To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on the welfare of chickens in battery farms.

The Commission has been reviewing the battery hens directive. We await its proposals for a revision of the directive and for new standards for other systems. The Government wish to see the highest welfare standards set on a Community basis for laying hens in all systems of production.

Is the Minister aware that it is illegal to keep birds in cages that are too small to allow them to spread their wings? The only exception to that law involves battery chickens. Does he agree that battery chickens deserve the same protection from cruelty as other birds? As part of his review, will he consider extending the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 accordingly?

The hon. Lady raises a very important point. The Government's position is plain: we wish to see the highest welfare standards set on a Community basis. We will not take unilateral action because to do so would place our egg producers at a great disadvantage. We are conscious of the need to improve the general welfare standards of battery chickens and will bear the hon. Lady's point in mind.

My hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend are making considerable efforts to get a Europewide agreement on animal welfare, particularly in regard to battery hens. Does he agree that it would be absolute folly for our domestic markets if we were to take unilateral action?

My hon. Friend is completely right. My right hon. Friend has no intention of doing such a thing. We have made it plain that improvements to the systems must be on a Europewide basis, thereby not disadvantaging producers, who have been under a great deal of pressure and have had difficulties for many years. We will do all that we can to help the egg production systems of this country and, at the same time, improve the welfare of battery hens.

Does the Minister agree with the egg producers in my constituency who say that they will be put out of business if they are forced to implement the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987, which come into force next year, unless they contain a certain amount of flexibility? They will be forced into massive capital expenditure to make the relatively small changes to the floors of battery cages which many of their European competitors have already made. That would put our farmers at a disadvantage.

The hon. Gentleman is correct. We will issue guidance to the industry on the implementation of the Welfare of Battery Hens Regulations 1987. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, they will come fully into force on 1 January next year. I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and I hope that he will assure his egg farmers—that those rules and regulations will be enforced in a sensible, pragmatic and consistent manner. If he has any reason to complain, he should get in touch with me at once.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to secure safe, efficient and humane methods of pest control.

Responsibility for pest control lies with individual landowners and occupiers, who are free to use any legal method of control, including shooting, approved pesticides and traps.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, from a conservation point of view, it is very important to control vermin in the countryside? Does he agree that one of the most effective and least cruel ways of controlling the fox population is hunting foxes with hounds—and does he agree that, from a national point of view, one of the most effective ways of controlling the pest population is ensuring that we have as few Labour Members as possible in the House of Commons?

My hon. Friend has made an important and serious point. The control of pests and vermin in the countryside is indeed very important. It is not good enough to turn a blind eye and allow vocal minority groups to try to force unsatisfactory practices on the countryside.

Has the Minister had any discussions with his colleagues in the Department of the Environment about the cost of eliminating pesticides from the water supply? Does he think it right for that cost to continue to fall on the water rate payers, rather than on the polluters?

That is really a question for my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment. The hon. Lady may be assured, however, that we work very closely with the Department on such matters. As she knows, Government policy is that the use of pesticides should be limited to the absolute minimum that is necessary for effective use—for the effective control of pests, compatible with the protection of human health and the environment. We feel that arbitrary reduction targets would not be helpful.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received about the allocation of fishing quotas to fishermen in the Thames estuary; and if she will make a statement.

Officials meet industry representatives on a regular basis to discuss the monthly quota management arrangements for white fish stocks. We are aware of the concern about availability of North sea cod in the Thames estuary and of my hon. Friend's constituents' concerns about the very tight monthly catch restrictions for North sea sole.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. Is he aware that fishermen in the Thames estuary—for instance, those operating from Mersea island in my constituency—have been allocated a quota for sole of about 100 kg a month, which yields about £200? The cost of maintaining a boat may approach £2,000 a month. Does my hon. Friend accept that quotas of that size make fishing almost unviable for my constituents? Will he consider whether they can be given any help and, in particular, will he consider establishing a separate quota for the Thames estuary?

