every family in Britain is paying £19 a week to prop up the common agricultural policy while farmers in Britain are being told to watch the grass grow and collect up to £80 an acre for doing so? When millions of people in the third world need food, the best answer must be to produce food in Britain so that the empty bellies in the Sudan and other parts of Africa can be filled.

This is the first time the hon. Gentleman has produced the farmers' argument and I would like what he says to be true, but he should have discussions with Oxfam, Christian Aid and other bodies which know a little more about this than he does. They will tell him that that is not the way to help the agriculture or the feeding of the third world. Indeed, one of the reasons why we want to reduce over-production in the European Community is that it undermines agriculture in the third world. It is scandalous that oilseed rape oil produced in the EC is sold in developing countries more cheaply than the oil that they produce at home. I hope that we shall be able to stop that.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to meet the new French Minister of Agriculture to discuss reforming the common agricultural policy.

I met the new French Minister of Agriculture two weeks ago in London. The visit was his first to any European Community Minister.

Did my right hon. Friend emphasise to the new French Minister that it would be an international tragedy if, due to a combination of narrow nationalism, short-term party advantage and chauvinism, he sought to derail the GATT talks by reneging on the reform of the common agricultural policy?

I needed to use no such language, as the new French Agriculture Minister was very much aware of the need for a GATT agreement, not only for the interests of Great Britain and France but for the Community, the world and especially developing countries. He has his own problems and his own policies—he has fought an election, and a number of promises have been made, but I hope very much that we will come to an accommodation which protects this nation.

On the subject of reform of the CAP, local authorities in Wales are anxious to help farmers who do not have plans to accompany the integrated administration control system forms, but they have been told by representatives of Ordnance Survey that they would not be allowed to copy them, as that would be a breach of copyright. That fact has created a worse problem. We know that there is a time limit—15 May—and time is running out. I urge the Minister to have a word with Ordnance Survey to ask it to look at the matter sensibly.

I have met the head of Ordnance Survey, who has made arrangements throughout England and Wales that have increased the number of outlets from 39 to 300. Unfortunately, very few farmers have tried to get their maps since October, when they were first warned that they had to do so. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service is playing a particular part in Wales and I believe that the maps are available as widely as they need be. The one thing that we have made clear is that if farmers are genuinely unable to obtain the maps by 15 May, they can send them on afterwards and will not suffer penalties as a result.

When my right hon. Friend discusses reform of the CAP will he take a hard look at the system of beef intervention, because on 31 March Britain had more beef in intervention than we have had for a comparable period in each of the four previous years? A total of 164,000 tonnes of British beef were then in intervention. My right hon. Friend has often said that it is a great shame that British catering butchers cannot provide all the steaks that are required in this country. He will know that British beef in intervention stores is not available to them and in some cases, even if it were, it would not be in a suitable form. The issue is serious and I hope that when my right hon. Friend considers the reforms he will do something about the intervention beef, as action is long overdue.

I have discussed intervention beef with the French Minister on two occasions. Intervention is an unsuitable way of regularly supporting the beef market, and should be an emergency provision, not the sort of regular activity that it now is. Catering butchers do not have that problem. Their problem in this country is that beef is not produced in the volume or in the way that provides them with the sort of portions that they want. I hope that the industry will address the issue, as there are many opportunities for it in the catering business.

As the common agricultural policy is responsible for food prices being higher than they need be, as it costs the average EC family of four £300 a year in higher taxes, and as the EC Commission has admitted that agricultural spending is set to rise sharply in the next two or three years, did the Minister tell his French counterpart that the CAP was like a juggernaut out of control and needed to be the subject of root and branch reform?

We have carried out root and branch reform, but the effect of that is that we now pay money directly to farmers, instead of hiding it in the cost to the consumers, which will fall significantly. As a result, we can ensure that the money goes where it is needed. The cost to the CAP is the cost of Europe having a well looked-after landscape and of ensuring that we produce our own food—a price worth paying.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of farm land have now been set aside; and if he will make a statement on the uses to which this land has been put.

Information on the area set aside under the arable area payments scheme will be available when the area aid applications have been processed.

