To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the further reform of the common agricultural policy.

The Government have led the way in seeking reform of the common agricultural policy. I shall be continuing to press for further reform at the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg next week.

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post. What end result would he like to see from further reform of the common agricultural policy? Is there now a case for repatriation?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I should like to see a common agricultural policy which moved nearer to world market prices; which was simpler to administer; and which, as a matter of priority, got rid of such idiocies as the wine regime, under which we pay for the conversion of low-grade Italian wine into industrial fuel which is then sent at a subsidised rate to Brazil to be put into motor cars. That is crazy.

Does the Minister recall his predecessor's statement in May 1992 to the effect that the CAP reforms were good for Britain, good for farmers and good for the taxpayer? Is he aware that, between 1992 and next week's estimates, the CAP budget will have increased by £6.3 billion? How can that be good for the taxpayer, the consumer or the average family, who are paying £20 a week more than they should for their food? Does not that mean that the CAP continues to be bad for Britain, bad for the taxpayer and bad for the consumer?

No. The reforms relieved the British consumer of something like £1 billion of excess costs. I agree that we want prices to come down further, nearer to the real market prices. However, the reforms were a useful step forward and they have done better than many people predicted in getting rid of surpluses of, for example, cereals and beef. We now have much less beef in intervention than we used to.

In considering reform of the common agricultural policy, will my right hon. Friend consider especially the effect of a proposed new directive on nitrates in broadleaf vegetables, which threatens many vegetables grown under glass in Britain? I thank him for taking the matter to the Council of Ministers. Will he assure the House that he will fight as hard as his predecessor for British horticulture?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have sent a powerful paper containing evidence from absolutely first-class epidemiologists such as Sir Richard Doll, which proves that there is absolutely no risk from nitrates in lettuce and that the directive is misconceived. I shall fight it. I remember the Leader of the Opposition saying that he will never be isolated in Europe. He says that he will always agree, which means that he will sign up to such directives. One has to he isolated sometimes if one is to fight.

May I congratulate the Minister on his appointment? I am sure that his family history, knowledge of agriculture and ministerial experience will be a help to him. Does the new CAP policy group mean that the Minister has spent some of the past three months studying the CAP? Did he note that less than two years ago one of his predecessors presented the latest reform as something of a triumph for Britain? Is not the truth of the matter that during the past 15 years the Government have not mounted a serious attempt to alter a policy that is misusing thousands of millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and congratulate him on his election to the shadow Cabinet. The post-MacSharry reforms were indeed a great improvement on what was there before. Surpluses have been cut, and the level of overpricing has been brought back, but there is far more to do. The entry of central and eastern European countries—towards the end of the century, we hope—will provide not only an opportunity but the necessity for further major reform. We shall take that opportunity and I hope that we shall lead the way.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the common agricultural policy is the uneven nature of compliance and enforcement in the different states within the European Union? Will he consider suggesting to his colleagues in Europe that the officials responsible for inspection, enforcement and compliance might operate on an exchange basis between countries, so that ours could assist other European countries while we could enjoy the regime that those countries have had hitherto?

My hon. Friend makes a serious point, but I am not entirely sure that I should like to swap our inspectors for those from some other countries, even if it brought some benefits to our people. There is a real issue, and I shall certainly argue with the Commission that we need proper enforcement throughout the EU. Indeed, the subject will arise at the next Council, in relation to animal welfare.

I, too, welcome the Minister; I also welcome his statement at the Conservative party conference that he is to set up a CAP policy group. Will he take advantage of the developing consensus in the House on the need for reform, and on some of the directions that such reform might take? Will he comment on his predecessor's statement that

"Set-aside is here and we must make the most of it"?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome. Although there is great expertise within my Ministry, I believe that there is no harm in seeking to ensure that we use everybody who can contribute on that important subject, both in this country and more widely. As for set-aside, in the long term we do not like such production control, either through quotas or through set-aside. We would rather move the emphasis towards lower prices, and getting production into balance with consumption. But while we have set-aside, surely we should use it for beneficial purposes. That is why I shall argue, for example, that forestry should be possible on set-aside land.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have a good record in emphasising the educational value of reducing tobacco consumption—that that is something to be commended—but that there is an inconsistency between that and the support for tobacco producers in the rest of the European Community?