My hon. Friend is indeed a friend to the fishermen in raising that point, but I feel that his question goes to the heart of a wider issue—the overall problem, in all Community waters, of the current pressure on our white fish stocks. I am well aware of that problem, but, as my hon. Friend will know, our efforts to secure a year-round fishery in his area for both sole and cod have meant evening out the availability of those species throughout the year. The view was taken that it was better to allow some fishermen to catch sole all year round and retain seasonal fisheries than not to allow them to fish at all; however, I note what my hon. Friend has said and will bear it in mind in the coming negotiations.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to improve the marketing of British horticultural products.

Help to improve the marketing of British horticultural produce will come from the new marketing development grant and a study that my right hon. Friend has asked me to undertake of ways in which the sector's performance can be strengthened.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that growers of broadleaf and salad vegetables in my constituency are gravely concerned about the proposed EC directives on nitrates? Is he aware that, given the preponderance of vegetables grown under glass—in my constituency and throughout the country—the viability of the industry is threatened? The proposed directive is not really based on scientific justification and smacks of anti-competitive practice. What measures is my hon. Friend taking to protect British growers?

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point—he does a service to the glasshouse industry. As he may know, before I came to the House I was involved in the fresh produce industry and therefore fully appreciate the seriousness of what he says. Our officials have been working extremely hard in their discussions in Europe to try to ensure that the United Kingdom's view on the way in which the directive affects our glasshouse growers prevails. We are currently without support on that matter, but we take my hon. Friend's point so seriously that my right hon. Friend the Minister plans to raise it in the next Agriculture Council

Is the Minister aware that the marketing of horticultural products took a severe knock with last night's vote in the House and that thousands of greengrocer shops that have been opening on Sunday mornings will now find that the competition from Tesco and Sainsbury will force them to shut every Sunday? The Conservative party is supposed to be the party of small business men, yet it was predominantly its vote last night that will shut those greengrocer shops, especially on Sundays.

What the hon. Gentleman says is an insult to the small specialist greengrocers, who, with their expertise and knowledge of markets and different varieties, serve, whether six or seven days a week, with tremendous professionalism, those who buy vegetables and salads. Long may they continue to trade in that way.

Does my hon. Friend agree that effective marketing of horticultural produce requires markets to be as open as possible? In that light, has any progress been made on the agricultural and horticultural aspects of the GATT negotiations? Will he and our right hon. Friend the Minister make absolutely sure that no special interest groups in other countries are allowed to get in the way of a satisfactory settlement?

My hon. Friend knows that many members of the Government have, in their own way, been working extremely hard to help to secure a general agreement on tariffs and trade. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will make her contribution to that next week.

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 controls to safeguard the welfare of animals during transport both within this country and for export. Further detailed Community rules are being discussed and we are pressing for our own very high standards to be adopted.

Does the Minister agree that the export of livestock for slaughter is completely unnecessary and causes immense suffering to the animals concerned? Even if the Minister is not able to ban all such exports, should not she be taking immediate action to ban the export of sheep to Spain until we have a guarantee and are completely satisfied that the Spanish have stopped their appalling slaughterhouse practices, such as stabbing fully conscious animals with screwdrivers and short-bladed knives, as was recently revealed by the RSPCA?

The hon. Lady makes an important point. Plainly, the practices that were shown on the RSPCA video from Spain are completely unacceptable. My right hon. Friend has mentioned those matters not only to the Spanish Agriculture Minister but to the Farm Commissioner in Brussels. Banning the export of sheep to Spain is riot possible under the single market agreement. As the hon. Lady knows, we did not allow animals to go to Spain for slaughter before 1 January this year. We have an agreement with the Spanish authorities on a chief vet to chief vet basis that our animals will go only to plants that are known to be fully approved to EC standards. I assure the hon. Lady that no animals go to any plant of the type that was shown in the RSPCA video.

I hope that I can assume that my hon. Friend has read the comprehensive and unanimous report on that subject by the all-party Select Committee on Agriculture. Will he bear in mind two important factors: first, that it is in no one's interest to take live animals any further than is absolutely necessary and, secondly, that it is particularly in the interests of the owners of those animals to ensure that they arrive in good condition? That is a crucial factor in considering all those matters.

