To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met the chairman of the Forestry Commission to discuss the forestry policy review; and if she will make a statement.

I plan to meet the Forestry Commission chairman next month. I met the commission's director general last week, when we discussed a range of issues.

I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that great concern is being expressed in many quarters about the possibility of access being denied to woodland sold off by the Forestry Commission. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to pass on those concerns to the chairman of the forestry review group? Will she ensure that if any recommendations are made by the group, there will be adequate opportunities for interested parties to discuss and comment on them before any changes are made?

Woodlands managed by the Forestry Commission provide very important opportunities for nature conservation, access to the countryside and a wide range of other recreational and environmental benefits. The review group will have to take full account of the need to safeguard those public benefits. I know that my hon. Friend lives close to the Forest of Dean—indeed, it is in his constituency—and I live very close to Thetford forest. I have been left in no doubt whatever of the degree of public anxiety about access. I will certainly pass on my hon. Friend's concern, as I have been doing, to the review group. There is nothing to consult about at present because the review group has not yet made any proposals. Nevertheless, sufficient time will need to be allowed for consultation about whatever proposals the review group puts forward.

Will the Secretary of State remind the Forestry Commission chairman that people have had the right to roam in Sherwood forest for many years and that Robin Hood will turn in his grave if that right is forbidden? Will she ask the chairman of the Forestry Commission to ask his review group to stick to its previous timetable? The changes to the timetable are causing concern and I do not want to see Robin coming into the Chamber to tackle the Secretary of State.

I shall certainly pass on to the Forestry Commission chairman the hon. Gentleman's message about Robin Hood and his more serious message about the need for a clear timetable so that, at the end, there is time for full consultation on whatever proposals might be made.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the tenfold increase in broad-leaf planting that has taken place?

Yes. That is a considerable achievement by the Forestry Commission and as a result of Government policy. We need to get the balance right between broad-leaf planting and softwood, given that softwood makes up the bulk of our timber consumption. That will be another concern to be considered by the forestry review group.

How can we believe what Ministers say on this issue? First, the Prime Minister gave an election pledge that the Forestry Commission would not be privatised, but then that was repudiated on the ground that that commitment was given during the

"frenzied activity of the campaign".

I have already made my feelings plain on the question of access. I can certainly reassure the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a keen interest in this matter. Perhaps I should remind him that forestry is a multi-million pound industry which brings many economic and environmental benefits to this country. The review is intended to ensure that we get the best value from the Government's investment and that we are to provide the right climate for private-sector investment. The consultants will help the review group in that work. I should repeat to the hon. Gentleman that there is no pre-determined outcome of that review and one option could be to do nothing.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the discussions on agricultural trade in the current GATT round.

The Government are making every effort worldwide to maintain the momentum of the GATT negotiations so that a conclusion to the Uruguay round can be reached by 15 December.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that thousands of jobs depend upon the successful outcome of the GATT talks and that trade in agriculture is central to that success? Will she remind our Community partners of that fact and, in particular, remind the French when she next has the opportunity to do so?

I reassure my hon. Friend that, on several occasions, I have already reminded my European Community counterparts, and in particular my French counterpart, that far more depends on the successful outcome of the GATT negotiations than agriculture, France or, indeed, the EC. It is a question of the liberalisation of world trade. The successful conclusion of the round would boost that trade by $213 billion. The EC is the world's largest exporter and everybody stands to gain. It is essential that there is a successful conclusion to the GATT round by the end of December.

What a load of claptrap. Almost every day that passes one hears Government Ministers talk about GATT and the level playing field. When that is discussed by the people who represent the farmers, what does it really mean? It means that Britain, with its climatic conditions, is going to compete with Mediterranean countries and California, which can grow——

Order. I heard only a quarter of a question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a proper question to put to the Minister.

When will they realise that if they want to ensure a balance of payments surplus in Britain we cannot have a level playing field for agricultural produce from here? Intervention will always be the name of the game. All those Tory Members who represent the shire counties will back the farmers to the hilt. It has all been a load of baloney from beginning to end.

Perhaps I could thank the hon. Gentleman for his illuminating and meaningful contribution to this afternoon's affairs. The question is about GATT and if he had taken a moment to study either the question of my hon. Friend or, indeed, my answer he would have known that British agriculture stands to gain everything from a successful conclusion to the GATT round and the liberalisation of world trade. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does better next time.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what resources have been allocated for the decommissioning of surplus United Kingdom fishing vessels.