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that the tobacco regime is the part of the CAP that I, as a former Secretary of State for Health, like least. As well as its objectives being thoroughly unsatisfactory, it has been subject to considerable fraud. It seems entirely mad that we should spend money trying to persuade people not to smoke, while at the same time spending more money to subsidise the growing of tobacco.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account he takes in the exercise of his responsibilities for land drainage of protecting the environment and the habitat of birds and other wild animals.

The powers that MAFF exercises in the relationship between land drainage and environmental protection are fully detailed in the publication "Water Level Management Plans", a copy of which is in the Library.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread anxiety among conservation groups and interests that the announcement of a new environmental agency may mean that that agency would have fewer powers than those now residing with the National Rivers Authority? Will he give the House an undertaking that the new agency will have equally robust powers and a duty to promote conservation in water management, rather than merely having "regard to" it, as was spelt out in the publicity?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not directly in my province to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency. That is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. However, I am aware that concern has been expressed about the word "conservation" in the context of that agency, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the information, such as water level management plans and the other guidance given to all authorities with an interest in land drainage, will not change. Their obligations and requirements—as regards the new Land Drainage Act 1994, for example—will remain unaltered under the new arrangements.

Will my hon. Friend take an early opportunity to congratulate our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, whose Bill last night will go a long way towards protecting the environment and habitat of birds and other wild animals, and will curtail the activities of people whose sole intent is to destroy that habitat and to destroy country life?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the novelty of his question. I will certainly pass on his greetings to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. It is always important in countryside and conservation matters to get an appropriate balance between the intrusion of human beings and wildlife.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines he has for strengthening the control over BSE.

All our controls on BSE are based on independent scientific advice, which is on-going.

May I first congratulate the hon. Lady on her promotion? As the Government have been wrong on so many things about BSE—wrong on the numbers forecast, wrong on the time profile forecast, wrong on transmission between generations and wrong on transmission between species—is not it now time for them to close the remaining loophole by which BSE-infected products can get into the food chain, namely spinal cord and brain products from calves less than six months old?

The hon. Gentleman is making allegations that are not supported either in this country or in Europe by any of the scientists who have investigated the matter. I suggest that if he has scientific evidence, on which our decision making is based, he puts it forward. Certainly the time scale in which the number of registered cases has fallen has been longer than originally anticipated. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that in the past year, we have seen a significant drop in reported cases—namely, 43 per cent.

In welcoming my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box, may I say how very much we appreciate the candour and openness with which her Department has faced the highly emotive problem of BSE? She will be aware of the very real concern that has been expressed by the British Veterinary Association, by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and by others about the potential for the importation of hitherto eradicated animal diseases from eastern Europe through the European Union. Can she reassure the House and those bodies that her Department will take every possible measure to ensure that those diseases are not reintroduced from eastern Europe through the Union by the back door?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and I can reassure him. He will be aware of the decision and announcement by my right hon. Friend the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who announced earlier this year that there would be a reinstatement of 100 per cent. inspection at all ports of entry.

Would the Minister care to comment on some of the theories now coming forward to the effect that the BSE problem may actually be caused by the use of pesticides and other chemicals in agriculture rather than by some of the factors that have been identified to date?

I can certainly comment. All such allegations have been inspected by independent scientific advisers to the Department and none of them stands up to scientific investigation.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the take-up of the environmentally sensitive area scheme; and if he will make a statement.

There has been a good response and more than 4,500 agreements have been signed.

I welcome the success of the ESA scheme nationally—I understand that it now covers 10 per cent. of all land in England—but is my hon. Friend aware that, in the Essex coast ESA, which covers my constituency, farmers are unlikely to take up the scheme in large numbers to cover arable land as the payments available are so much lower than those for land put into set-aside?

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue. However, I must remind him that the objective of the Essex coast ESA is effectively to preserve the coastal marsh grazing areas from the River Stour to Canvey island. That is the principal objective and to the extent that such land is the principal objective, it is not in competition for payments from the arable area payment scheme. In terms of reversion from arable land to pasture, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have already achieved 23 per cent. of our target of 1,000 hectares for reversion.