My hon. Friend is right and his Select Committee made those points clear in its admirable report. This involves not only a humanitarian and ethical issue, which the British people instinctively and rightly wish to support, but the perfectly proper commercial consideration that if animals are improperly and inhumanely treated on their way to slaughter, they will not be in a fit state to be slaughtered when they get there, to the commercial disadvantage of those who wish to sell that meat. We have written to all those involved in the transport of animals reminding them of those important obligations. I assure my hon. Friend, his Committee and the House that at the Agriculture Council in Brussels next week my right hon. Friend the Minister will be fighting for a proper, honourable and sensible programme, which can be enforced, for the welfare of animals travelling here and on the continent.

The Opposition support the Minister's representations to the Spanish on those despicable practices, but did not the former Minister of Agriculture, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), give an assurance that British livestock would be sent to only 68 of the best Spanish slaughterhouses—an assurance which was broken in that it was changed to EC-approved slaughterhouses? Is not it also true that, despite the Minister's assurances, there is no way of knowing to which plants in Spain livestock is going?

The hon. Gentleman and I had a good long canter round this course in Committee yesterday and he knows perfectly well that the Government take these matters extremely seriously. We have full confidence in the arrangements that have been made between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government on the basis of chief vet to chief vet. After the RSPCA video, we took immediate steps to ensure that all the guarantees given to the Government by the Spanish chief vet were still in place and would remain in place, and we are confident that that is the case.

Not so long ago, the Minister told the House that if animals were fit enough to travel, they should travel. Most hon. Members will agree with that, but is my hon. Friend aware that on many journeys animals are not properly watered or fed or given proper rests? Would not it make sense to have a compulsory rest period every eight hours or so?

My hon. Friend is right. He is well informed on these matters, so I am sure that he knows the state of play in the negotiations, which are very much concerned with rest periods and journey times. However, those matters must be part of a package. No rules are worth the paper that they are written on unless the countries that are party to the agreement are prepared to enforce, on a proper and decent basis, all the rules to which they have signed up. When we achieve that, we shall have secured a real improvement in the standards of animal welfare, which everyone in Britain rightly wants to see.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average farm income for mostly sheep producers in the severely disadvantaged areas of (a) England and (b) Wales.

Details of incomes for specialist sheep produces in the severely disadvantaged areas of England and Wales are contained in the 1993 autumn review of the economic conditions in the hills and uplands, a copy of which is in the House Library.

Is the Minister aware that 57 per cent. of mostly sheep farmers in less-favoured areas in England, and 47 per cent. in similar areas in Wales, had to exist last year on an average income of less than £10,000? Does the Minister think that that is an adequate living for farmers who have a difficult job to do trying to farm in areas that are particularly difficult to turn into productive profit?

Of course, I recogise the importance in economic, social and environmental terms of farming in the hills. I remind the hon. Lady that the details of farm incomes were agreed by the farm unions. This year, we simply could not ignore the evidence of a rise in farm incomes of about 41 per cent. in England and 55 per cent.—admittedly on a lower base—in Wales. Also, although hill livestock compensatory allowances have been reduced by £25 million as a result of the public expenditure survey round, income from other sources to people who farm in the hills has increased by £100 million. That is not the sort of evidence which one can ignore when considering those arrangements.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the income of sheep farmers in severely disadvantaged areas such as the North Yorkshire moors national park has risen over the past years is the 30 per cent. increase in the export of sheep to the continent? Is not it hypocritical of hon. Members to argue in one breath that we should provide more money for hill farmers and in the next breath say that we should cut off the very source of that increase in income by banning the export of live animals?

My hon. Friend makes a good point because he knows the way in which farming works in his constituency. It is right that sheep farmers have benefited from the devaluation of the green pound, not only in terms of exports, but because the devaluation has increased the value of the support payments that they get by almost 16 per cent.

Is not the Minister using the one-off devaluation of the green pound to justify a severe reduction in the incomes of hill farms that are at the margin of viability? Is that to be the pattern for future years, or will the Minister seriously consider the future incomes of hill farmers and the danger to the whole conservation and life of hill areas if those farms go to the wall?