A total of £25 million has been allocated for decommissioning, of which £8.4 million is to be made available in 1993–94 under the Fishing Vessels (Decommissioning) Scheme 1993.

What measures will my hon. Friend take to ensure that the boats that have been allocated for decommissioning are taken out of service?

I thank my hon. Friend for his interest in the matter. The funding for the measure will be of interest to his constituents. The order on decommissioning that we took through the House laid down in meticulous detail the arrangements for disabling a fishing boat so that it could no longer fish. People have to produce a certificate to that end before they can be paid. That should give the guarantee that my hon. Friend seeks: that boats will be stopped from fishing by decommissioning.

It is disappointing to learn that the sum allocated for decommissioning this year is a pathetic £8.4 million. That is nothing compared with the scale of the problem. It will mean that more fishing effort will have to be taken out by days-at-sea limitations and a disproportionate sacrifice will be made by the fishermen. Why does not the Minister recognise that we are in this situation because his predecessors did not achieve the multiannual guidance targets from 1987 to 1991? It is the Department's fault and the only fair action would be for him to suspend the operation of the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967 while proper conservation measures are imposed in agreement with the industry and to expand the decommissioning scheme.

I was almost distracted by the hon. Member's neck wear from composing a suitable reply. He seems to have reclaimed the Union flag for his own purposes. There were faults in the previous decommissioning scheme because we were removing fishing capacity at the same time as paying for new capacity and therefore increasing fishing effort. My hon. Friends who did the job before me should be congratulated on their persuasive powers over the Treasury to get a £25 million decommissioning scheme off the ground as part of a package of measures that we are putting forward to try to reduce fishing effort. I would have hoped for the hon. Gentleman's support because the end-point of the exercise is to help conserve fish stocks for the long-term good of the industry.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) on speaking so well on behalf of his fisherman. But may I put it to the Minister that, although welcome, the £25 million for decommissioning goes nowhere near to solving the real problem of bringing effort under control? Will the Minister look with great seriousness at the constructive and extensive proposals put to him by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, because some Conservative Members, including myself, think that its proposals are a much better way to conserve fish than the wretched tie-up scheme that the Government have unfortunately put to the House.

I thank my hon. Friend for his continued lobbying on that point. He does much credit to himself and to his constituents for assiduously voicing the concerns of the fishing industry. He will know that during September I conducted detailed discussions with fishermen around our shores, including many of his constituents. He will also know that I have attached importance to what they said about conservation, but he will be aware that our proposals to reduce fishing effort are not solely dependent on decommissioning. The capacity reduction through licence aggregation and through further measures to reduce effort play their part. I assure my hon. Friend that we will look, and are looking, carefully at the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations' proposals. I wish that I could be more specific in my response, but that organisation has thrown a spanner in the works and prevented us from announcing our views quickly because of its court case.

The Minister will know from his recent visit to Portavogie in Strangford that some 16 vessels in our 100-strong fleet are to be decommissioned. How does one decommission a fishing vessel?

I was aware from my visit, which was very successful and useful, of some of the difficulties that Northern Ireland's fishermen anticipated with decommissioning. Those of us who have seen in the national press some sad photographs of the disposal of timber boats will realise that the decommissioning process has begun. I understand the impact on some of the fishermen and have talked to some of them, but, as far as I am aware, the practical problems of decommissioning boats in the ports of Northern Ireland appear to have been resolved.

I thank my hon. Friend for listening to the fishermen—especially those from Poole—during the long recess. He will, therefore, be aware of the chaos caused by uncertainty, so will he come to a conclusion as quickly as he can? Above all, will he assure the fishermen on the south coast that our continental partners are just as rigorous in enforcing the regulations as his inspectors?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on a very important point. I recently visited Commissioner Paleokrassas to put exactly that point to him. I said that if enforcement is not perceived to be effective by all fishermen throughout the Community, there will be no credibility for the common fisheries policy. He appreciated that and I think that he is going to make some useful proposals to ensure that when the new control regulation comes into force on 1 January, enforcement can be seen to be effective throughout the Community.