Will my right hon. Friend measure the desirability of keeping a fair proportion of set-aside land in good agricultural condition against a time when circumstances might be different from now? How satisfied is he that other EC member countries are carrying through the regulations on set-aside as well as he is?

We are keeping a close watch on that last issue and, as far as we are able, we can see that other member countries are clearly carrying out those rules, as we are. My hon. Friend is right to talk of the need to keep land in good agricultural heart—the seven fat years are always followed by seven lean years. Any Minister who was not prepared to protect the public from a shortage of home-produced food should not be Minister of Agriculture.

Does not the Minister agree that both the farmer and the farm worker constitute an important part of any rural community? Does he agree that the set-aside scheme compensates the farmer, but not the farm worker? Does he agree that the country stewardship scheme provides income for the farmer and the farm worker? Would it not be better if he persuaded his European counterparts to follow that scheme, which ensures that the countryside is kept in an attractive state, for people in both the countryside and the towns to enjoy? Would not that be a better policy than the set-aside scheme?

There is a place for both—the countryside stewardship scheme has a number of advantages, but it does not reduce production. We must ensure that set aside also includes environmental aspects that look after the countryside properly. If it has to be cut, that may require the attention of farm workers, which is of great benefit. The reduction in the number of farm workers has continued in a similar way, year by year, for almost the whole of the century, so I doubt whether set aside has a close association with it.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the United Kingdom bacon market is taken by imports.

Fifty-eight per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are more pigs in my constituency than people? [Interruption.] Is he further aware that in east Yorkshire we produce the finest bacon pigs in the world, that the quality of British bacon over the past 10 years has improved enormously and is now equal to any bacon in the world and that our prices are competitive? Is it therefore not a tragedy that we import such a large proportion of the bacon that is consumed? Would my hon. Friend support my campaign to buy British bacon, eat British bacon and help to reduce the very serious deficit in food?

Pigs are reputedly very intelligent animals and that is clearly indicated by their choice of residence. I agree with my hon. Friend and I merely add the eggs and butter as well.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress being made in the assessment of agricultural land for the purposes of set aside.

I hesitate to use a crystal ball when we will soon have the exact figures as a result of the filling in of the integrated administration and control system forms.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. However, does he agree that farming is one of this country's most productive industries and, as such, requires reductions in bureaucracy and red tape to maintain its competitive edge, just like any other business? Is my right hon. Friend therefore aware of the concern in my constituency about the IACS forms, in particular in respect of set aside and other acreage payments, which require 79 pages of explanation and which required one of my constituents to answer 3,000 questions? Is not that an unnecessary and heavy burden on our farming industry?

I do not think so. After all, farmers in this country will receive £1,000 million as a result of it. The danger of recoil from the taxpayer if farmers were not required to give the right facts to obtain that money, would be enormous. My hon. Friend referred to competition. The farmers in every other country in the Europen Community have to fill in the same forms. However, we were sensible enough to give farmers a booklet which enables them to fill in the form very simply. In the many meetings that my colleagues and I have had, farmers have told us that the booklet is extremely good and explains well how to fill in the forms. They felt much happier after reading the booklet than they did when they first saw the form.

What will the Minister do to increase the amount of set-aside land that is used for coppicing and for growing biofuel? Does he agree that much set-aside land might look a mess to those whose interest in land relates only to profiting from the land? However, to most sensitive souls, set-aside land presents a magnificent sight with its unfettered growth of wild flowers. Is it not an example of where beauty is to be found in the wallet of the beholder?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is a bit thick on that point. Most people find set-aside land difficult to take because they are used to neat farm land. We have far too neat a view of the countryside. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's end, but not his explanation. Set aside should be a matter of choice for the farmer between rotational and non-rotational. It should have environmental requirements. Farmers are being paid to look after the land properly and that is right.

Why does my right hon. Friend keep talking about future changes in set aside and other arrangements in the CAP? Last Thursday, in a wide-ranging and very conciliatory speech the Prime Minister spoke of the triumphs of the EC and included in that the reform that has already taken place—apparently to his satisfaction—in the CAP.