HLCAs continue to play a vital part in the viability of hill farms and incomes of hill farmers. As I have already explained, this year we could not ignore rising national incomes, which were agreed by the farming unions. Those aspects are looked at year on year and trends in farming incomes are always examined as we come up to the public expenditure survey round. Of course, I will review the position as we approach next year's arrangements.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that good financial years are necessary not only to offset the years that are less good, but to enable the farmer to make necessary investment? Does my right hon. Friend realise that hill farmers make a positive contribution not only to the overall pattern of farming, but to the rural economy of those areas?

Yes, indeed. That is precisely why I stress the importance of hill farming to the economic and environmental well-being of the whole country. I am sure that my hon. Friend will wish to know that a couple of years ago, the average level of direct subsidies to hill livestock farmers in England was about £19,000. It is forecast that it will be £27,000 next year. That is a real increase and a real commitment to farming in hill areas which I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate.

Will the Minister acknowledge that between 1988 and 1990, hill farm incomes halved and that the figures that she has quoted today have to be set against that background? Will she accept that hill farmers require special assistance and that in many of the remotest parts of the country, the tourist industry is dependent on successful hill farming?

I am happy to confirm again my understanding of the importance of hill farming in those areas, in economic, environmental and social terms. But I should also remind the hon. Gentleman—it is a figure worth remembering—that there are some 67,000 hill farmers and next year they will benefit from a total of some £550 million worth of help through subsidies. That is a real commitment.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures her Department has taken to open new markets for British agricultural-related businesses in India.

As part of the Indo-British partnership initiative announcement in January by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I led a British mission to India in September with representatives of the British food and horticulture industry. They were able to identify new business opportunities, which are now being followed up.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, and also for his visit and the good that it has done. Does he agree that the Indo-British partnership agreement has laid the way open for British technology in the food and horticulture industry? Will he now do all that he can to follow it up and ensure that British industry takes full advantage of that, to the benefit of British jobs and of India?

The point that my hon. Friend makes is vital, because the Indo-British partnership initiative has opened doors, both at high level in the Indian Government and in Indian business, for the whole of our food and agriculture industry to take advantage, particularly, of the economic reforms in India. I plan to hold a seminar at the beginning of next year, when those who went on the mission will report on their progress and have an opportunity to talk to others in the food and farming industry about possibilities for further export success with India.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received concerning the future of the Agricultural wages board.

The consultation period on the future of the Agricultural wages board ended at the beginning of November, a period which I had extended by two months. I am still considering the many responses.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Agricultural wages board has a far wider role than simply setting terms and conditions of employment in the agricultural industry? It has an important role in maintaining the excellent industrial relations in agriculture, in careeer structures and in training. Does she accept the views of the National Farmers Union and the Agricultural Workers Union that it is essential that the Agricultural wages board is retained?

I am still considering the numerous responses, many of which contained the points that the hon. Gentleman made.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost everyone associated with agriculture in Staffordshire is anxious that the board should remain? Will she take that carefully into account?

Yes, Madam Speaker.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that she has received 3,566 responses to her consultation paper and 14 petitions and that, of all those responses, only 11 favour abolition? Does she now accept that the whole agriculture industry wants the wages board to continue and that the sooner she announces that, the better?

I can tell that the hon. Gentleman has availed himself of the consultation documents, which have been placed in the Ministry library. The figures are more or less as he says and I will certainly take them all into account.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that what my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) has just said about farmers in his constituency also applies to my constituency of Harborough? The farm workers, farm owners and landowners are adamant that the AWB should stay in place, but all three groups are equally adamant that a Labour Government should not ruin the best thing about this country—its agricultural business.

I shall say yes to all that.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps she has taken to help those farmers using organic methods; and if she will make a statement.

The Ministry provides a broad range of help to farmers using organic methods, including a substantial research and development programme. An organic aid scheme is planned under the agri-environment programme.

The Secretary of State will be aware that nearly 70 per cent. of organic food consumed in this country is imported from Europe. Is not that deplorable? Why is this country not doing more to help organic farmers? In particular, in the new aid scheme that she has announced, why have the pioneers of the organic movement, who have pioneered methods, been excluded from help while it is being given to people who will now make money from the fact that they have been polluting their land for some time?

