To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to learn about the view of organisations with rural interests as part of the rural White Paper exercise.

My Department and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment wrote to a wide range of organisations in November inviting them to submit their views. Officials are also conducting meetings with a wide range of organisations, which will include a series of regional seminars involving Ministers from both Departments. The first of these will take place next month.

Has my right hon. Friend heard views expressed similar to those expressed to me by farmers in my constituency, to the effect that they are very much against the veal crate system but feel that the blame lies fairly and squarely with nations on the continent? What has he done to persuade those nations to abolish the veal crate system, which is damaging the image of British farmers?

I attended the Agriculture Council meeting on Monday, where I put on the agenda the proposal that the review of the veal crate system—proposed for review in 1997—should be brought forward immediately. I am happy to say that I had widespread support for that in the Council, and the Commission will now bring forward the review.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the welfare of animals prior to slaughter.

We are consulting on improved standards and are introducing on 1 April 1995 the national meat hygiene service, which will result in uniform standards and lower costs.

Despite what the Minister said a few moments ago about the veal crate system, was not an answer given in the European Parliament, after his meeting in Europe, to the effect that the review will not start until at least two years hence? By that time, at least 1 million more British calves—including calves from the right hon. Gentleman's farm—will have suffered under this appalling system.

Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. I know that a Labour Member of the European Parliament told him what he has just reported about the French Minister's remarks, but I have been in touch with the French Minister's cabinet—

What does that mean?

It means Cabinet in French.

Will my right hon. Friend continue his robust efforts to achieve a Europe-wide solution to the problems of veal crates and of the transportation of live animals for slaughter to prevent English exports from being replaced by a flood of imports from former Iron Curtain countries, with animals travelling longer distances under worse conditions? What steps does he intend to take to encourage the slaughter of animals in British abattoirs and the export of meat on the hook, not on the hoof?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a bigger prize than securing the improvement that we secured by banning the use of veal creates in our own very small veal trade—securing a ban right across Europe. My hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that if we do not do so the animals will turn up from somewhere and these practices will continue. That surely is not what we want.

May I press the Minister on the latter part of his answer? In the light of recent figures given to me by the Ministry showing that the number of abattoirs in this country has halved in the past 15 years because so many small and local abattoirs have been forced out of business, what steps does the right hon. Gentleman have in mind to try to reduce livestock journeys within the United Kingdom? What steps does he propose to take to assist the industry to encourage home slaughter and home market development?

We can take a range of steps, and I shall announce some more next week. Nowhere in the United Kingdom is there not a slaughterhouse within a satisfactory distance of farms in the neighbourhood. I know that there are problems in some areas of the south-west, but if one draws circles on the graph one finds that there is no need for excessive journey times to those slaughterhouses. There are further measures that we can take—support for marketing and so on—to develop a humane trade here and alternative uses for those calves.

As the matter has recently been raised in the House, will my right hon. Friend put on record and clarify the position concerning the restarting of the live animal export trade in 1975?

With your indulgence, Madam Speaker, I should like to correct one point. On 19 January, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) accused me of misleading the House. He said:

"The House was thus misled by the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, West".—[Official Report, 19 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 865.]—

Order. The Minister should be given every opportunity to answer the question that he was asked, and he is now doing so.

First, the hon. Gentleman did not do me the normal courtesy of warning me that he intended to raise the point and accuse me of misleading the House, but I shall let that pass. Secondly, I said no such thing. Hansard does not report me as saying anything about the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, so he is wrong on that point. Thirdly, if I had said that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East had voted to restart the trade, I would have been right.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new initiatives he has to increase the proportion of home-grown fruit and vegetables consumed in the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend and my ministerial colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote the virtues of home-grown fruit and vegetables.

What possible justification can there be for Britain importing 17 out of every 20 items of fresh fruit and almost a quarter of the fresh vegetables that are on sale in shops? Does the Minister share my concern when he shops in any big supermarket and sees rack after rack of foreign produce? What is he doing in his discussions with the big food retailers to ensure that they boost sales of British fruit and vegetables?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asks that question. I held a meeting at the Ministry with all the major supermarket buyers to extol to them the virtues of buying British fruit, and I can confirm that, during the current Cox season, cheap imports from Holland were offered to supermarkets but they declined them. They are putting their money where their mouth is. The Ministry is spending at least £3 million on research into ways of extending seasons in the United Kingdom and to improve availability of home-grown produce. Our marketing development scheme and my horticultural project place a high priority on promoting our own excellent fruit and vegetables.