Because the reform in the CAP is not yet extended to a wide range of products over which it should extend. It is not yet satisfactory, particularly in relation to the beef regime. Life will change and different reforms will be necessary year after year. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not say the same thing to a Chancellor of the Exchequer who had introduced—as the current Chancellor of the Exchequer has—a very successful Budget. My hon. Friend would not therefore say that there is no need for another Budget next year.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what submissions the Minister has received about the integrated administration and control system form.

We have received a number of representations about the integrated administration and control system documentation and I have heard a great number in the many meetings that I have conducted personally and many have been made at meetings with other Ministers around the country.

Following that answer and previous answers, what steps is the Ministry prepared to take to introduce an independent arbitration and appeal system to ensure that any farmer who makes a genuine mistake—who is not being fraudulent in any way—is not penalised? Previous answers show that the Minister appears to be the only person in the country, apart from his candidate in Newbury, who thinks that the integrated administration and control system will make life easier for farmers.

The hon. Gentleman employs his usual party political speech, and we all know what it is worth. The hon. Gentleman is a member of a party which is absolutely uncritical of the European Community and which is federalist to the core. For him to dare to speak in such terms shows him up for what he is. He is much more interested in party politics than in farmers. Farmers know that and that is why increasing numbers of them have thrown aside the pretensions of the Liberal party to care about the countryside.

While I appreciate that the IACS form is the foundation for future set-aside payments, does my right hon. Friend agree that many farmers, especially in my constituency, have found it difficult and unnecessarily bureaucratic, especially as it sometimes involves ordnance surveys of farms? Such a survey is costing a farmer in my constituency £1,700. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Ministry's response to the filling out of the forms is reasonable and that penalties are not unnecessarily imposed on farmers who make mistakes when completing the form?

My hon. Friend says that a farmer in his constituency had to spend £1,700 on maps. I hope that my hon. Friend will find out how much that farmer will get annually as a result of filling in the form. It will run into many thousands of pounds. The forms are not unnecessarily bureaucratic. They will not need to be repeated next year because we shall do a computer print-out on which people can insert new details. We will ensure that the flexibility that is available is used to its utmost. However, we have to meet the perfectly reasonable argument, which the Opposition spokesman again raised, that as far as possible the system must cut fraud.

Surely the Minister is aware of the grave concern of many farmers, especially in my constituency, about the complexity of these forms. How many people have asked the Minister to extend the 15 May deadline, which is proving almost impossible for many farmers in my constituency to meet? They are concerned that they are not working on the same playing field as their European counterparts.

They cannot have that concern because almost every country in Europe has to meet the 15 May deadline and will do so. The exception is France which has set a 30 April deadline. There is absolute parity between the countries of Europe. Secondly, in the last two meetings that I conducted, one in Okehampton and the other in Wincanton, no farmer asked me for an extension of the deadline. They all recognised that it was necessary to make sure that Italian, Spanish, Greek and French farmers filled in the form, and that only by doing that did they get the money. The form is necessary not only to stop fraud, but to ensure a level playing field throughout Europe. I shall use as much flexibility as possible, consistent with stopping fraud, because I want every farmer to get every penny to which he is entitled.

While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his flexibility on the mapping arrangements, may I draw to his attention the fact that in Wales 70 per cent. of the forms that have so far been checked, and even those that have been completed with maps, have errors? Therefore, many farmers are interested in discovering the degree of flexibility that will be shown in considering claims. I echo the pleas of my hon. Friends by urging the Minister to deal with the applications as flexibly as possible.

My hon. Friend need have no worry about that. I am absolutely committed to using the maximum flexibility that is available consistent with stopping fraud. The Welsh example underlines the fact that in most areas of England and Wales the area officers have done their best to make sure that as much help as possible is given for filling in the forms. The area officers are trying to be helpful to farmers by making sure that they miss nothing.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the estimated annual cost of the common agricultural policy for the United Kingdom in the current financial year.

About £2·32 billion estimated market support expenditure in the United Kingdom for this financial year.