The Minister may be interested to hear that I visited such a scheme in my constituency—the Tir Cymen scheme—during the summer. It is very successful in upland areas in my constituency in sustaining the income of small farmers and in providing work in a rural area. Why is it that within agricultural support generally, only 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the agriculture budget is involved in environmental schemes?

I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's commendation of the support that we are giving through environmentally sensitive areas to the role of preserving the important environmental features in the countryside. In talking about numbers, the hon. Gentleman perhaps omits to mention the fact that we hope that, by 1996, with the full range of environmental schemes—not only environmentally sensitive areas but countryside access, organic farming, marsh moorland and the whole range of other schemes—we will be spending around £100 million. That, by any standard of imagination, is a very large sum indeed.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the farming unions about individual base areas for cereal growers; and if he will make a statement.

We have had no recent calls from farming unions for meetings on that subject.

I am perfectly prepared to understand and accept that there are legal and perhaps even administrative difficulties in using individual base areas as a way in which to control quotas. There is no such thing as a pain-free quota system. But if the Minister is excluding individual base areas as a way of giving individual farmers the ability to control the penalties that they incur, what plans does he have for dealing with this very real problem, which certainly continues to occur in the cereal-growing areas of Scotland?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his honesty in acknowledging that there are significant problems in administration and farming practice relating to individual farmers having their own base areas. We are very aware of that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is still a prevailing sense of injustice among cereal growers in Wales, especially in the less-favoured areas? Furthermore, the farming unions—in Wales and, I think, nationally—have expressed their concern to the Ministry, first, about the fact that there is not a joint England arid Wales base region and, secondly, about the fact that, for the past two years, and until the recent welcome announcement made by the Ministry, severe losses have been incurred by Welsh cereal growers because of the previous base-area designations.

I am well aware of the situation that my hon. Friend describes to the House. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, he has made sterling efforts to try to address the problem. The latest situation—certainly in relation to new yield areas that have been introduced—means that those in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales all gain. There is a marginal loss of 10 kg per hectare for the English growers but, all told, it is a much better scheme for determining the level of arable area payments made to specialist cereal growers to which my hon. Friend referred.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of Forestry Commission land in England is accessible to the public.

There is general access to Forestry Commission land subject only to legal constraints or considerations of safety.

Although I welcome that statement and although we are all grateful that the Government have been forced to do a U-turn on the privatisation of the Forestry Commission as a result of effective public pressure from all parts of the community, does the Minister agree that there is an awful lot of private forestry land that is inaccessible for public use, although all Forestry Commission land is open to public use? Will she therefore seek to prevent any further piecemeal sell-offs of Forestry Commission land and, indeed, ensure that public access is gained to the land which has been sold by the Forestry Commission?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that access to land—legitimate access to land—is very important. I hope that he will welcome the fact that, in their reforms, the Government have proposed a £0.9 million budget to enable the Forestry Commission to buy land to which, at the moment, it is difficult to gain public access. That will enable the commission to provide greater access so that people may legitimately use the land.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is legitimate concern about access to woodland in many respects and that most people—I accept that there are a few exceptions on the Opposition Benches—would like that access to be arranged with co-operation rather than confrontation? My constituency contains the royal forest of Dean and other areas of woodland which could, in the fullness of time, be sold off. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, where Forestry Commission land is sold, there are discussions with the purchasers to ensure that, with their co-operation, access to those woods continues?

I can assure my hon. Friend that that is part of the Government's proposal and we shall do all that we can to ensure that it is enforced. As a former chairman of the Rights of Way Review Committee, I can assure my hon. Friend that the way forward in relation to access to land is through co-operation and not just through opening the floodgates for people to roam wherever they wish.

Does the Minister's answer mean that the Government admit that they made an historic blunder in privatising Forestry Commission land without providing for public access? In view of that concession, will the Government go further and restore access to many of the thousands of acres to which public access is no longer available?

I have already identified the respects in which the Government are not only supporting the proposal to increase public access but putting money behind it. We shall continue to do that.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Dispatch Box. Does she agree with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who recently said that there should be a right to roam, or with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), who suggested that there were obviously some parts of the countryside where one could not wander?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I would not wish to exacerbate the already widening gap on the Opposition Benches, but I certainly think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) had it right.

