To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a further statement on the working of the IACS scheme.

Some 157,000 applications were received in the United Kingdom by the 15 May deadline. The applications are now being checked to determine eligibility for aid.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her new responsibilities. My question related overtly and covertly to the crushing burden of bureacracy which is gradually suffocating and strangling United Kingdom agriculture. During what I hope will be a long, happy and successful term for my right hon. Friend as Minister, will she make it a priority to deal with that dire problem?

I assure my hon. Friend that I will certainly make dealing with that burden a priority during my time at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, however long or short that may be. I am aware that the completion of the integrated administration and control system forms has been a burden for farmers, although they are aware that completing the forms will bring them £1 billion of aid this year. We have received congratulations from the National Farmers Union on behalf of farmers for the help and advice that have been administered through our regional offices.

I also welcome the Minister to her new position in the Government. Does she agree that there has been a good response from the farmers in the United Kingdom? Can she give us an idea of what the response has been elsewhere in the European Community? Is it on a par with the response in the United Kingdom?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome. I agree that there has been a good and responsible response from our farmers. I am not yet in a position to say exactly how the farmers in the rest of the EC have responded. I shall be able to do so after Monday, when I shall be attending my first Agriculture Council, at which I shall be able to take soundings.

I also welcome my right hon. Friend to her position. There will be no shortage of support from the Conservative Benches for her in her battles against any Euro-nonsense. In the kindest possible way, may I put her on notice that those of us who represent agricultural constituencies will, in time, want clear evidence that farmers in the other 11 countries have had to cope with their problems in the same way as ours have had to do?

After thanking my hon. Friend for his welcome, perhaps I may reassure him that one of the first things that I did was to look at the forms that other member states are asking their farmers to complete. They make interesting reading—the German form is thorough and the French form is fearsome; there are appropriate comparisons across the Community. What matters is the way in which the forms are completed and enforcement is carried out.

I also welcome the Minister to her new brief. What percentage of those forms have contained mistakes? Will her Department be as flexible as possible in dealing with any errors that become obvious to the civil servants?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. It is too early to say how many incomplete or erroneous forms we have received. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not want to penalise simple mistakes. Farmers must correct their errors before we spot them, but we shall he as flexible as possible.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the implementation of beef suckler cow and ewe premium quotas.

Most allocations of quota to sheep producers have now been made. Allocations of suckler cow premium quota will begin in the autumn.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and I take this opportunity to welcome him warmly to his new post. Together with our right hon. Friend, he makes a formidable team, with the formidable task of defending the interests of the British farmer—a task for which they are more than well qualified.

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words of welcome. I will certainly take up his challenge to fight for British farmers and growers and their interests. Those interests, in respect of quota payments, are well served by the fact that they are valued at £495 million. I am aware of the concerns of landowners about this measure. My Ministry has received a legal submission from the Country Landowners Association on the matter. We are studying it carefully; but I trust that my hon. Friend will balance his view against the fact that expenses are involved in the line that he is pushing.

I welcome my hon. Friend to his new post and I tell him, on behalf of the Agriculture Select Committee, that we look forward to having him before us in due course.

I thank my hon. Friend for his first, searching question on the subject. Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that one of the concerns of landowners is that when those with quota move off, that will affect the economic value of the land—but we have tried to take that into account in the construction of the national reserve, for which those without quota can apply when taking over land.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received as to the activities of the Food Advisory Committee.

The Food Advisory Committee provides an invaluable public service in reviewing and providing expert advice to Ministers on a wide range of complex issues falling within its remit on the chemical safety of food as well as food composition and labelling. I have received no representations about the work of the committee.

What are the criteria by which the new team in the Ministry will select people to serve on the Food Advisory Committee? What steps will they take to ensure that the members are independent and free from the commercial interests of the food producers association?