Is the Minister aware that among fishermen in the south-west in particular, he and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench are now referred to as the little, little arid large show, for the obvious reason that the Minister is continually recycling the script of his predecessors? When will he and his colleagues listen to the industry, to the people in the south-west and to the Select Committee on Agriculture and, in particular, to what they have to say about the size of the decommissioning budget, the tie-up provisions and days at sea? When will he listen to his own district inspector from whom I have received a copy of the following recommendation—[interruption.] I am not permitted to read it, but it states that the only thing to be done with the days-at-sea provisions is to abandon them. When will the Minister listen to his own officials?

That is an illustration of why the Liberal party should be decommissioned—it is utterly bankrupt and bereft of individual thought about fishing policy. The best that it can do is get its hands on stolen goods, a personal communication from a fishing inspector to officials in my Department. If that is the sum total of Liberal fisheries policy, let it be broadcast throughout the south-west.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are on target to achieve a 5 to 6 per cent. reduction in fleet capacity? Will the rules of the scheme be changed to target specific sectors where conservation is essential?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Certainly, the results from the first tranche of decommissioning have been very encouraging. The spread of boats was good throughout the major fishing areas, in particular the demersal, beam and pelagic vessels. We have said, however, that we shall learn the lessons from the first decommissioning exercise to ascertain whether the eligibility rules have to be adjusted to meet exactly the point at the centre of my hon. Friend's question.

First, may I thank the Minister for visiting South Down where he had what I hope was a fruitful dialogue with the fishermen there. However, after the consultation period, he must realise that the fishing industry as a whole has rejected the days-at-sea scheme because it is wholly impractical and uneconomic for fishermen to contend with and certainly it does not deal with the depletion of fishing stocks. Will he therefore take on board the suggestions made and introduce a new licensing scheme, enhance the decommissioning scheme and introduce new tactical conservation measures?

I hope that the fishing industry will look positively on the announcement that we are to make as a result of the consultations. I have taken the matter seriously. I bothered to go round to major fishing centres, including the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We have Community obligations in terms of effort reduction, which we must meet. We have introduced a programme. We have said that we will try to modify the days-at-sea programme under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992. I promise that we are looking carefully at the proposals that have been made by the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations.

Will the Minister confirm that his Department has taken out an injunction to prevent the publication of a letter from one of his inspectors in the south-west, Mr. C. R. George, who wrote that his staff felt that deep down there is a feeling that the legislation is so ill-conceived and so unpopular that it will not be workable? It went on to say that he felt——

Order. I have just cautioned one hon. Member. Quoting is not allowed at Question Time.

I was not quoting directly, but I will certainly follow your guidance, Madam Speaker.

I am really disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, whom I have always regarded as an honourable Member of the House, should be fingering that stolen document. It was an internal document from a member of our fishing inspectorate. I was aware of that. So seriously did I take those remarks that I invited the inspector together with the other inspectors to a meeting. I listened carefully to what they had to say. The point at issue is that the particular document concerned was written months ago, before we had started the exercise of consultation with the industry. The inspector had a view; we have taken it into account. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait to see the results.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support she is giving to Apple Day.

My ministerial colleagues and I have been pleased to participate in a number of recent events to promote the launch of the 1993 English apple season.

Will my hon. Friend concede that there are many inefficient growers of tasteless apples in Europe, which swamp the market and cause surpluses, taking a lot of subsidies as a result? Does he agree that the money could be better used to promote the great English apple —I am thinking of the Blenheim Orange, Egremont Russet, Ashmead Colonel, Worcester Pearman, Chivers Delight, not to mention the Cox's Orange Pippin and a new apple called Kingdom. Is not that why the English apple pie is the envy of the world?

My hon. Friend should know. He is perfectly right. The traditional English apples have never been more popular in this country. It is right that consumers in Britain should be reminded now and again of the outstanding quality of English apples against less-flavoured foreign imports. It would be quite wrong for us to consider banning foreign imports, however. It is for consumers to decide what they want to eat. There is no doubt that, if they were to test the British apple against any foreign apple, the British apple would always win hands down.

First, may I congratulate the Minister on his forthcoming connubial bliss? Secondly, now that we have had a successful Apple Day, will he throw his weight behind a special day for Yorkshire rhubarb?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We would be happy to do anything that we can to assist Yorkshire rhubarb.