Is not much of the land that has been sold by the Forestry Commission very accessible to local people in the sense that it comprises small woodlands which are near human habitation and useful for recreation? Is it not the case that most of those areas do not have access agreements? Access agreements can be drawn up with local authorities, but they need the money to do that. Authorities have many other things on which to spend their money. Will the Minister assure the House that the money will be available for those agreements?

Access agreements are important. Giving local authorities the funds to co-operate in that regard and giving them the time to make the arrangements are part of the Government's plan.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to improve the conditions of farm animals in transit; and if he will make a statement.

I announced on 14 September a new measure to improve protection of the welfare of animals in transit, in particular those for export. This would give us the capacity, if evidence was available, to prosecute in Britain hauliers who had not looked after their animals properly on journeys, even though those journeys were abroad.

I welcome that answer, but will my right hon. Friend continue to press for an effective Europe-wide animal transport licensing and enforcement system? Can he give us any assessment of when our European partners, particularly the French, are going to take the matter as seriously as he clearly does?

The measures that I have proposed go as far as we can on a national basis within the treaty of Rome. Incidentally, they will enable us to prosecute some of those frightful cases which were investigated—for example, by ITN—if evidence is brought in this country. However, the real task is to obtain Europe-wide licensing of the kind that my hon. Friend mentioned. A group of countries—I am sorry to say a minority—in the Council is in favour and we are a firm part of that group. However, others, including France, have not taken that view. It would be most helpful if they would.

I welcome the steps that the Ministry has already taken to improve the welfare of animals in transit but does the Minister agree that it is preferable that animals be transported to the nearest meat plant for processing and slaughter, but that a blanket ban on the export of livestock could seriously damage our successful trade in exporting pedigree breeding stock?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. The greater part of our trade is already in carcase meat. I believe that the steps that are now being taken to ensure that the trade expands are the right steps. They bring jobs, apart from anything else, to the United Kingdom. However, it would be very unfair to British farmers—who already, in most cases, have the highest standards in Europe—if unilateral action against them led to damage to them from pressure groups legitimately targeting standards in other parts of Europe which are very much lower. That is quite apart from the long-standing trade in thoroughbred exports and racehorses, for example, with which nobody is proposing to interfere.

Is not it a fact that if, for whatever reason, customers are deprived of supplies of live animals from United Kingdom sources, they are likely to turn to other countries whose animal welfare standards are infinitely worse, and that there will be much more suffering for live animals?

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. It would be paradoxical if, in order to express anxiety about the subject here, steps were taken that led to a net loss in the standards of animal welfare because of the importation into our previous markets of animals from central Europe. I fear that the conditions in which such animals would have been reared and transported would be likely to be much lower.

I add my congratulations to the Minister on his new post. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is widespread public concern about live animal exports for slaughter? Indeed, live animal exports are also exporting British jobs from the meat industry as well. Will the right hon. Gentleman look carefully at some of the more dodgy schemes to beat the ferry ban, such as flying live cows from a Humberside airport in old eastern bloc military transport planes? I hope that the Minister will make available to the House his vets' report on those trial flights.

The greater part of our trade, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, is already in carcases. It is wise that that trade should expand. However, I have no power to ban live exports. I have power to ensure that any live exports take place under strict welfare conditions. As for the Hull flight to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I am very happy to send to him, or to place in the Library of the House, the account of the vets from my Department who travelled with it. It was, I am advised, satisfactory. I will not allow—not that I would be able to persuade them to do it—vets in my Department to cut any corners whatsoever in the maintenance of proper standards, but if they are proper standards, that is a legal trade.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the EU Agriculture Commissioner in respect of beef.

I have already had three meetings with Commissioner Steichen, the first one on 5 September at my request, at which those issues were raised.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the beef sector is very important to the farmers of Herefordshire and the marches? What progress has my right hon. Friend been able to make towards relaxation of the rules on trade which were imposed by the European Commission, particularly as they relate to the younger animal?