Does that figure not demonstrate what a calamity the common agricultural policy was and is? In spite of successive Ministers saying that there has been root and branch reform of the policy, the fact remains that it costs families in this country at least £18 a week, that it is an obscene policy because it damages other developing nations and that even when starvation occurs, the massively increasing food mountains are never touched because the Common Market buys food from world markets and does not transfer the food surplus to the starving areas of the world. Is it not time for the British Government to recognise that the CAP is a failure and that the only way for us to avoid the CAP is to get out of the Common Market?

The cost per family has gone down £1 since the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) put forward his view. If hon. Members ask a few more questions, we will get the figure down to nil, and that will be very convenient. There is a real cost involved in looking after the land and ensuring future food supplies in Europe. That cost is bound to be considerable. It is too high and that is why we have taken major measures to change the common agricultural policy, and that will cut prices in some areas by 30 per cent. The result will be that total resource costs will be considerably reduced. The hon. Gentleman hates the European Community. It is odd that his party still has him as a member.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he contact President Clinton today, as he contemplates new measures against the Bosnian Serbs, and convey to him the grave reservations of many people in Europe about the possibility of air strikes against any targets, strategic or otherwise, in Bosnia? Will he remind the President of the paramount need to secure the safety of United Nations troops presently serving in Bosnia, including British soldiers, in giving vital humanitarian aid?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital to minimise the risk to the United Nations troops and, of course, to the humanitarian aid civilians who are also there and who, for so long and so bravely, have carried out the humanitarian operation. We will take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that.

As the horrendous situation in Bosnia worsens even further and as no clear policy has yet emerged from the international community which would effectively deter continued Serb advance, is it not the case that the acknowledged risks of limited air strikes are increasingly outweighed by the very real dangers of continued inaction? Is there not a serious danger that if another policy is not adopted, moves will be made to lift the arms embargo, which would merely intensify the conflict?

I share the observations that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made about the lifting of the arms embargo. That does present special difficulties. As I have said before, and reiterate now, we cannot rule out further measures for maximising pressure on the Serbs. We are consulting closely our allies and partners. We must, of course, weigh carefully the implications of air strikes for the removal of the arms embargo or, indeed, any other proposals that may arise in our consultations or in the debate in the House this afternoon.

As the days and weeks go by, and the Serbs continue to flout the authority of the United Nations, is it not increasingly clear that if the Serbs are to be stopped, they must be given an ultimatum that is backed by a credible threat to their lines of communication and supply in Bosnia?

I have told the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will reiterate it, that we have not ruled out options. We are discussing options and it is best to consult on them, consider them, examine the probability of success and the possibility of difficulties and then reach a final conclusion.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

While I recognise our success in bringing down the level of inflation and thereby laying the foundations for economic recovery, does the Prime Minister agree that a rapid rise in house prices is not necessarily good news? Should not we aim for a sustainable recovery, based on exports and investments and, at all costs, avoid a return to the cycle of boom and bust?

I share that objective with my hon. Friend. We have said from the outset that we want a recovery that is steady and sustainable, and that is what we have repeatedly taken action to achieve over the past two years. We have said that recovery would follow the reduction of inflation. We got inflation down from 11 per cent. to 2 per cent., and it seems that recovery is now following. As a result of that, we were able to cut interest rates, but that had to follow the reduction in inflation and not precede it. We have worked extremely hard, and it has been extremely difficult for everyone during that period, to get the fundamentals right. We now have them right and I have no intention of throwing away that advantage.

Will the Prime Minister pause for a moment in his campaign of self-congratulation— [Interruption.]—and recollect—[Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister pause for a minute in his campaign of self-congratulation and recollect that the price of his policies for Britain has been 3 million unemployed, borrowing at £1 billion a week, a devalued pound and a burden of debt that will not be paid off until the end of the century? Does he really think that that is cause for self-congratulation?