I also support the congratulations that have been given to my hon. Friend. Will he in turn congratulate the catering authorities of the House, which celebrated Apple Day by producing a rather imaginative menu using apples in all the restaurants of the House? Will he also have regard to the cider industry of Britain, which contributes significantly to the positive side of the balance of payments, and give it a degree of fiscal stability so that it can use British apples rather than foreign apples in its production?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the House catering authorities did a marvellous job on Apple Day. The House will be interested to know that, also on Apple Day, my right hon. Friend the Minister was presented with a traditional apple pie made with apples from the original Bramley tree, 180 years old on that day.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost of the common agricultural policy to the United Kingdom in 1994.

The United Kingdom contributes to the EC budget as a whole, not to parts of it. Expenditure on CAP in the United Kingdom in 1993–94 is estimated to be £2.5 billion.

Does the Minister recall her speech to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on 10 August, in which she announced a number of new environmental measures as part of the CAP reform package—in particular, the expansion of environmentally sensitive areas? Will she undertake that there will be no delay in implementing those measures, and no cuts in projected expenditure on the promotion of such measures following this year's Budget?

I do, indeed, recall my speech to the RSPB on that very pleasant occasion. I also recall that I spoke of the excellent contribution that ESAs make to environmental protection and sensible and profitable farming—the whole being tailored to the needs of local areas. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that all aspects of all spending in all Departments are being closely examined at the moment by the Departments in conjunction with the Treasury. I can say no more than that at this stage.

Does my right hon. Friend regard the fact that the harvest fell from 22 million tonnes to 19 million tones—11 per cent.—in 1993 as success or as failure? Bearing in mind the heavy imports of foodstuffs into this country, what will be the implications for the balance of payments?

Part of the aim of the CAP reform package is to limit production by using set-aside to reduce expenditure on costly intervention and storage, which I know that my hon. Friend abhors. I consider an 11 per cent. reduction in production this year as a success for set-aside.

May I put it to the Minister that the Opposition regard it as quite indefensible that next year we shall be spending about £2 billion on intervention buying, adding to the food mountains? Does the right hon. Lady agree that expenditure on intervention buying should be cut and that some of the money should be used to encourage farmers to farm in a more environmentally sensitive way? Is she aware that any public expenditure review cut in the increased £30 million allocation that she announced under the agri-environment regulations will be bitterly resented by everyone who has the future of the countryside at heart?

I think that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that the cost of the CAP remains too high. I should have thought that he would also agree that the CAP reform package cuts prices and therefore brings the industry closer to the market, that it reduces intervention and that it places increased emphasis on benefits to the environment—all effects which I should have thought he would welcome.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action her Department is taking to assist the export of British agricultural produce.

I am taking forward in a number of ways the marketing initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating our farmers and growers—a truly successful industry—on halving the trade gap in food over the past 30 years? Does she agree that the seminars that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set up are playing an important role in continuing that process? Does she further agree that it is essential that we provide our farmers and growers with a level playing field in as many respects as possible, from research and development through to pesticides?

I agree with my hon. Friend that a level playing field is important for farmers, as it is for all our manufacturers. It is is important to reduce the trade gap, and the marketing work of Food from Britain, which has been recently reconstituted to focus on export work, will make an important contribution in that respect.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she last met her Norwegian counterpart to discuss the subject of whaling in the north Atlantic; and if she will make a statement.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend's counterpart, Mr. Olsen, is left in no doubt about the strength of feeling of the Government, the House and the public about Norway's decision to resume commercial whaling.

The Minister will know that Norwegian whaling ships have slaughtered more than 220 minke whales already this year. What action will the European Community take if the Norwegians decide to resume whaling next year? Does the Minister agree that Norway's membership of the EC is incompatible with whaling, so that if Norway becomes a member of the EC it will have to give up its whaling industry?

The hon. Member will know that the EC's present position effectively makes commercial whaling incompatible with Community regulations, and there has been no change in that. Certainly, there has been no change in the Government's position on whaling and on the International Whaling Commission.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision by Norway to restart commercial whaling is having a serious impact on the Scottish salmon farming industry? My hon. Friend will know that the industry is facing a serious crisis because of overproduction and the dumping of salmon by Norwegians.

