To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to promote the new moorland scheme.

:The details of the scheme are under active consideration and we hope to be able to launch the scheme before the end of the year.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is not the moorland scheme an excellent example of an environmental dimension to farming? Does not the Government's approach contrast starkly with that of the Labour party, which seems all too obsessed with having councillors in charge of farms in the countryside, rather than the farmers who know something about the subject?

My hon. Friend has been assiduous in his reading of the Opposition's propaganda on the matter, and his interpretation of it is correct. We attach much importance to the environmental dimension in agriculture, but we want farmers to respond to our many schemes positively.

How much extra public access to moorland will there be under the scheme? Is not it scandalous that vast sums of public money are given to landowners who deny the public access to areas such as the forest of Bowland or the north Yorkshire moors?

If the hon. Gentleman has studied the vast number of environmental options available he will know that there are two specific schemes aimed at increasing access, particularly to districts such as environmentally sensitive areas—a subject on which he has probed me at the Dispatch Box. The moorlands scheme is designed to help the regeneration of heather moorland, thus making it much more pleasant for the hon. Gentleman and his friends to walk on.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has received concerning the food law deregulation plan; and if she will make a statement.

Officials in my Department have received a wide range of representations from industry, consumer and enforcement interests regarding the food law deregulation plan.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the central purpose of the plan is to protect and inform the British consumer and, at the same time, to ensure that British producers and manufacturers are not disadvantaged by unfair practices?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who gives the exact extent and nature of the plan, which is to ensure that regulation and enforcement are sensible and pragmatic, and in direct proportion to the risks involved without compromising essential public health standards. My hon. Friend is also right to mention the great importance of not allowing business to be swamped with entirely unnecessary, overweening and over-arching bureaucracy.

Is the Minister aware that, as part of the relaxation of regulations, a genetically engineered virus which is contaminated with scorpion venom is to be released in a wood in Oxford to improve the growth of cabbages by attacking moths that feed on them? That experiment has greatly upset the Butterfly Conservation Society, which believes that the virus will spread to butterflies. Would not it be safer and more sensible for an experiment to be carried out in which the scorpion venom was fed to members of the Cabinet? Even if that experiment failed, the country might benefit greatly.

I have always considered the hon. Gentleman the first genetically modified organism I ever saw. We would never want to do anything to harm butterflies, let alone their societies.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations she has had concerning the trade in pigs and related products in the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend and I are in frequent contact with representatives of the farming industry, including those representing pig producers. Most recently, we have had meetings with representatives of the British Pig Association on 19 April and 9 May and with the National Farmers Union on 19 May. On both occasions a wide range of matters was discussed.

When the Minister had those talks he must have heard representations about the illegal state aids paid by the French Government to their pig producers. When can United Kingdom producers expect a level playing field vis-a-vis their French counterparts?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman, who is right to raise that question, that my right hon. Friend has vigorously taken up the matter with the European Commission. It is investigating all the aids that the French Government were paying their pig producers. We await the outcome, but this is an extremely important matter, and we shall take up any examples of what are deemed to be illegal payments in the Community in this or any other sector.

I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Commission's inquiry, but may I emphasise to him the urgency of the situation? The longer we wait for the outcome of the inquiry—whatever recommendations emerge from it and are subsequently implemented—the longer the United Kingdom pig industry will go on suffering.

I certainly understand that. I reiterate that my right hon. Friend has pursued the matter as vigorously as possible. The time that the Commission takes to investigate such matters is always disappointing. Meanwhile, this year we are spending about £14 million on research and development to aid our pig industry.

The whole House will be aware of the public concern about standards of transportation for pigs and other animals. I welcome the Government's opposition to the Greek compromise proposals on welfare standards at the Agriculture Council on Monday, but last week the Minister himself described the proposals as a great step forward. Have the Government been converted on the road to Damascus, or have they found themselves, as usual, isolated in the Council?