The hon. Lady should be aware that the Government are firmly committed to ensuring that food safety regulations are securely based on the best available scientific and technical advice. To that end, we consult and use a great number of the most distinguished expert committees, established by people with a wide range of interests in the food industry. Those interests are all declared—rightly so—in the annual reports. Equally, the hon. Lady will be aware that we rely on their expertise to give us independent advice on how to proceed.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Food Advisory Committee should be open to all so that we can see its workings and so that those workings are open and available to the public, as a matter of public record?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an extremely important point. The Food Advisory Committee publishes its agenda some time before it meets, and afterwards publishes its deliberations. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we will do all that we can further to increase its openness. We intend to make sure that everything is available for the general public and consumers to see, to their advantage.

Is it not true that 10 of the 17 members of the Government's so-called independent Food Advisory Committee are shareholders in, consultants to or employed by major food companies? Is it not also true that a number of those same companies are major contributors to the Conservative party? Has the Minister seen the grovelling leaflet produced by a member of this so-called independent advisory committee who works for the Dunn Nutrition Centre? It states:

"Important notice. At this moment in our Fund Raising Programme"—

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that quotations at Question Time are not in order.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The quote says that it is clearly important not to antagonise any part of the food industry unnecessarily. Is that the voice of independence to which the Government are required to listen?

The hon. Gentleman's truly fatuous paranoia in these matters amuses and dogs the life of anyone who has anything to do with him. It is important that these independent committees, which are established to provide the Government and Ministers with fully independent, arms-length advice, are experts in the field in which they work. Naturally, some of them work in the food industry. The hon. Gentleman must grow up.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom percentage self-sufficiency in liquid milk.

The United Kingdom produces sufficient milk to meet its needs for liquid consumption, but not enough to meet the overall demand for dairy products.

I say to Labour Members that this is indeed the voice of independence. Is my hon. Friend aware that I come from the county of Cheshire, which boasts some of the finest dairy farmers in the United Kingdom, perhaps in the whole of the European Community, and has some of the United Kingdom's finest grassland? Is he aware that we are no longer producing as much liquid milk as this country needs, but that, for whatever purpose, we are importing more? Can that be good in the light of a substantial and growing balance of trade deficit? What does he propose to do to allow our farmers, who have the ability to do it, to produce more of the milk that this country requires?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Dairy producers in my constituency in Lancashire will have listened with interest to his description. They will, however, share common cause with us in their endorsement of the measures in the Agriculture Bill which addresses some of the problems that my hon. Friend underlines. In terms of the balance of payments, the Bill will enable milk to be used for the production of certain British cheeses and dairy products, which will replace those that are currently being imported. Farmers will be well pleased with such proposals.

Does the Minister recall that about two years ago as a result of dioxin-contaminated milk in the Bolsover area, action had to be taken with Coalite, the company concerned, and an incinerator put out of use? Is he aware that since the new safety levels have been introduced, the Government have decided to allow Coalite at Bolsover to put that incinerator back into use, with the result that, once again, the Government are prepared to endanger food in that area? Will he take steps to ensure that that incinerator is not put into operation?

Incinerators are not directly in my area of responsibility. One of the sadder aspects of the hon. Gentleman's attempt to raise the matter in the way that he has is that he has not taken the opportunity to put on record the fact that we have one of the finest milk supplies with the highest purity levels in the European Community.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are being taken to reduce unemployment in the rural economy.

In the negotiations that resulted in the reform of the common agricultural policy, the United Kingdom was successful in ensuring that the CAP continues to benefit all United Kingdom farmers. That success will help to maintain rural employment.

May I also welcome my right hon. Friend to her new post and hope that her period of office in her new Department is as successful as it has been in other Departments? As unemployment in agriculture is still at about 10 per cent., will my right hon. Friend consider other ways of reducing it, including the production of a consultative paper to consider the abolition of the Agriculture Wages Board which still sets minimum wages?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Agriculture Wages Board network is reviewed every five years. It was last reviewed in 1988, so another review is now due. There is to be a fundamental review process with full consultation, and that will be prepared in co-operation with the Department of Employment.