Norwegian whaling is a serious issue, and the action of the Norwegian salmon industry is an issue of equal seriousness. I am aware of the considerable concerns that have been expressed by the Scottish industry and by the Irish industry over the impact of the considerable increase in production from the Norwegian farm salmon sector.

The Government have made perfectly clear to the Norwegians their opposition to Norway's limited whaling, but what further action do the Government propose to take against the Norwegians to drive home the fact that whaling is totally unacceptable to the thinking of this country?

The most important action that we can take is to continue our stance of supporting the International Whaling Commission. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, on 26 April this year, he received an unambiguous letter from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that spelled out the Government's position on the matter. That position has not changed.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether she will be attending the great British beer festival in 1994 to discuss the promotion of British beer.

My right hon. Friend and I are always keen to promote the interests of our drinks industry.

I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's comment. Is he aware that the British brewing industry can compete adequately in the home market, but it is being damaged by the difference between the duty rates here and in France? Some 12 per cent. of take-home beer now comes across the channel into Britain. Will my hon. Friend have a look at that, bearing in mind that some of the southern breweries are having difficulties? My brewery, Courage, has just laid off 250 men. Will my hon. Friend talk to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the matter?

I am very sorry to hear about the position at Courage, which affects my hon. Friend's constituents. Certainly, we are aware of the serious anxiety in the industry about duty-paid allowances. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's points are raised with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

Will the Minister examine the reverse side of the promotion of British beer—the enormous damage which is done by alcohol abuse? Alcohol abuse costs the nation dear in expenditure by the national health service and in other ways. Will the Minister ensure that he remains completely at arm's length from the brewing industry? Will he examine the possibility of promoting a ban on the advertising of alcohol products? Only by doing that will he ensure that the Government's reputation of keeping themselves at arm's length from the brewers is retained, especially in view of the massive donations that the brewing industry makes to the Tory party.

I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am completely at arm's length from the brewing industry because I do not drink beer. "The Health of the Nation", a document which has been broadly welcomed in the House, contains references to the points that the hon. Gentleman made. Although we would not consider some of the more extreme suggestions that he made, I will certainly make sure that his views are represented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health at a meeting that I am to have later today.

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend? Does he accept that it would be wrong to ban the advertising of products, the consumption and production of which are legal? Does the suggestion not show that the Labour party is full of misery guts?

I am not sure that I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, but his central point is correct. It would be improper to do such a thing.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to improve the welfare of animals transported from the United Kingdom to the rest of the EC.

We have maintained strict national rules to safeguard the welfare of animals during transport both within this country and for export. Further detailed Community rules are currently being discussed, and we are pressing for our high standards to be adopted elsewhere.

Does the Minister agree that, although three years ago we in Britain banned the barbaric procedure of putting calves in veal crates, more than 20,000 calves were exported to Europe last year, of which about 40 per cent. in weight came back after being put through the veal crate process? Does he believe that British consumers should have a choice? Will he agree to consider the Labour party's proposal that all veal in Britain should be labelled to allow consumers to avoid buying that which has been created in such barbaric conditions?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we banned the use of close confinement veal crates in 1990. Although the directive that followed imposed small welfare improvements on other member states, it did not abolish the veal crate as we would have wished. Therefore, we voted against the directive. The directive will be reviewed and we shall continue to fight for welfare improvements. Our ban on veal crates will not be lifted. I will consider carefully the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a strong case in terms of welfare for giving every encouragement that we can to the export of lamb in carcase form rather than on the hoof? Is not that case reinforced by the fact that when lambs go over to France and are slaughtered there, they are marketed as French, not British lamb?

Plainly, my hon. Friend is correct. But, of course, a substantial premium is paid for the excellent products that farmers in Britain produce. The central point, on which my hon. Friend is right, is that whatever happens, none of the welfare arrangements is worth the paper it is written on unless the Commission enforces the arrangements on the continent. That is the central task of Her Majesty's Government.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost of the common agricultural policy to EC member states in 1994.

The draft EC budget for 1994 provides for expenditure on the CAP of £28.4 billion.