Once my right hon. Friend reached the road to Luxembourg, and had listened to what the fellow travellers on that road had to say, she became convinced that, although the proposals represented some improvement, they were not enough of an improvement. Once she had listened to the debate, she found herself unable to support the proposals in the Agriculture Council.

Will my hon. Friend accept that another reason why pig farmers are disgruntled is that they have been obliged to implement welfare measures which do not have to be implemented in Europe until after the year 2000? Is not there a case for saying that, if we are to go hand in hand with Europe, we should move in step with Europe and not substantially disadvantage our pig farmers?

My hon. Friend may recall that the original private Member's Bill would have allowed no transition period in which to phase out the stall and tether system, to which I think he refers. Because the Bill was amended, there is now a period for adjustment. Many pig farmers have made representations to us about the financial implications. There could be tax implications, but they are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when she next expects to meet her EC counterparts to discuss the further reform of the CAP.

At this very moment, my right hon. Friend is negotiating in the Council of Ministers on this very subject.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of the European Community budget taken up by the common agricultural policy has significantly declined since the late 1980s? However, is not the cost still far too high and should not it be reduced?

I entirely agree with the line that my hon. Friend takes. The cost has dropped in recent years—from about 80 per cent. to about 54 per cent. of the Community's budget. The United Kingdom is in the vanguard of those seeking further reforms of the agricultural policy and to reduce the costs to Community taxpayers, to increase competition and to bring down food prices.

Is the Minister ready to repeat the pledge given by the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), that the total cost of the common agricultural policy in the current year, next year and the year after will fall progressively, and, if so, by how much?

Once the proposals for reforms have worked through over their three-year period, the cost of the Community's agricultural policy will have dropped by £8 billion—a saving to this country of £1 billion.

Will the Minister ensure that the Minister also takes into account the agricultural situation of the Maghreb, the Mashraq and the Lomé countries, in reforming the CAP? He has given half that assurance before and I should be grateful if he would give it fully.

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in those important matters. As far as I understand it, those issues are not on the agenda for this Agriculture Council, but I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend on her return.

Given that there is a need for the reform of the CAP, and in, view of the issues already raised, does the Minister accept that that must take the form not simply of swingeing cuts but of redirection of support? Does he accept, at the same time, that we need a policy that will strengthen the countryside and at least maintain the present level of the agricultural population? Does not he see a system of assistance for the entry of young farmers as absolutely integral to that?

The hon. Gentleman may be interested in the answer to a subsequent question on the entry of young farmers, because it is germane to agricultural tenancy reform. He talks of swingeing cuts, but perhaps he has not looked at exactly what is happening. Under the present reform package, there is a shift away from direct payment, through schemes such as the intervention fund, for example, to direct payments to farmers especially, which have an encouraging environmental factor. In response to an earlier question, I alluded to the fact that the United Kingdom Government, with their own agri-environment package, will be spending something like £100 million by the financial year 1995–96.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment she has made of the part science is to play in the future competitiveness of British agriculture.

We regularly review our research programme and in February we published a research strategy, which describes how science will contribute to the Ministry's aim of improving the economic performance of the agriculture, food and fishing industries.

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that everything possible is being done to foster a productive relationship among industry, the Government and the academic world?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend such an assurance and I am grateful to him for the phrasing of his question. We foster that relationship through the adoption of clear and foresighted technology and research, largely through the link programmes—the institution through which we seek to improve relationships between industry, academia and Government. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has seven link programmes—three in food and four in agriculture—involving almost £25 million a year. We take seriously our obligation in that matter and I assure my hon. Friend that the situation is exactly as he would wish it to be.

Does the Minister agree that, if science is not properly harnessed, it can work both ways? Is he aware that, this morning, on the M1 near Bolsover, not far from the Coalite factory, once again, a chemical cloud resulted in danger to motorists and problems for the agriculture in the area? Will he contact the senior inspector of pollution to ensure that he has all the facts and that the incident is dealt with, and that all possible steps are taken to ensure that it does not happen again? It is not the first time.