May I say how disappointing it is that the new Minister chose to answer the question solely with reference to agricultural unemployment? Does she not understand that there is enormous concern in the fishing communities about the possibility of rural unemployment arising directly from the days-at-sea legislation passed by her predecessor? Does she acknowledge that concern as represented in the blockades and demonstrations in the past few weeks? As a new Minister without, we hope, the prejudices of her predecessor, will she re-examine that days-at-sea legislation to see whether changes can be made?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, along with the fishing industry, understands that the fundamental need is to rebuild fish stocks. That is universally accepted, but, of course, I am fully aware that there is a lot of controversy about how it should be done. I do not know whether we can avoid unpopular decisions, but I have already met representatives of the fishing industry, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State is engaged in ongoing discussions with them. We are closely in touch, discussing all the background papers and seeing what might be done, but the parameters remain the same.

I hope that my right hon. Friend has a successful period of office in her new job. Will she bear in mind the fact that one of the reasons for increased unemployment in the rural areas is that British farmers have to set aside 19 per cent. of our land, whereas the Germans set aside only 12 per cent? The Greeks and the Italians have just been given an increased national quota without its being referred down to farm level, whereas the United Kingdom has a much tougher regime. Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to ensure that the British farmer gets a fair deal in the European Community and that we have as level a playing field as possible in agriculture? Surely that will significantly reduce levels of unemployment.

Just answer yes.

I am being given a lot of advice today. I am tempted just to say yes to my hon. Friend, because there is nothing exceptionable in what he says. However, when he talks about a level playing field, he should note that the British Government have also managed to insert into set aside a number of environmental schemes that can help stimulate rural employment.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to improve welfare at slaughterhouses.

The legislation has recently been extensively updated and codes of practices introduced. The Department now plans to consult interested parties on proposals for the training of red meat slaughtermen and slaughterhouse operators' responsibility for welfare. An EC proposal on the welfare of animals for slaughter is at present under discussion.

As the Minister is the old hand of the agriculture team, I might have expected a better response to my question. The Minister is aware that there is concern that the present voluntary codes of conduct do not adequately protect the welfare of animals before slaughter. In the light of that concern, is he prepared to think again about the necessity of legislation to impose minimum stunning currents or introduce European directives that would operate throughout the Community?

Give Alan Clark the job.

It is a bit late for that—and I am not keeping a diary.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on keeping his job?

There speaks the butcher.

I thought that he was sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord).

My hon. Friend is, as usual, perfectly right. The standards that we seek to achieve throughout the European Community are those that we have here. Our negotiating stance is entirely to that end. We are pleased that the new presidency document, which is currently being negotiated, is much nearer that point of view than it was previously and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that point to the attention of the House.

May we on the Liberal Democrats' Bench welcome the two recruits to the ministerial team? We are also delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary still in his place. We are delighted to see new faces in the team not least because we hope that they will review and reverse some of the disastrous policies of the previous team, especially in relation to welfare. We hope that the team —[HON. MEMBERS: "What has this got to do with the question?"] Will the Minister give an assurance that when he and his colleagues go to the first Council of Ministers on Monday, they will ensure that the levelling of the playing field is a levelling-up of welfare standards rather than a levelling-down to the standards in other parts of the European Community?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He knows perfectly well that the standards in Britain are those that we wish to see exported abroad for the reasons that he states—to have a proper level playing field. There are standards of slaughter in European countries that we wish never to see here. We intend to fight for those proposals and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be successful in so doing.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the welfare of animals will not be served if a lot of small slaughterhouses disappear completely because of the charges for veterinary surgeons and other practices on which, unfortunately, the Government are making them devote a lot of expenditure? Would he be prepared to meet representatives from the new organisation that has been formed to represent small slaughterhouse operators, especially in the south-west? Would he receive a delegation if I brought one along?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful question. We are always prepared to consider receiving delegations. It is perfectly true that the welfare of animals is important during their transport, especially for animals that are injured. It is right that there should be a proper network of rural slaughterhouses throughout the United Kingdom. With great respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the picture is quite as black as he paints it. I am certainly happy to discuss the matter with him at any time.

How can the Minister assure the House that slaughtering codes of practice are being complied with when, on 2 November 1992, on 11 November 1992 and on 11 January this year, Parliament was told, "Information is not available" on compliance with codes of practice? That was an answer given by the Minister himself. Is not it true that although the code of practice requires the use of a minimum of 105 milliamps for poultry stunning, some slaughterers may use only between 70 milliamps and 90 milliamps? Why do not the Government legislate and put all our minds at rest?