I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that organic farmers also benefit from the help currently available to all other farmers. I am also sure that she knows that I had an extremely amicable meeting with representatives of organic producers, which very thoroughly written up in this bulletin. From that, she will learn that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be meeting them again soon to discuss marketing arrangements—a matter with which they feel that they need help.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if everyone in agriculture opted for organic farming the country would either starve or have to import vast quantities of food over and above what it imports today? Is she still of the opinion that we have been successful in reducing our cereal crop by 11 per cent., or 2 million tonnes, when the whole of the European Union has reduced its harvest by only 2·6 per cent? Is she aware that more than half of our partners actually increased their production this year? Is she still satisfied that that is the way forward?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that organic farming is one way of reducing production. I do not want to sound ageist in any way, but some of us remember that before the war everyone was an organic farmer.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

I regularly meet representatives of all sides of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that she will take an early decision about the milk marketing boards' reorganisation scheme in order to ensure continuity and income stability for dairy farmers?

The consultation period on the MMB's reorganisation scheme ended last week. With the Secretary of State for Wales, I am closely examining the proposals in the scheme and the very large number of representations received in the associated consultation. I shall make an announcement as soon as I can.

When the Minister next meets representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss the specific question of set aside, to which she has just referred, will she remind them that the Queen and Prince Charles have had more than £250,000 from the scheme? Does she agree that that should be knocked off the Civil List?

May I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do no such thing.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are her scientific priorities to ensure the future competitiveness of British horticulture.

In the last financial year, we spent £15·4 million on research aimed at improving the industry's ability to meet the key market requirements of quality, flavour and availability.

Have the large amounts of taxpayers' money which have been spent on research in the horticultural industry yielded any practical results? If so, will my hon. Friend give some specific examples of achievements in that sphere?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has asked that question because we had a question earlier on the subject of pesticides and I can tell my hon. Friend that our research resulted in the awarding of a Queen's award for work on biological control agents for insects and pests, which will reduce the need for chemicals. The famous Ballerina apple tree was developed as a result of our research and 1 million of them have now been sold in Europe. A new forecasting system for apple scab—I know that the Opposition think of nothing else—was also a result of that splendid research work.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she next hopes to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations to discuss the state of the industry.

I expect to meet the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations next week as part of my preparation for the December Council of Fisheries Ministers.

I am delighted to hear that the Minister's next meeting with the NFFO will not be in court, like the previous one. I hope that he will allow us to divert him from his wicked ways, now that the judges have given him the opportunity—which he should have taken ages ago—to rethink his position on the days-at-sea limitation. Is it not sensible to improve the decommissioning scheme, rather than making sulky noises about scrapping it; to impose the type of conservation measures that the NFFO has agreed and urged on the Minister, and to try to reduce the industry in that way; and, as a third step, to reduce the piratical Spanish fishing that is going on in our waters and conserve the catches effectively that way?

On one point, the hon. Gentleman and I can jointly tread the path of righteousness, and that is on the subject of the Spanish. I have taken up the issue of enforcement on Spanish fishing in our waters, as the hon. Gentleman knows, with Commissioner Paleokrassas. We raised the subject of Spanish and Portuguese accession vehemently and robustly at the most recent Fisheries Council. However, the hon. Gentleman ought to study carefully the judgment in the recent case brought by the NFFO. It has brought uncertainty to the industry. The losers will be the fish. The judge made it clear that all parties concerned had an interest in the conservation and preservation of fish stocks under pressure. I am considering all aspects of that judgment for guidance on the matter as we proceed.

I strongly support all the arguments that were made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Especially I ask, when does my hon. Friend expect to make a statement in the light of the setback that his policy undoubtedly received as a result of the recent court case? There is uncertainty, as he said. Surely he is not contemplating allowing that uncertainty to continue for possibly two years, now that the High Court has referred the matter to the European Court. Surely he should consider the policies that have been suggested by the fishermen and accept them.

My hon. Friend does a singular service to the fishing communities that he represents in asking that question. I have to say to him, in all seriousness, that he knows as well as I do that we still have our community effort reduction targets to meet. I am considering carefully how we may go forward from that, but I understand the points that my hon. Friend makes about uncertainty. Had the action not been brought, we could have ended much of that uncertainty. Now we must think again and I hope that it will not be too long before I can respond to my hon. Friend's question.