Of course I will certainly undertake exactly what the hon. Gentleman asks. He and I have already been round this course once together as a result of Coalite and I very much hope, and I am sure, that that incident will not be anything like as serious as the previous one, but I shall report to him as soon as I have made inquiries.

Does my hon. Friend agree that British competitiveness is seriously affected by whether decisions are made on the strength of genuine scientific knowledge or on emotional claptrap? Will he congratulate the Commission on using scientific evidence, correctly, to prevent the Germans taking further their attack on British beef? Will he encourage it also to use precisely the same scientific approach to such issues as nitrates in lettuce and pesticides in water?

As we would expect, my hon. Friend goes to the very core of the problem for the future of science in that sector, which is becoming more and more sophisticated and complex. More and more profound ethical and scientific decisions must be taken with clear-headed foresight and by using the clearly laid down rules that have served us and the Community extremely well. If we move away from science and allow politics to hijack the issue, we will be on a rocky road indeed.

Will the Minister ask his departmental scientists to reconsider the use of anabolic steroids for cattle, especially as new evidence from gynaecologists and obstetricians shows that the emission of oestrogen from those substances is causing male infertility? It is one of the major reasons why there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in male fertility over the past 40 years.

I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of our scientists. The use of hormones and residues in meat is strictly governed. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Britain has one of the most sophisticated surveillance programmes in the world. I assure him that, if there is any wrongdoing, we clamp down on it quickly. He has asked a straight scientific question; we shall investigate his remarks and I shall report back to him.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department is contributing to the technology foresight programme? Will not the partnership among agriculture, industry and the Department be crucial, especially for constituencies such as mine that are heavily involved in both food and confectionary manufacture? Will he further confirm that his Department is happy to work with the Food and Drink Federation in studying the involvement of science in both agriculture and food production?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend the categorical assurances that he seeks. His constituency includes an impressive array of companies that would be concerned about such research. The link programme is studying food processing sciences and advanced and hygienic food manufacturing techniques, all of which are critical to the competitiveness of the food and farming industries. We should be proud of those industries which do best of all, and in which we are genuinely world leaders.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if she will make a statement on imports of beer from European Union countries and the effect on the British brewing industry.

I understand that the industry estimates that commercial imports fell last year.

Why, then, are tens of thousands of bottles of imported French lager on the shelves of Sainsburys and Tescos throughout the country? People are buying that beer, presumably because the tax level is much lower than it is on our domestically produced beer.

It always amazes me when Labour Members want to indulge in knocking the British brewing industry. The hon. Gentleman did not want to tell the House that United Kingdom beer exports rose by 10 per cent. in 1993.

As the subject is something in which my hon. Friend is closely concerned, can he say what would be the cost to the Exchequer of reducing the tax differential on alcohol between ourselves and the French and the Germans to the same level as is enjoyed in those two countries? What realistic chance is there of bringing the two levels of 32p and 4p closer together so that minimum harm is done to the British brewing industry?

My hon. and learned Friend's question touches on a wider issue that is beyond the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, I shall certainly write on his behalf to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General to seek his worldly advice.

How complacent can the Government get in respect of personal beer imports? Can the Minister contemplate the reverse situation, in which French nationals were able to cross the channel to England and buy wine at much-reduced prices? How long does the Minister think that the French Government would tolerate that? Is not it time that the Government acted to defend Britain's brewing industry and the thousands of jobs that depend on it, directly or indirectly?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should take action to help the British brewing industry, which is precisely why we spent about £2 million on the link programmes to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred earlier, which improved the competitiveness of British brewing, increased exports 10 per cent. in 1993 over 1992 and helped to safeguard jobs. As to the tax issues, it is not a question of complacency. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has dealt with those issues in extenso in public.

My hon. Friend said that the percentage of beer illegally imported into this country is small at present, but it is increasing dramatically. Will my hon. Friend join me in visiting Calais next weekend, to examine that problem? It appears to be growing and is having an impact on the British brewing industry, and will continue to do so unless immediate action is taken to stem illegal beer imports.