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. With the shape of the BSE epidemic now moving in the way in which it is, it would be fair to take action in relation to young animals. I have raised that matter with the Commissioner and I have some hopes of progress. I will report to my hon. Friend and to the House more widely on how the negotiations go.

I add my welcome to the Minister. How appropriate it is to have a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with his own herd of mad cows. Can he give an assurance that he has not been giving any of his home-made beef pies to Baroness Thatcher recently?

Whether or not I have a herd of mad cows, that is much happier than being a Leader of the Opposition with a herd of mad Back Benchers behind me.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he 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, including the dairy sector.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the arrangements for Milk Marque will not have an adverse effect on dairy farmers' incomes, particularly in the early stages if payments have to be reduced?

The new arrangements put the industry in the proper position of negotiating price and supply between the producers and the manufacturers. That is much more satisfactory. If there were to be abuse by anybody within that market, it would be for the competition authorities to sort it out. I was pleased that the courts ruled that the system should be put in place and that there should be no further delay in the vesting day, because it would have thrown the industry into great confusion if there had been. I believe that the new system will bring benefits to the consumer and to producers, although undoubtedly it will take some time to settle down properly.

Surely the Minister is aware of the statement by his predecessor that Dairy Crest would definitely be floated before deregulation on 1 November. As we assume that that will not take place, can he give us some idea of when flotation will occur? Is it the case that the Director General of Fair Trading is likely to refer Milk Marque to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission before Christmas? What will the Minister do to prevent the new free market arrangements from damaging profitability, investment and jobs in the dairy industry?

Any potential reference by the Director General of Fair Trading is entirely a matter for him. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for the flotation of Dairy Crest. However, he will have seen stories in the newspaper yesterday of various proposals. Many scare stories have been put about on this matter. The most obvious of them is that anything in these changes is likely to affect the price of a pint of milk on the doorstep. There is no reason for that at all. The price of liquid milk changes by less than half a penny. If we find companies—as some of them have said that they will do—putting up the price of a pint of milk on the doorstep by 3p or 4p, that is nothing to do with these changes.

Will my right hon. Friend give an absolute assurance, with regard to the disgraceful fiddling of milk quotas by the Italians, that under no circumstances whatever will we agree to the retrospective legislation proposed by the European Commission, the effect of which would be to relieve the Italians of the penalties that they have incurred? Furthermore, can he ensure that we will not withdraw the legal action in the Court of Justice, especially as the issue on which it largely turns is the insistence by the Italians that in return for all this, they will withdraw their opposition to the veto on the own-resources legislation?

What really matters is bringing home to the Italians in financial terms the fact that they abused their quota position for many years and they must be made to pay for it.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European counterparts about the potential implications for the common agricultural policy of the enlargement of the EU.

EFTAn enlargement is unlikely to have major implications for the common agricultural policy. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear to the House, however, fundamental changes to the CAP will be needed before the eastern European countries can join the European Union.

Does the Minister accept the concerns of the NFU and many others that accession of eastern European and central European countries to the European Union will not enable the present common agricultural policy to survive? Does he believe that the policy review committee that he announced at the Tory party conference last week will be able to get a deal accepted by Europe which will give a fair deal to consumers and producers in the years ahead?

That must be the objective, and there are beginning to be some signs of thinking in the European Commission which runs in the way that the House would like. For example, shortly, a report known as the Munk report will be published. If the FinancialTimes preview of that is correct, the report goes very much in the sort of direction that the hon. Gentleman and I would both like. However, we should not overestimate the difficulties on the way. We have a huge task in persuading the majority of other countries in the present Community of the need for radical reform. That is why it is unwise for Labour Members to talk so much in terms of consensus in the European Union; sometimes, we need to disagree and change attitudes. [Interruption.]

Order. The House must settle down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members may say "Hear, hear" but I wish that conversations were less noisy.

Can my right hon. Friend, to whom I extend a welcome to his new responsibilities, give us an assurance that the extension of the European Community will have no impact on milk quotas? He is aware that this country is not self-sufficient in liquid milk. Will he therefore ensure that we do not surrender any of our quota and that we continue to press for the cross-border transfer of quotas which would assist this country?