The hon. Gentleman is asking a question to which he perfectly well knows the answer. [Interruption.] Exactly. We will study very carefully the Compassion in World Farming report on poultry stunning. We will discuss the report and its implications for the industry before we issue a response. On enforcement, as we have told the hon. Gentleman, and as all my hon. Friends and many Opposition Members who know about the matter accept, animal welfare standards in slaughterhouses are, by and large, of an extremely high standard in this country. The law is enforced by local authorities at district level and Ministry officials investigate, monitor and enforce any allegations of malpractice.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress her Department is making in relation to deregulation.

My predecessor invited comments on a list of Ministry regulations in the early part of last year. We are reviewing every one of the regulations for which we are responsible.

I join my colleagues in welcoming my right hon. Friend to her important position. Despite the disgraceful and callous comments made yesterday by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), I am sure that my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the whole House will want to express support for the owners of and workers in the hotel that collapsed, whose livelihoods have been put in jeopardy. Will she ensure that red tape does not get in the way of any help that she might give to soften the blow of that catastrophe?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, in so far as that very tragic matter falls within the purview of my Ministry. I do not think that anyone would want to heap any more difficulty on what is already a tragic situation.

Is not it true that the Government, who claim to want to deregulate and to take the burden of regulations off people's backs, are actually producing more regulations than ever in the history of Parliament, in the form of statutory instruments? That was certainly true for 1992, and in the current year statutory instruments are being processed through the legislative sausage machine at an even greater rate. When will the right hon. Lady reduce the output of statutory instruments and, in so doing, cease to bypass Parliament? Her Department and others are using delegated powers to bypass this place.

Coming from a member of a party that has wedded itself to placing burdens on business, the hon. Gentleman's comments are fairly rich. However, I wish to reassure him. I can confirm that the deregulation plans prepared by my Ministry for food law, pesticides, veterinary medicines, animal health and welfare, horticul-ture and plant protection, fisheries and the common agricultural policy, among other matters, are being placed in the Library as they are prepared. The hon. Gentleman may care to inform himself therefrom.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's early commitment to deregulation. However, will she turn her attention to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and its rules and regulations covering the licensing of new and existing products? They are now so complex that each product costs about £100,000 to license, which has resulted in some well-regarded products disappearing from the market.

I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. As I said to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), the deregulation plan for veterinary medicines is being prepared and will be placed in the Library. I place the highest importance on that work in the Ministry.

I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment. I know that she has a long-standing and genuine interest in agriculture. I hope that she will find her period of office both worth while and enjoyable—after yesterday's events, the period may be shorter than she expected.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome, which was, perhaps, a little spoilt towards the end. I remind him that, as I said in answer to a previous question, we all agree that there is a fundamental need to rebuild fish stocks, to which the hon. Gentleman committed himself. He must understand that there are parameters within which we have to work. However, I repeat that I have taken an early opportunity to meet the fishermen to hear their practical concerns. As the parameters are so important, I am not sure how far we can move, but the hon. Gentleman can be certain that I shall listen to the fishermen and, as far as possible, work with them.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many whales were killed for scientific purposes in 1992.

A total of 425 minke whales were taken during the 1992–93 season, 330 by Japan and 95 by Norway under their scientific programmes.

Like others, I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Will she reassure the House, many of my constituents and others throughout the country that she will continue the admirable and firm policy of her predecessor against the resumption of whaling? Furthermore, will she keep up pressure against countries such as Norway, that wish to resume commercial whaling on a large scale?

It remains our policy that we should not begin to consider lifting the moratorium unless stocks are proved to be at a healthy level, until whaling methods are humane and until effective procedures for managing stocks, including thorough enforcement procedures, are in place. I shall be in early contact with Mrs. Brundtland.

I point out to the new Minister that in no circumstances is there such a thing as the humane killing of a whale, and the Government must push that hard at the International Whaling Commission. Will the right hon. Lady also make it clear to the Norwegian Government that if they persist in flouting the IWC's view and world opinion by hunting whales, Norway will not be allowed to join the EC, it will stand outside the ranks of civilised nations and we shall take action against its imports into this country? Nothing less than that is required now so that the Norwegian barbarians understand how strongly we feel.