The Minister knows that the Agriculture Commissioner has already stated that it will be extremely difficult to live within the legal limits of the budget in 1994 and he expects to use creative accounting to be within that limit. Does not the Minister agree that the cost of the CAP is spiralling and has gone through the roof? What practical measures is the Minister taking to ensure that the CAP is brought under control and that the British contribution does not go through the roof as well?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the cost of the CAP is far too high. It is always good to welcome a convert to the cause of sensible public spending. It is perhaps a little late, but late converts are none the less very welcome. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the guideline for the EC budget, and for the agriculture part of that reached at Edinburgh, will not be exceeded. It cannot be exceeded and the United Kingdom will not agree to its being exceeded.

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

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.

As a result of my right hon. Friend's discussions today, does he agree that the fight against crime calls for a partnership between the Government, the police and the people? Will my right hon. Friend's Administration do all in their power to raise the morale of the police so that the police can do more effectively the difficult job of protecting the lives and property of every citizen of our country?

I believe that my hon. Friend is quite right to talk about the importance of police morale and the need to form a partnership between the police, the Government and the public in tackling crime. Nothing does police morale or public morale more harm than to see criminals uncaught or unpunished. I give my hon. Friend a complete assurance that crime will remain at the centre of our concerns in the months and years ahead.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether it is really the case that, after accepting an amendment that British Rail should be allowed to bid for rail franchises, the Government now intend to table further amendments which will remove that right if there are any other bids? How can the right hon. Gentleman justify such a blatant and discreditable manoeuvre?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to wait and have a look at the amendments which my right hon. Friend will table this afternoon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would be wise to wait and see.

Will the Prime Minister deal with the clear point of principle? If British Rail put in a bid for a franchise and that was clearly the best offer, why should that be knocked out in favour of a worse offer from a competitor? What is the justification for that in terms of the taxpayer or traveller?

I advised the right hon. and learned Gentleman to wait, and he might have been rather wiser to have done so. The Government accept that there might be circumstances in which it might be appropriate for British Rail to be a franchisee. However, we remain of the view that it would not be right to treat British Rail in the same way as other potential franchisees and that measures for this provision should be made in relation to British Rail's role in the franchising process.

Is not the Prime Minister revealing that the Government are accepting an amendment and then seeking to nullify it? Instead of those cynical tricks, would not it be better to take this legislation away altogether, because 80 per cent. of the British public know that rail privatisation means higher fares and fewer services? It is a rotten deal for taxpayer and traveller.

It is precisely to produce a better deal for taxpayers and travellers that we are bringing in private sector skills to ensure that British Rail is run more efficiently. The Labour party on this, as on other issues, really needs to make up its mind. The right hon. and learned Gentleman effectively accuses us of making sham concessions. [Interruption.] Yes, oh splendid. In that case, his hon. Friend who speaks for his party said that it was a U-turn. It cannot be both.

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

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

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be aware of the two bombs that were put in Reading station last weekend. Will he pass on, through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, the grateful thanks of the people of Reading for the fact that the railway police, the Army and the railway staff defused that bomb, which would have caused major damage and loss of life? Will he, therefore, as Prime Minister, take tough action against those vicious terrorists?

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Army, the police, the emergency services and the staff of British Rail for the magnificent way in which they dealt with the incidents at the weekend. I believe that they deserve the utmost thanks and credit for the way in which they sought to protect the public.

Does the Prime Minister recall that he gained considerable international kudos when he mounted the initiative to safeguard or to try to safeguard the Kurds in northern Iraq? Now that his Government and other European Governments have so abysmally failed the Bosnian Muslims, would he perhaps restore his credibility, even only fractionally, were he to launch an initiative to try to safeguard the Marsh Arabs—the Shi'ias—in southern Iraq, an issue which the Prince of Wales raised in his admirable speech to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies yesterday?

I do not accept for one second the hon. Gentleman's strictures on helping the Bosnians, in particular the Bosnian Muslims. There is no country in Europe or beyond that has such a proud record of humanitarian assistance over the past two years. It would be more graceful of the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that fact. I fully share the concerns expressed by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales about the draining of the marshes in southern Iraq. It is a matter on which the Government have spoken before.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with social security abuse and fraud costing our constituents many billions of pounds a year, they will welcome the introduction of an identity card scheme, which will do nothing to threaten civil liberty but do much to support and encourage individual freedom and responsibility?