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman carried the House with him in the introductory part of his question. I acknowledge the difficulties that there have been for many people, not just hon. Members but throughout the country, as we have dealt with the effects of the recession. As the right hon. Gentleman will observe, that recession is not unique to this country. We are emerging from it when many others are still going into it. As we come out of the recession, perhaps I might quote the words of the chairman of Grand Met, Sir Allen Shepherd, who said:

"Today, in British Industry we have almost everything that we've been asking for: low inflation, competitive exchange rates, higher productivity and good industrial relations. On top of that, the skills 'revolution' is well under way and will add value to everything we do."

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that until he and the Government give an absolutely clear and categorical assurance that no British forces, of any kind, will become involved in the former Yugoslavia and Bosnia, except for humanitarian reasons, any other suggestion will be suspect and will make it extremely difficult to persuade people to support the effort that we make? It will be suspect because it will be thought that we shall be dragged, stage by stage, into a European war or that we shall be pushed there by Washington. Both would be intolerable.

As my right hon. Friend knows, we were among the first specifically to put troops into Bosnia to deal with humanitarian matters. We need to consider precisely how we can play a part both in seeking to end the terrible conflict that exists within Bosnia and in ensuring—for this is a clear-cut British strategic interest—that the conflict does not spread beyond Bosnia and lead to a realisation of the greater fear on which my right hon. Friend touched: a wider Balkan war. Those are issues of great complexity, which we need to discuss with our colleagues and friends in the United Nations and NATO.

Is the Prime Minister at all embarrassed by the fact that last year some £7 million, or two thirds of the cost of his general election campaign, was received by the Conservative party from foreign sources?

I have to say that that is just a touch rich coming from a member of a party whose entire shadow Cabinet is sponsored by trade unions. As Mr. Tom Sawyer of NUPE said,

"It's as crude as that … no say, no pay."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gross domestic product figures produced on Monday clearly show that the recession is over and recovery well under way? Does he further agree that those same figures point to growth in the United Kingdom economy commencing in the middle of last year? Does that not further point to his leadership winning the essential battle against inflation and the equally essential battle against the Opposition?

My hon. Friend is entirely right that getting inflation down was the key. We were elected in the spring and the figures that we now have for growth in the second half of last year show that recovery began in the summer.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that Ferranti International, a company in my constituency, is awaiting the outcome of a bid for a high technology contract from the Saudi Arabian Government to which I understand he gave personal support in his talks with the Saudi Government earlier this year? Can he tell me what action he is taking to ensure that the contract is awarded to a major British industry to prevent the job losses that will surely follow if we do not get the contract?

Defence Ministers are following the programme closely and doing all they can to progress it. The awarding of the contract in due course is a matter for the Saudi Government, but we are doing what we can to assist.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the British taxpayer should not be expected to pay towards the administration costs of the social charter throughout the EC, when the United Kingdom, quite rightly and properly, has opted out of all its provisions?

My hon. Friend is well aware of and shares the Government's view on the social chapter. The administrative costs of dealing with the social chapter are de minimis and in no sense a burden on the economy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to instruct Government Departments to make full disclosure of all documents requested in connection with legal proceedings relating to unlawful export of arms to Iraq; and if he will make it his policy not to issue public immunity interest certificates in connection with any such proceedings.

Government Departments will continue to disclose documents in any legal proceedings in the manner prescribed by law.

If that is the answer, why is it that the Crown did not exercise its discretion, when Ministers knew perfectly well of his service to MI5 and MI6, in favour of Paul Grecian in the Ordtech trial?

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that it is quite inappropriate for me to comment when such cases are in the courts. He knows that it is inappropriate and I will not do so.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister rethink the Government's approach to low pay and the abolition of the wages councils? Will he consider the information prepared by Lancashire county council which not only highlights the scandal of low pay but shows that in areas with no wages councils there is a much higher incidence of low pay, clearly identifying the dangers of their abolition?

I am hardly likely to take any advice from Lancashire county council, given its record in recent years. The sheer scale of the increase in Lancashire's council tax—I think from memory that it is an extra £84—as a result of the council's maladministration is remarkable. Therefore, it is most unlikely that I shall take its advice upon that matter.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the sub judice rule, are the privileges of the House of Commons to be overtaken by arbitrary—

Order. I cannot take such a point of order now. I shall do so later, as always, at the end of questions.