It is, of course, the case that Norwegian whaling would not be compatible with existing EC regulations on whaling and I will certainly lose no opportunity to make that clear.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that enlargement of the Community through Norwegian membership remains an overriding principle and objective of the British Government and that there is no reason why the disagreement over whaling should be an impediment to membership any more than bull-fighting in Spain should prevent the Spaniards from being members of the EC?

My hon. Friend is right to make the point, but when new members join clubs, they of course have an eye to the existing rules.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has to increase the amount of financial support for agricultural practices that protect and enhance the quality of the natural environment.

We have just held consultations on proposals for extending the range of environmental management schemes available to farmers. These would involve increasing expenditure on the measures concerned sixfold to £95 million per annum in 1995–96. That covers the whole of the United Kingdom.

I welcome the increase in payments. However, agri-environment measures provide a mechan-ism for a number of advantageous results, such as the maintenance of satisfactory agricultural incomes, impor-tant environmental gains and a better market balance. Should not the measure be at the heart, rather than at the margins, of agricultural support? Will the Minister ensure that, in future, agri-environment measures will be the centrepiece of the common agricultural policy, rather than the bolt-on element of agricultural support?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman studies matters carefully and will be aware of our strong support for the EC's agri-environment regulation. He will further be aware that we have just concluded a large-scale consultation exercise, which included a special series of programmes for Wales and the extension of environ-mentally sensitive areas in Wales. All that was available for comment and I am only sorry that his party did not submit a view on it. If the hon. Gentleman studies the document, he will see our commitment to expanding environmental protection in the field.

Is not one of the major moves towards protecting the environment the development of long-term non-rotational set-aside? That policy was initiated by the Government in this country and is now being implemented throughout Europe. My hon. Friend will be aware of the consultation papers issued by his Department some months ago. Many farmers in this country are looking forward with urgent anticipation to the final details of the rules for the non-rotational set-aside scheme.

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to that point. I wish to put on record my appreciation for the efforts of our predecessors in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in making those pioneer moves. We are working hard to conclude the consultation exercise to which I referred. The rules for long-term non-rotational set-aside—particularly the habitats directive—are included in that. We hope to submit out final plans to the Commission in the summer; that will bring us a stage nearer to the answer that my hon. Friend wants.

to ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations she has had regarding the labelling of food.

Representations have recently been sought and received on a variety of proposals to improve food labelling law or guidelines. We take very seriously the need for food to be properly labelled.

Will the Minister admit that there is a big hole in the food labelling programme, particularly in animal welfare labelling? Does the Minister agree that shoppers should be able to see at a glance how the products being offered have been produced? Is not it ridiculous, for instance, that although there are regulations that lay down ways in which farm-fresh and new-laid eggs may be described as "barn eggs" and "fresh eggs", battery eggs can be described as "country fresh" and "farm-fresh"? Why is it that battery eggs can be so misleadingly described? Surely we should be protecting the highest standards and not defending the lowest. Will the Minister strike a blow for consumer choice by introducing that accurate scheme?

Our policy is to require comprehensive food labelling so that consumers can make informed choices about the foods they purchase, but we cannot force them to read the labels. The point raised by the hon. Lady about welfare labelling has been raised before. There is already so much information on labels that it is difficult to know how more can be included—for example, what is it, who made it, what does it contain, how long can it be kept, how is it kept and used and where is it from? I take the hon. Lady's point and will have another look at that proposal, but I do not think that it is a runner.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations she has had on possible harmful effects of the ingestion of wax coatings on foodstuffs.

I am currently awaiting advice on those substances from two independent expert committees that are reviewing the results of recent research. Full consultation will follow on any action revealed to be necessary.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather odd that this country is considering banning the wax packaging of foodstuffs when there is no evidence whatever that any harm comes from its ingestion? In that respect, we are out of step with the World Health Organisation, the American Food and Drug Administration and our EC partners. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment will come to a rapid decision so that the uncertainty of the past four years can be brought to an end?