I do not think EFTAn accession will have much effect on that, but my hon. Friend makes a sensible and important point. The way forward must be to seek quotas that are tradeable across national boundaries. There is a long way to go to persuade some of our colleagues in Europe of the necessity of that, because some of them do not have tradeable quotas within their own countries, but that is my objective. Most hon. Members on both sides of the House who are interested in this matter will probably want to support me on that.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has in respect of arrangements for set-aside land.

New proposals to develop alternative non-food use crops which can be grown on set-aside land have been published, and we have launched the countryside access scheme.

Will the Minister confirm that taxpayers subsidise farmers to grow less food, thus bringing up prices; subsidise farmers to grow food regardless of the yield; subsidise farmers with a guaranteed minimum price; subsidise farmers by their intervention stores; and then consumers—the taxpayers—have to pay increased prices in the shops? When will he stop the income support scheme for farmers, many of whom are millionaires? The set-aside scheme was designed to cut food production by 50 per cent., but it does not do that. When will the right hon. Gentleman act against the common agricultural policy, before it collapses under the weight of its own unfairness, futility and stupidity? [Interruption.]

Order. I asked for the co-operation of the House less than five minutes ago, but it would appear that I am not receiving it. I expect the support and co-operation of the House—not a lot of "Hear, hears" and continued conversations.

The hon. Gentleman has been exercising a certain right to roam away from the facts of what we have been up to. As my right hon. Friend has said, we have pressed forward in pursuit of realistic reforms of the common agricultural policy. We have pressed forward reforms of the set-aside scheme too. I am singularly disappointed by the fact that the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the measures that we have taken to encourage set-aside for alternative, non-food uses. His failure to acknowledge, for instance, the short rotational coppice scheme is lamentable.

I warmly welcome the promise given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to set up a CAP policy review group—an important initiative taken by the Government for the future of agriculture. Will my hon. Friend ensure that part of the remit of that group will be to nail the lie, by means of proper research, about the link between agricultural price support and food prices—the sort of nonsense that we have heard talked about by the Labour party today?

I agree. The Opposition line is to end the common agricultural policy, pull the rug from under British farmers and not think about the consequences. They talk about a burden of £20 a week per family imposed by the CAP, but the figure is not valid because nobody knows what world prices would be in a world without the CAP. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall adopt a realistic view of reform.

When English farmers alone receive more than £140 million in set-aside payments, do not people have the right to expect better conservation measures, an improvement of the landscape and better access to the countryside in return for that money?

The hon. Gentleman must have been asleep when I was answering questions earlier. I said that, in the financial year 1995-96, we shall spend about £100 million on a range of environmental measures designed to achieve a better balance between farming and conservation.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet small farmer; in Basildon to discuss problems of small dairy farms.

I am happy to have such a meeting the next time that I am in Basildon.

While I welcome the news that my hon. Friend will be visiting my constituency, will he kindly tell me how the new arrangements for marketing milk will benefit small dairy producers in Basildon?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the basis for his question, which is clearly fighting for the safeguarding of the doorstep pinta. I understand that, under the new arrangements, farmers who bottle their own milk will be relieved of having to pay 1.5p a pint in levy to the milk marketing board, which will make those excellent doorstep deliveries so much more competitive under the new regime.

Time's up. Questions to the Prime Minister. I call Michael Clapham.

Give him the money.

Order.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 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.

When did the Prime Minister first become aware of the allegations against the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith)? What has he done about it, especially in relation to the Minister who has not resigned? Can he give the House an assurance that no other members of his Government are involved in corruption?

With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I shall reply in detail to each of those points, for I think that the House would wish me to do so.

How much did he offer?

Order.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

I immediately made it perfectly clear that those matters would be fully investigated and asked the Cabinet Secretary to undertake an independent and full investigation. He has been doing so and he is continuing to do so.

Following on from that, will my right hon. Friend now arrange for the Audit Commission to conduct investigations into allegations made in the newspapers of corruption by Labour-controlled Birmingham city council—the allegations being that it corruptly used millions of pounds to buy votes in marginal wards?

There have been allegations of that sort against local authorities before and I believe that, as with hon. Members of this House, such allegations deserve to be properly investigated by the proper authorities.