I much appreciate my hon. Friend's generosity in offering a free trip to Calais, but he will understand that the needs of my constituents in Fylde must come first. I have been to Calais in the past 12 months and seen the phenomenon to which my hon. Friend referred. Another trip would not necessarily educate me further in that respect. I say again that we must keep the matter in perspective. It is estimated that cross-border shopping for beer represents the equivalent of only 3.5 per cent. of total UK beer consumption. My Department has done what it can to strengthen the competitiveness of British brewing, in the ways that I outlined earlier.

The Minister sought to pass responsibility to the Paymaster General, but he must surely feel concerned about the impact of the growth of personal imports on British hop farmers and on hop production. If the present rate of increase continues, that will have a dramatic effect on the Minister's responsibilities for hop farming.

I am obviously concerned, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports the attempts being made by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, through the work of Customs and Excise, to ensure that people play by the rules. There have been changes in import arrangements for the personal consumption of beer, wine and spirits. They are sensible easements in terms of the completion of the single European market, but robust action is taken against those who abuse the rules and who are the main cause of the problem at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's question.

My hon. Friend will be aware that a number of directors and workers of the Bass brewery live in the leafy lanes of Lichfield. They are also most concerned about the amount of imported beer entering the United Kingdom for onward sale, when it should be for personal consumption only. However, will my hon. Friend congratulate my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on a number of recent successful prosecutions? My hon. Friend mentioned a 10 per cent. export sales increase, but is he aware that Bass and a number of other breweries are now producing beers specifically for sale in France, with French consumer tastes in mind?

I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General on his successful prosecutions. I congratulate Bass, which recently opened a £61 million brewery for the production of premium and export beers. British brewers are hitting back against the competition.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals she has to reduce fraud in the CAP.

The Commission has proposed the introduction of sanctions against intervention and export refund fraud. We already have such sanctions for direct payments to farmers. Subject to some clarification and textual changes, we will support this proposal, which aims to penalise fraudsters and reduce fraud.

Has this not taken an inordinately long time, during which thousands of millions of pounds have been ripped off from taxpayers right across the Community? Does the Minister accept that his reply is extremely complacent in the face of enormous problems, particularly in the southern part of Europe? What does he propose to do about the scandalous behaviour of the tobacco industry, which has produced a product that even I would not smoke and ripped off £500 million a year, a considerable amount of it due to fraud?

The hon. Gentleman asks what we intend to do about this, but it is a Community matter. If he cares to read the report of a debate in the Scrutiny Committee about the tobacco regime, he will discover that the United Kingdom has been in the lead in proposing measures to deal with the absurdities of that regime. We are in the lead in backing the work of the Court of Auditors and requesting more Community effort to combat fraud. That is why 50 more people are employed at the Department to deal with fraud and why in the past two years the number of frauds and irregularities reported has doubled.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the 50 people to whom he referred and he and his colleagues give every support to the work of the European Court of Auditors, so that the fraud being noticed throughout the Community is dealt with forcefully and impartially not only at the centre of the Union but by every member of it?

I will certainly do that. One of the important features to note from the work of the Court of Auditors is the role that the Commission can now play in ensuring that member states play by the rules because of the imposition of disallowance—the recovery of moneys which should not have been paid out. That certainly concentrates the minds of member states and we strongly support further action in that area.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made concerning the future of the potato marketing board; and if she will make a statement.

Following my right hon. Friend's announcement that the potato marketing scheme will end in 1997, the board is pressing ahead with the changes to the scheme which will allow growers to prepare for the free market.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of growers are seeking a poll under the terms of the Agriculture Marketing Act 1958 to revoke the potato marketing scheme? Does he view with equanimity the prospect of our being one of the few large potato-growing countries in Europe without an organised market for potatoes and potato products? Does he have any suggestions that growers might like to consider in terms of how they proceed in this matter?