Does the Minister note that I also endorse the arguments that were made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), which must make that something of an historic compromise in the fishing industry? Will the Minister have the grace to admit that it was not the fish that lost the court case; it was him? Would it not be the height of petulance to dump decommissioning as a reaction to his reverse in court? Would not a better course of action be to dump the days-at-sea legislation which is unwanted, and to keep decommissioning and expand it, because that is wanted?

May I point out to the hon. Member—who also represents Scottish fishing interests extremely professionally—that the judgment did not decide winners or losers. The judgment turned on the fact that the court in the United Kingdom felt unable to decide on the issue and referred it to the European Court. I understand the hon. Member's argument. He knows that applications have been received under the existing decommissioning scheme, and those are progressing. I will take his views into account, and those of other hon. Members who have mentioned that argument. As I said a moment ago in reply to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), I hope that it will not be too long before we can make the position clear.

Does my hon. Friend agree that as a result of the judgment, restrictions on days at sea are dead for at least two years, and that he should move forward in co-operation with the industry on conservation measures and net sizes, so that the uncertainty is removed?

I spent most of the summer and early autumn talking to the industry and trying to establish a better dialogue on many of the matters that lie at the heart of my hon. Friend's question. That question raised many issues and, as I said in response to other questions, I hope that we can make our position clear in the next few days.

Does the Minister accept that, whatever else the court judgment did not do, it did not rule out the continuation of the decommissioning scheme? Will he make an early announcement to extend that scheme, in order to earn the reputation that he seeks to achieve as the friend of the fish?

I thank the hon. Gentleman, at least for calling me the fisherman's friend. I am sure that my friends in Fleetwood would be glad to hear that. However, the clear message from the court case was that both sides agreed about the need to take the presure off the stocks under the greatest strain. The case also revealed that there was no final outcome. I am considering what the hon. Gentleman and others have said and, as I have said, I hope that we shall be able to make our position on the matter clear in the next few days.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern among some Conservative Members that our defence cuts may have gone too far, considering the situation in Russia and the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology? Further cuts must mean a loss of capability. Surely, the lesson of the Gulf war was that it took almost all our Army and Royal Air Force logistic capability, ammunition and spare parts to keep only two brigades and a few RAF squadrons in being for a few days' fighting. Should not we review capabilities and commitments as well as costs?

I believe that the Government have struck the right balance between our commitments, our resources and our capabilities. Our aim is to maintain the effectiveness of our front-line forces, while improving the efficiency of support services in Whitehall and elsewhere, and I think that that is what we shall achieve. We shall certainly not adopt the policy of the Labour party conference, which only three months ago voted to scrap our nuclear shield and to cut our defence spending by about £7·5 billion.

Why, having run away from a debate on VAT on fuel this Tuesday—[Interruption.] The Lord President may not have heard me so I shall ask again: why, having run away from the debate on VAT on fuel this Tuesday, have the Government decided to run away next Tuesday from debates on statutory sick pay and on the increase in national insurance contributions?

The Government are in no way running away from debate. We provided an extra day for the debate on the Budget, but even that extra time did not enable either the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen or their Whips to table the right motion at the right time. That was sheer parliamentary incompetence. Perhaps they were running away because they thought that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) might not be able to vote for what they tabled.

The Lord President has run away yet again from the question that I asked him. Is not the Government's problem that those two measures expose their hypocrisy and deceit? They claim that they are lifting the burdens on business when really they are piling them on. They claim to be the party of low taxes, although they have imposed the biggest tax hike in British industry. Is that why they are running away from proper scrutiny of the Bills?

It is quite clear that another reason why Labour Members did not get their amendment right is that they simply had not done their homework on the proposals. The combination of the SSP proposals and our proposals for employer contributions brings about a net reduction in the costs to British industry.

Does not the Lord President realise that these are important Bills which the British people will expect to hear debated? Does he not know that in the eyes of the British people the Government already stand convicted of deceit and incompetence, and now they are adding cowardice to the charge?