While we note the resignation of one Minister and we await the outcome of the inquiry into the other, does the Prime Minister understand that today's allegations can no longer be seen as isolated incidents, but that his Government are becoming tainted? If he is serious about standards in British public life, will he now respond specifically to three proposals, which I shall put to him? First, that no Minister who has privatised a company should subsequently end up on its board; secondly, that he publish a list of all members of quangos, their payments, perks and any position with any political party; and thirdly, that the cash for questions inquiry now be broadened, made deeper, held in public and made fully independent so that the confidence of the British people in their Government can begin to be restored.

As I have said in the House on previous occasions and repeat now, I am determined to ensure high standards of probity right across government, and I will not tolerate anything less than the highest standards of behaviour. Special standards are required of those in public life and special sacrifices must be made by people when those standards in public life are not kept.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in pursuit of his clear commitment to deal with the issue, there is an extremely important role for the House of Commons Privileges Committee as set up by a motion agreed in the House? Will he confirm that it is not a matter of innuendo or allegation but one of thorough investigation, which the Privileges Committee can do, and that not only the Committee's report but the evidence, in full, which the Privileges Committee obtains, will be published? Is not that an objective to be proceeded with, rather than distorted by walk-outs by Opposition right hon. and hon. Members?

My hon. Friend is right about that. For a long time we have had our own method of dealing with such issues—the Privileges Committee. When it has taken evidence and reported, it is right for the House then to take decisions. I regret very much indeed that Opposition Members have decided not to continue with their work on that Committee, because I believe that if such Committees do not operate properly, with cross-party support, that will do great damage to the House of Commons as an institution.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise just how disappointed many people will be by the inadequate answers that he gave to the three specific questions put to him by the leader of the Labour party? Does not he realise that neither the House nor the people will be satisfied with the results of inquiries held in secret? Does not he understand that the interests of the country, his Government and the House would now be served by an independent and impartial re-examination of the standards that are required of those who hold public office in a modern democracy like ours?

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to fail to understand how the Committees of the House operate. I would have thought that he, as a Privy Councillor, would have understood that rather better. We have had a long tradition of cross-party Committees, like the Privileges Committee, dealing with such matters. The decision of some hon. Members not to serve on that Committee is unprecedented. They should serve on it. That Committee will take evidence. It will publish its report—there will be nothing secret about it—and it will be debated here, in the House. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said earlier about that. I hope that he now has heard and that he now understands. I hope that he will now continue the traditions that the House has long followed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there would be widespread support throughout the country for a mandatory identity card scheme?

As my hon. Friend will know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said that he proposes to consult about the possibility of an identity card scheme, either a voluntary or mandatory one. We shall wish to listen carefully to what people say in response to that consultation. There is a substantial case to be made for one, although practical difficulties must be overcome. If we have one on a smart card basis, it will allow Opposition Members to record their conservative principles on it.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

Let me return the Prime Minister to the question of sleaze at the heart of government. Has he seen the astonishing report in today's press that his predecessor, Lady Thatcher, ordered GCHQ to pay foreign intelligence to spy on two members of her own Cabinet whom she suspected of disloyalty to her? [Interruption.] If only for the sake of her fellow travellers who are still members of the right hon. Gentleman's own Cabinet, will he give the House the assurance that he, at least, has discontinued that dishonourable practice? More importantly, will he give the House the assurance that he will order a full and independent investigation of that latest allegation so that those responsible for that perversion of the democratic ideal are brought to book before the British people?

The fact that, in the middle of his question, the hon. Gentleman could not even keep a straight face shows just how seriously everybody in the House regards the absolute absurdity of that allegation. Does not it show that the present frenzy of ludicrous rumours sweeping around deserve to be investigated and then cast aside because they are total nonsense? I am glad that the hon. Gentleman illustrated the sheer absurdity of many of the things that are currently being said and apparently being taken seriously by Opposition Members. I shall give him one answer to his question on that particular allegation: it is claptrap.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

As my hon. Friend knows, I have always gone softly, softly in Prime Minister's questions, unlike the lot opposite.

The answer is, no I am not, but if anybody wishes to make any allegations, I am happy for the Committee of Privileges to investigate them. I trust that everyone will attend the Committee.