I view with enthusiasm the change to the potato marketing regime as a result of the Agriculture Act 1993. My right hon. Friend proposed an orderly change in the present arrangements. Some potato growers have said that they want to conduct a poll and there are procedures for that. It is for growers to decide whether they wish to vote. If they vote for the removal of the board, it will go out of existence straight away. If they vote against, there are further options for the existing potato marketing board to propose successor schemes to the present arrangement—for example, a development council for the industry.

May I tell the Minister that the proposal is not welcomed by the potato growers in Ayrshire in my constituency, who produce some of the finest early potatoes in the shops now? [Interruption.] The ones grown by the sea come ready salted, which is a great advantage. Since the proposal will not come into effect until 1997, will the Minister give an assurance that nothing irrevocable will be done in the next two years, so that the Labour Government can ensure that the potato marketing board continues as at present?

If that is the best first early that the hon. Gentleman can produce, I suggest that it should stay in the ground. He should realise that the world has moved on and that Britain's potato growers and producers of potato products have been disadvantaged by the existing marketing arrangements. The flexibility that my right hon. Friend the Minister introduced as a result of the Agriculture Act 1993 has shown itself in the way in which potato growers have already modified the area under cultivation this year, in the light of market conditions. They have also taken advantage of the processing contracts available. That reveals the way in which potato consumption is going and such change benefits all those in the potato industry.

May I urge my hon. Friend to press ahead with the reorganisation of the potato marketing board? He will be aware of the 500,000 tonnes of processed product that is imported into this country every year, which means that farmers could produce an extra 20,000 acres of potatoes in this country and there could be considerable extra jobs in the processing industry. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to proceed with the reorganisation as soon as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for his perceptive and commercially based comments. They stand in stark contrast to the views that we have heard from the Opposition, who seem not to be concerned about the interests of farmers or those who work in the industry producing potato products. I endorse strongly what my hon. Friend has said.

Is not the reform of potato marketing really preparing the way for the European Union, through the common agricultural policy, to create a new regime and to control potatoes in the European Community?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about that. If there were to be anything at Community level, the most that one could expect would be something dealing with common standards and that is a long way off. We must press on with these reforms for the benefit of the entire potato industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not only in Ayrshire that the potato growers are keen to keep the potato marketing scheme, but also in Lincolnshire? Growers there are under the impression that when the scheme comes to an end in 1997 it is likely to be followed by a European potato regime. Is any progress being made in the establishment of that?

We do not want to see some sort of command economy regime to replace what the potato marketing board represented. If there is not a vote to remove the PMB straight away, the future of the scheme is a matter for members of the potato industry to decide in consultation with the board.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the development of agriculture in eastern Europe will have on the European Union.

Technical improvements, and the development of market-oriented production systems could enable the farming industries of central and eastern European countries to pose a significant competitive challenge. Preferential access to EU markets under the Europe agreements will contribute to this.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that it would be impossible to extend the common agricultural policy as it now stands to eastern and central Europe? Is that not a further good reason for seeking to reform the CAP so as to bring it nearer to the market?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Enlargement of the European Union to the east would involve unsustainable budgetary costs if the CAP remained in its present form. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the United Kingdom Government are leading efforts within the European Union to continue to bring the CAP closer to real world markets. I think that there is increasingly a more general understanding within the Community that unless those steps are taken, the CAP will disappear up its own fundamental.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to improve the competitiveness of United Kingdom agricultural exports.

Help to improve the competitiveness of UK agricultural exports will come through our continuing support of "Food From Britain," MAFF's continental challenge, our export promotion division, and the programmes outlined in the White Paper, "Competitiveness—Helping Business to Win".

Does my hon. Friend agree that although the British food industry has reduced the food trade gap by half since the 1960s, many opportunities remain for the industry to close the gap still further and should not the industry receive every encouragement to do so?