We always come to rapid decisions. We have had extensive consultations on this matter and it has been exposed to us that a number of the previous plans are inappropriate. Important uses have been replaced and it is clear that others—for example, in veterinary medicines and pesticides—might bring benefits that outweigh any slight risks involved. Moreover, further safety data have recently been submitted to us. For all those reasons, I agree that it was prudent for us to defer action pending clarification of the situation. I assure my hon. Friend that as soon as we have the necessary information we will press ahead with great speed.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total acreage of arable land put into set-aside during the last three years.

A total of 54,317 hectares, or 134,000 acres, of land have been entered into the five-year scheme and 14,118 hectares, or 35,000 acres, have been entered into the one-year scheme in the United Kingdom during the years 1990 to 1992. I will publish as soon as possible details of the amount of land set aside under the arable area payment scheme.

Is it not now clear that the set-aside agreement, which the Government wish the nation to see as a triumph, means that in the United Kingdom 2 per cent. more arable land will be set aside than in any other member state? Will the Minister confirm that the cost of that agreement is likely to exceed 1·5 billion? What steps is she taking to remedy the failures of her predecessor?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's point. He must have noticed that, because of the efforts of my predecessors, set-aside in this country contains a substantial number of features that care for the countryside and the environment. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman would apparently support the increasing of surpluses. After all, it was the problem of the deletion of wasteful surpluses that set-aside was brought in to solve.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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.

Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us with his best interests at heart fear that he has made a major blunder by sacking the previous Chancellor who had taken all the flack on the exchange rate mechanism and the collapse of the economy? Now that the Government begin to resemble the hotel that collapsed and crumbled down the cliff face, bookmakers are offering odds against the Prime Minister leading his party into the next election —[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Now that the right hon. Gentleman has not a friend but a rival in No. 11, is he beginning to feel a little exposed and beleaguered?

I must say that I had not thought of the hon. Gentleman as the hon. Member most solicitous for my future. I am grateful to him for what he said about that. The owners of the hotel have my deepest sympathy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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

In view of the latest IRA outrage, will my right hon. Friend consider modifying the right to silence and the law on disclosure of sources so that known bombers can be brought to justice? Will my right hon. Friend join me in expressing sadness at the fact that on Tuesday, when a very important Government measure to combat terrorism came before the House, the Labour party voted against it.

I was proud to do so.

I share my hon. Friend's regret at that. I am sorry to hear the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) say that he is proud to have voted against it. The Labour party had the chance to demonstrate that it is resolute against terrorism and it did not take it. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said, all the options open to a civilised state need to be available for use against terrorism.

Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that his ex-Chancellor felt compelled to say yesterday that the way in which he conducts his Administration is so harmful to the national interest that it does not deserve to succeed?

That is an unexpectedly selective quotation from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It is because we are in office and have followed our policies that we have inflation at 1·3 per cent. and interest rates at 6 per cent. and that our economy is recovering and no other economy in Europe is likely to do as well this year or next year.

I am not surprised that the Prime Minister did not choose to answer the question. Does he not understand that the significance of the ex-Chancellor's revelations is that they come from a close political colleague, an ally who sat beside the Prime Minister at the very heart of his Government? Who is better placed than the ex-Chancellor to know the weaknesses of this Administration and the weaknesses of this Prime Minister?

My right hon. Friend said what he wished to say yesterday, and I have no intention of adding to what he said yesterday or providing the right hon. and learned Gentleman with an opportunity to extend it. As one of my predecessors might have said, we have a little local difficulty. We shall get over it, and I am going on with the work in hand.

Does not the Prime Minister understand that when he announced business as usual this morning he caused apprehension throughout the land? Do not his responses show that he is incapable of learning from anything or anyone? As his authority and that of the Government is now in tatters, will he for once put the national interest first and let the people decide in a general election—[Interruption.].

Order. This is a total waste of precious time.

Why will the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Order. The House must now come to order. Hilarity is one thing, but we have business to do here.

Why will the Prime Minister not let the people decide whether they want him and his wretched Government?