These are important Bills and we will ensure that they get appropriate time for debate in a way that is consistent with carrying through the responsible and effective policies in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one country in Europe above all in recent years has faithfully followed the Delors prescription of ever-mounting labour market regulation, ever greater public spending, growing public sector debt and ever more intervention and meddling in industry? Spain suffers from 22 per cent. unemployment as a result of those policies. Is it any surprise that both the socialist manifesto in Europe and the shadow Chancellor espouse exactly those policies?

My hon. Friend might have added that that self-same Spain is one of the countries that have a national minimum wage, and it has 22 per cent. unemployment. My hon. Friend is right that what Europe needs above all is to cut its costs and develop more flexible labour markets. That is what we have been seeking successfully to do.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since his Government were elected in 1979 with a law and order platform, recorded crimes in Leicestershire have increased by 237 per cent. but the Government have permitted the number of police officers to increase by only 7 per cent? Is not it a scandal that in those circumstances the Government have announced a second year in which the number of police officers is to be frozen? Is not it a scandal that all that the Home Secretary can call for is individual citizens to fight crime in the street? The Government have become one not of law and order but of crime and disorder.

My right hon. and learned Friend has set out a range of policies to support the police, to release from paperwork into practical action against crime a large number of police and to take effective action in the criminal justice field along lines which I hope Labour Members will support but which their record is one of consistently opposing.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Japanese ambassador said that Great Britain is a trail blazer for free trade in Europe? Will he ensure that the Prime Minister and all the Government continue to put Britain, together with free trade, at the heart of Europe?

My hon. Friend points out accurately and encouragingly what the Japanese ambassador said. The ambassador went on to say:

"I see no reason why Britain should not remain the most favoured location for Japanese investment in Europe as long as the factors which have attracted this investment remain in place."

Why am I having to put down question after question after question—[Interruption.]

Order.

When will I get answers to the questions that I have tabled about what is going on in the meetings of the Council of Ministers in Europe? There have been two Heads of State meetings, one in Edinburgh and one in Brussels. At those meetings, it was said that there would be transparency and openness, and that reports would be made to the House as to what the voting arrangements are in the Council of Ministers where the decisions are made.

The Edinburgh decision meant that the Council's rules of procedure had to be changed and that has taken longer in some respects than we would have wished. Our purpose remains precisely as was stated. I anticipate that my right hon. Friend will report to the House in the wake of the Council that is about to take place.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Given that the virtue of capitalism is that it harnesses private energy for the public good, will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the decision of Leyland-DAF to give £200 worth of shares to each of its employees for Christmas? Does not the success of that company in turning itself around prove that private enterprise and not socialist subsidy is the best recipe?

All right hon. and hon. Friends will be as pleased by that news as is my hon. Friend, who might have added that Leyland-DAF vans has also announced an £8 million development programme.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Yesterday at Station road in Llanrwst in my constituency, a serious flooding incident devastated eight or 10 businesses as a direct result of negligence by contractors which were employed by the Welsh office. Will the Leader of the House impress on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales the need for full and urgent compensation for those businesses?

First, on behalf of the whole House and through the hon. Gentleman I express sympathy to his constituents for their unhappy experience. I think that all hon. Members would want to join in that.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the latest local government ombudsman's report, which shows that maladministration by council housing departments is the biggest single cause of complaint? Does he agree that this Government have done more than any other to promote private ownership? Is he aware that the Opposition now agree that the private rented sector badly needs a boost?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's long and welcome interest in housing. Of course, I am well aware of his new pamphlet and, by some happy chance, I have a copy with me. It is yet another example of fresh thinking in housing, and I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, who wrote a foreword to the report, will want to discuss the ideas in my hon. Friend's pamphlet with him.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 December.

I have been asked to reply.

Is the Lord President aware that due to the inclement weather yesterday in the midlands and the north there have been no trains through my constituency of Nuneaton from Liverpool and Manchester? Does not that show the frailty of the infrastructure on the west coast main line, which is being stretched to breaking point? Would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that what was said in the Budget was only a promise that might be fulfilled in two years? Will the Government now pump prime the infrastructure of that line by putting money into it?

Given what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said at the time of the public expenditure announcements in respect of the west coast main line, that is one of the most ungenerous questions that I have heard for some time. It also bears out the old joke that the Government even get blamed for the weather.