We are certainly trying to give a lot of encouragement to the food and farming industry to help close the trade gap. It is interesting to note that in the last decade the value of our exports of food, animal feed and drink has increased by 50 per cent. and the schemes that I outlined in my initial reply are all available to those in food and farming to assist with exports. We are backing this up as a ministerial team by going to some of the most rapidly expanding markets in the world, such as China and India, to promote our exports.

Given that the Government's record in promoting trade in industrial products has been one of turning a huge surplus under Labour in 1979 to a massive deficit in the latest figures under the Tories, does the hon. Gentleman share my severe doubts about the Government's competence to do anything about agricultural exports?

Absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening to the argument that I advanced a moment ago, so I will repeat it: exports of food, animal feed and drink have increased in value over the past decade by 50 per cent. As a result of MAFF's trade promotion activities, we alone in recent years have done something like an additional £55 million worth of business by going out and pathfinding our way to new markets.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be concerned to ensure that opportunities in the United Kingdom's agricultural sector are not closed by too strict an application of quotas through the common agricultural policy? We have the most efficient sugar regime and probably the most effective and efficient dairy regime, but our quota is less than our national consumption.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister has continually emphasised our objective, which is to see the quotas and restrictions on production removed. We have an extremely efficient agriculture industry, especially in the spheres that my hon. Friend mentioned, and we should very much like them to have the opportunity to prove what they can do in world markets.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans she has to reduce the international trade in live animals for slaughter.

Trade in live animals is a commercial matter, subject to the necessary safeguards for animal welfare and health. The question of further safeguards for animals in transport was discussed at the Agriculture Council on 20 June, when the United Kingdom received an undertaking from the Commission to bring forward further proposals on journey limits.

Most people in this country will be disappointed by the Minister's reply. Why do not the Government support the proposal made by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is now apparently also advocated by Germany, to impose an eight-hour journey limit for animals and so put a stop to this evil trade?

The hon. Lady should not make the mistake of simplifying the matter beyond what is reasonable in difficult and technical negotiations. The Government have always acknowledged that journey times have a relevant role to play, but they are not the be-all and end-all of animal transport. We are beginning to make significant progress within the Community. The Commission has come up with new plans which we believe will significantly improve the proposals that we first saw on the table at the beginning of the week. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister took absolutely the right decision to vote with the Germans and the others, pending the proposals from the Commission which will be received early next year.

Is this not is a good opportunity to remind the House that all farmers and others in this country dealing with animals have the greatest respect for their own livestock and that problems with the transport of live animals occur not in this country but elsewhere? Will he remind the House of our very high standards and encourage the RSPCA and others not to peddle their views with the aid of appalling photographs which were obviously taken overseas but to carry out their activities where they can do some good instead of trying to suck up to their members in this country?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The standard of animal welfare in this country is probably the highest in the world. It is a matter of pride to the British people that they have such attitudes, and it is their wish and that of their Government that we should improve the lot of travelling animals throughout the European Union. That can happen only if there is a cultural and attitudinal change in the Community. My hon. Friend is right to say that the RSPCA and others have a great deal of work to do in Europe and we remain convinced that their task is in Europe.

Returning to the Luxembourg Council meeting this week, is it not true that last weekend Ministers were minded to vote for the Greek presidency's compromise, which would allow animals to travel for no fewer than 22 hours before being rested and fed—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to this. The Government changed their mind only on the Monday morning after the Belgian Government said at the meeting of permanent representatives that they would join Germany, Denmark and Holland and vote against it. The Government changed their mind because there would have been a blocking minority vote of 23. Does that not prove the Government's duplicity and scant regard for the welfare of animals?

Even by the hon. Gentleman's standards of rant, that is going a bit far. [Interruption.] The Opposition have made a fine choice in the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). Perhaps I may rehearse the truth of what actually happened. My right hon. Friend the Minister asked me to see the animal welfare bodies ahead of the Council as a courtesy, to outline to them the state of the negotiation on the paper submitted by the Greek presidency. Accordingly, at the negotiation, my right hon. Friend listened with great care to the way the negotiation was going and, seeing an opportunity to better what was on the table, and accepting the Commission's offer to develop the idea and work on journey limits, my right hon. Friend went along with what was proposed. To my mind, she took an important step forward for animal welfare. The hon. Gentleman must do better than that if he hopes to convince anyone.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

I have been asked to reply.