I know that my hon. Friend speaks for many people, and I share whole-heartedly his wish to stamp out social security fraud. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is looking at a range of options to step up the fight against fraud, and as part of that he is looking at the practicalities of the introduction of an identity card scheme. Frankly, I find the principle of such a scheme to be attractive, but there are many practical difficulties to be overcome.

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

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

It looks very much as though the Government are not reducing interest rates because they are covertly shadowing the deutschmark once again. At the same time, other European Governments are saying that Maastricht is not dead, that the exchange rate mechanism should be reconstituted and that the timetable for monetary union can and should be followed. In other words, we are probably in for Europe's biggest ever outburst of necrophilia. What will the Prime Minister be saying about stage 2 of monetary union and about the burdens, the timetables and the obligations that it imposes?

I commend to the hon. Gentleman an excellent article he may have seen in The Economist not very long ago which set out clearly the way in which the Government will proceed in terms of the future of our policy in Europe. Stage 2 of economic and monetary union involves no infringement whatever of sovereignty over monetary affairs. It is fixed in the international treaty and it is fixed in our legislation. But it does not mean that we proceed to stage 3 and it does not infringe in any way our own monetary sovereignty.

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

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

May I join its author in congratulating the writer of the article in The Economist on 25 September, which set out clearly and in a masterly fashion the traditional policy of the British Government towards the European Community? May I express to my right hon. Friend the belief that almost the whole of the Conservative parliamentary party and, indeed, the British electorate will be able to unite behind his total rejection in that article of economic and monetary union, a single European currency and a united states of Europe? Will he repeat the points he made in that article in forceful terms to the 11 Heads of Government whom he will meet in Brussels tomorrow?

I rather fancy that the other Heads of Government noticed what I wrote while on holiday in Portugal, which was subsequently printed in The Economist article, so they will be in no doubt about the Government's position. As appropriate, I will re-endorse it tomorrow and on other occasions.

The Governor of the Bank of England has made it perfectly clear that he regards zero inflation as the overriding goal of economic policy. Has the Prime Minister made an assessment of the effects of such a policy on unemployment and growth?

I made clear to the House well over three years ago how important I regarded ensuring that we got inflation down to the lowest possible level. No one has ever been in any doubt about the determination of the Government to achieve that. We have achieved it. We have inflation now at a lower level than we have seen for 30-odd years. We have interest rates at a lower level than we have seen for a very long time. They are the essential prerequisites to sustainable growth over the medium and long term.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement made by Nissan yesterday of a £26 million expansion to its car plant at Sunderland? Does he agree that that investment will further strengthen the manufacturing base of the north-east and that it is a substantial vote of confidence in favour of the work force in Sunderland and in the strength of the British-led economic recovery?

It is certainly a substantial vote of confidence in the work force at Sunderland, and I am absolutely delighted at this increased investment by Nissan. I have to make the point that if we had followed policies that piled on employers social costs such as the minimum wage and the social contract, I strongly suspect that that investment would not have come to this country but would have gone elsewhere.

In view of the grave political and security problem in Northern Ireland caused mainly by the political vacuum of the past 12 months because the Democratic Unionist party and the Conservative and Unionist party refused to attend the conference table, will the Prime Minister, in union with the Irish Government, reconvene the round table conference of all the democratic parties so that the private documents of the DUP and the official Unionist party, and the document of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), can be placed on the table? More than that, the distrust and the fears of the people of Northern Ireland can be removed by proper political dialogue and some hope for the future can be given.

It is precisely to ensure that we get a proper political process and the return of constitutional rights to the people of Northern Ireland that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has been pursuing with such skill and vigour—as did his predecessor—the three-stranded approach in Northern Ireland. I saw with great interest the remarks of the Tanaiste yesterday and I hope to have the opportunity of discussing them with the Taoiseach tomorrow.

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

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

My right hon. Friend will be aware of my love of motor biking. Can he imagine the distress that I felt when some years ago I motor biked across Europe and had to do so on a Yamaha—a Japanese motor bike? Will he join me in congratulating Triumph on producing more motor bikes in the large motor bike league than either Suzuki, BMW or Harley Davidson?

I was delighted to see the success of Triumph and I hope that my hon. friend will soon be again riding a Triumph motor cycle across Europe, and perhaps elsewhere.