I have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—he may have overlooked it—that we had an election last year. We won it, and he lost it. I say that he lost it, advisedly. The score is 4:0 in elections recently; in due course, it will be 5:0.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the independent Policy Studies Institute reported this week that two thirds of Britain's workers have increased their skills in the past five years? Is not that, as it rightly said, a training revolution, and will not it further assist Britain's competitiveness in world markets?

I did see that report, although I noticed, alas, that it had escaped the Opposition in yesterday's debate. The world is becoming more competitive than ever before, and it is undeniably true that we need constantly to improve the skills of the work force. That is true now, and it will be equally true in the future. It is good to know that so many employees and employers are seeking to do that. The Opposition make a great deal of the importance of skills and training. What I cannot understand in the light of that is why they oppose school testing, which is so vital to it.

Does the Prime Minister recall listening yesterday to the very interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who said that it would require a change in policy and the building of a wider consensus if we were to take the very tough decisions on tax and public spending that were necessary to put the country right? Does he realise that there is a crisis not only in the Conservative party but in the nation? If he would put the plight of the nation before his, he would discover that he could probably solve both by taking that advice.

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, with all kindliness, that he is developing pomposity into an art form. I always listen with very great care to my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), and I heard what he had to say. I have just heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say about difficult decisions. If he really meant that, why, having previously supported VAT on fuel, did he vote against it in the Budget?

Now that we have had an opportunity to see the 14-year-old test papers—[Interruption.] I am referring, of course, to the test papers for 14-year-olds. Now that we have had an opportunity to see them, does my right hon. Friend share my view in wondering what on earth the teachers were on about?

Yes. I believe that many people who have studied the test papers will be wondering about that. The English test earlier this week was a straightforward test of reading and writing skills, precisely the sort of test that children enjoy and need and that teachers have traditionally carried out for many years. We need tests such as those regularly to raise standards and help people to do better.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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

In view of the rising and sickening tide of racist attacks, may I ask the Prime Minister if he will join the Labour party—[Interruption.]—in responding positively to the invitation of the Anti-Racist Alliance for a member of the Government to attend next Saturday's major demonstration in Croydon against racist violence? Failing that, will he send a message of support? Will he also implement, as a matter of urgency, the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality to strengthen the law on incitement to racial hatred and introduce the specific offences of racial harassment and racial violence?

Regarding the hon. Gentleman's inadvertent slip, no, I have no intention of joining the Labour party—[Interruption.] I may have my difficulties, but they are not remotely that bad. I deplore racialism as much as the hon. Gentleman does and as much as it is deplored by other hon. Members, but I do not think that demonstrations are necessarily the right way to deal with it. Action and tolerance in society, and the legislation that we have passed, are necessary to deal with the problem.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that British Aerospace has just landed a large contract to supply Hawk aircraft to Indonesia? Following my right hon. Friend's successful negotiation of a huge contract for Tornado aircraft for Saudi Arabia, does he agree that this is excellent news not just for British Aerospace but for the many supply companies in Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom?

Yes, I am delighted to confirm that British Aerospace has won a Hawk contract in Indonesia, worth £500 million. Together with the Tornado order in Saudi Arabia in January and Oman's decision to purchase Vickers' Challenger 2 tanks, those exports will bring business securing many thousands of jobs in the British defence industry.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

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

Will the Prime Minister, in the wake of the activities that took place on Merseyside in regard to the western approaches and the Battle of the Atlantic, acknowledge the fact that it is time to repay the debt that we owe to the Merchant Navy, which lost 30,000-plus seamen during the war years? Will he take action to reactivate our shipyards so that the nation may once again fund the sort of merchant fleet that should be the priority of a maritime nation, and put the seamen back to work?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to congratulate Liverpool on the remarkable way in which it arranged and organised the celebrations concerning the Battle of the Atlantic. I was privileged to be there for a day and the whole thing was handled magnificently.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, if we are to be successful in the battle against regulatory overkill, it will be necessary for all Ministers to be ruthless and arbitrary in the prosecution of that battle?

It is not the first occasion in recent weeks that I have been invited to be ruthless and arbitrary.