On the eve of the Corfu summit, does my right hon. Friend agree that Great Britain is leading the way in Europe in deregulation, privatisation, competitivity and growth, and, above all, the vital task of bringing down unemployment but that the Labour party would reverse all those things in very short order?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Those issues are very much at the top of the Corfu agenda as a result of the British Government's efforts to advance those causes in Europe over a long period of time. I am glad to say that the forthcoming German presidency will be pursuing the British objectives of competitiveness and deregulation in its policies towards Europe.

Given that more than a million of our fellow citizens are on national health service waiting lists, can it really be the Secretary of State for Health's vision for the future to get rid of 50,000 hospital beds?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the effect of the Government's reforms on the health service has been greatly to increase the number of people treated and that NHS hospitals now treat 121 patients for every 100 treated before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health drew attention to the possible continuation of those trends in future years, building on advances in treatment to treat yet more people.

The Leader of the House has not really answered the question. Would it not be better to get rid of the waiting lists rather than getting rid of the hospital beds? Are not the cuts being driven by the Government's failure properly to manage public finances?

The changes are being driven by the Government's determination to get more patients treated more effectively with shorter waiting times, and the policies are succeeding; if there is a failure, it is the failure of the Opposition to recognise the success of those policies.

That will not do. We have had massive tax increases under the Conservatives since the last general election and the British people now face massive cuts in services. Why is it that in Tory Britain we have to pay a lot more to get a lot less?

The Government have consistently put additional resources in real terms into Britain's national health service. The result of those increased resources is an improving service treating more and more patients more effectively with shorter waiting times.

Can my right hon. Friend recall whether at any time in the past 15 years any Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has condemned any public sector strike?

Order. I gave a little homily only a few days ago, but I think I shall have to ask the Whips to hold weekend seminars to instruct Members on what Question Time is all about: it is to seek information on Government policies and to press for action.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether any public sector strike which would damage this country, and which has been condemned by the Government, has also been condemned by the Opposition? If not, should not the British public remember that at the next general election?

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I can perhaps offer that the Whips will run a seminar on Corfu for the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in the hope of getting from her the answer that we have conspicuously failed to get in the House.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the Leader of the House share the general pleasure that justice has been done in the case of Professor Tim Brighouse, who is to receive substantial damages from the Secretary of State for Education? Will he assure the House that not one penny of the damages or the costs will come from the taxpayer? Before his right hon. Friend leaves office shortly, will he urge him to apologise to all the other people involved in education whom he has gratuitously insulted over the past couple of years?

My right hon. Friend has straightforwardly apologised and agreed reparation for the remarks to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In my judgment, at least, the matter should be left there. It does not in any way affect my right hon. Friend's ability to advance the Government's very successful education policy.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the Government's most successful policies is the right to buy, which has enabled more than 1.5 million former tenants to enjoy the benefits of owner-occupation? Is he further aware that over the past five years a further 250,000 homes have been privately let? Would it not be an excellent long-term investment if the Prime Minister exercised the right to buy No. 10 Downing street?

I certainly share my hon. Friend's view that the right to buy has been a hugely successful policy over more than a decade now, together with the Government's successful policies to increase the amount of rented accommodation, and to tackle the problem of rough sleepers in London. As for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I do not know about the right to buy, but I am sure that he will exercise his right to extend the lease.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Lord President draw to the attention of the Prime Minister the problem—indeed, the scandal—of court cheats who have been instructed by judges to compensate the victims of their crimes, but who refuse to pay? Is he aware that about two thirds of victims who have had awards of compensation made in their favour against the criminal are not receiving a penny? Is it not time that the Government ceased to be mealy mouthed about the problem and took action to ensure that the victims get compensation and the courts pursue the criminal?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the general steps that the Government are taking to improve the detection of crime and the enforcement of the law. However, he made a slightly separate and very serious point, to which I shall respond appropriately. The right course is for me to invite the Home Secretary to examine the hon. Gentleman's remarks and to consider what response might be made.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

I have been asked to reply.

On the subject of the pursuit of the criminal, is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a reduction of 16 per cent. in residential burglaries in the Metropolitan police area? Should not the good work of the police be supported by the courts handing down stiff prison sentences to house burglars? Is that not the message that we should be sending out, rather than arguing about whether prison works as the Opposition home affairs team do?

I whole-heartedly endorse the thoughts of my hon. Friend in terms of what needs to be done to continue and strengthen the fight against crime, not least burglaries. Happily, there are beginning to be some encouraging signs that the increase in crime is not irreversible. Alongside other things, there have been some welcome cases of a drop in the number of insurance claims—another sign of police success in the fight against crime.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Talking about fringe meetings, will the Lord President now answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Pickthall) and give the House a categorical assurance that not one penny of taxpayers' money will go to bail out the Secretary of State for Education, although Labour Members believe in the redistribution of wealth and would have no objection to the Cabinet having a whip round for their no doubt soon to be ex-colleague?

I have already commented on that and made it clear that it was a private matter.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Should we not pause to pay tribute to the astonishing turn of events that has brought the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Russia into a partnership for peace with NATO? Is there not a lesson to be drawn to the effect that our national security must be defended at all times by resolute and resourceful defence and that the best guarantee of that is a Conservative Government?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The agreement signed in Brussels yesterday is an important step forward and symbolises, if further symbolisation were needed, the changes that have been going on in the former Soviet Union and sets a new framework for peaceful co-operation between Russia and NATO. Russia is the 21st nation to sign the partnership for peace agreement. I agree with my hon. Friend that it illustrates the rewards that have come from the resolute stance that the Government have adopted.

Will the Leader of the House remind the Prime Minister that the letter regarding MV Derbyshire that I sent to him about three weeks ago has not yet been answered? Does he agree that there is widespread concern in the House about the continuing absence of a Government response to questions and early-day motions on that matter? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the urgent need for a decision to be made so that the work now started can continue and, one hopes, result in a final exposition of the reasons why the MV Derbyshire sank?

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware of the position. As I said in business questions last week, I well understand the concern of those involved. The chief inspector of marine accidents is to request findings and results of the search from the International Transport Federation. On examination of that material, the chief inspector will advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport whether there is justification for reopening the investigation. That measured way is the right way in which to proceed.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 23 June.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at a time when our regular armed forces are facing yet another round of reductions, many of us are deeply concerned that we may also be looking at a further substantial cut in the Territorial Army? Is it not true that the last two major conflicts in which we have been involved—the Falklands and the Gulf—both came from nowhere and both happened at short notice and without any warning? Surely the most cost-effective way of maintaining a reserve for the unexpected at a low level of cost is by maintaining strong, well-equipped and well-trained volunteer reserve forces.

The Government whole-heartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the need for increased use of the reserves and share the importance that he attaches to them. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has instituted a pilot scheme, under which he is addressing the possibility of bringing the reserve forces legislation up to date. On the wider issue, I can only repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend and others have said on a number of occasions: that the purpose of the exercise on which the Government are engaged is generally to ensure the maximum emphasis on our front-line forces, and the capabilities about which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is concerned, and to ensure that we do not spend unnecessary amounts on support services at the expense of those front-line forces.

Referring back to those soon to be ex-colleagues, does the Lord President believe that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) will still be leader of the Conservative party at Christmas and that he himself will still be in the Cabinet?

I have already referred to my expectation that my right hon. Friend will renew his lease, as I put it, on No.10 Downing street. On the other matters, I am always confident of my right hon. Friend's judgment.