My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the most important home-grown vegetables is sugar beet, and the House will be aware that my hon. Friend is involved in negotiations in Europe on sugar beet quotas. I urge my hon. Friend to stand firm on behalf of all British sugar beet farmers to ensure that their quotas are not reduced.

My hon. Friend attended European Standing Committee A yesterday, where I hope he heard me make a robust defence of British sugar beet growers. The Government do not believe that their quotas should be reduced. Any quota reductions should be visited upon those who produce more than their domestic consumption. My right hon. Friend will robustly follow that line in the Agriculture Council.

Does the Minister recognise that those who produce fruit and vegetables under glass in Britain gain nothing like the same assistance with and benefits from energy prices as their counterparts on the continent? Will he ensure that our producers get a fair crack of the whip and have a fair market for their products in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman, who represents Burnley, had better get down to the west Lancashire plain and ask growers about the innovative methods that they are employing not only to save energy but to secure it at lower prices. The old days when the Dutch had a gas subsidy are well and truly ended, and British growers are becoming adept at buying energy economically.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department is doing to encourage environmentally sensitive farming.

We are expanding the range of schemes to encourage environmentally sensitive farming, and next year we plan to spend more than £100 million on such schemes in the United Kingdom.

As my hon. Friend is aware, Sheffield, Hallam and Peak park are interlinked. Will she confirm that rambling is to be encouraged but that the Labour party's policy of the right to roam will damage the countryside?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will be interested to know that, under the new countryside access scheme, which we introduced, 100 applications have been made and are being considered by the Agricultural Development Advisory Service. That will encourage the quiet use of the countryside through pursuits such as rambling and cycling on set-aside land. In the Peak parks and other such areas, we encourage responsibility among those who use and those who have stewardship of the countryside.

Will the Minister ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pays proper attention, as I believe the Department of the Environment may be doing, to the recent publication on biodiversity produced by the conservation bodies? For example, does she accept that nearly two thirds of the British skylark population has disappeared in the past 15 years or so and that such problems can be resolved only by the exercise of initiative by the Minister's Department and others?

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will support the habitat scheme, which is now in its first year and is particularly targeted at water fringe and marshlands. I hope that that will be the start of many other such schemes with a long-term option whereby they can be extended for up to 20 years. Certain species require such continuity to ensure that they and their habitats survive.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has further to promote British food.

We are working closely with food exporting firms and Food from Britain on a plan for vigorous promotion of British food and drink over the next three years.

As part of the promotion of British food abroad, will my hon. Friend undertake to point out how much tastier Stilton from Hartington in Derbyshire is than, for example, a plastic covered Dutch Edam cheese, how much more nutritious a British sausage is than a watery frankfurter and how infinitely preferable it is to eat a British Cox apple than a continental Golden Delicious, which has the texture of cotton wool?

My hon. Friend speaks with much justified pride about the speciality foods produced in her constituency. I am sure that we all recognise the contribution that speciality foods make not only to the taste and quality of United Kingdom food products, but to the export drive: Food from Britain is to spend £3 million on promoting such foods abroad.

Will the Minister consider setting aside a day on which to promote Yorkshire rhubarb?

The hon. Gentleman has set me a challenge, but I can tell him that, as a former cookery teacher, I could certainly help to support those who may wish to demonstrate the preparation of crumble, fruit compot made with rhubarb and a range of other wonderful recipes that would restore a traditional British food to its rightful place.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the future availability of British fish? Does she not believe that the recently published report by Sir Crispin Tickell argues strongly for the abolition of the common fisheries policy?

In last week's debate, both my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Minister of State clearly explained that, although my right hon. Friend is establishing a committee to examine the future of the common fisheries policy, my hon. Friend's suggestion that its abolition would somehow help to promote fish stocks is quite wrong. It would, in fact, lead to a free-for-all: we should be faced with not 40 Spanish boats but 250.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to end live animal exports from Britain.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for further regulating the export of calves for veal.

At the meeting of the Agriculture Council on Monday, I succeeded in getting the Commission to bring forward a review of the directive that legalises veal crates from 1997 to this year. I was also delighted to hear the presidency say that the Council would return to the subject of improvements in the rules of live animal transportations in general at the next meeting. I hope the Council makes as good progress on the latter point as on the former.

Does the Minister recognise that that simply is not good enough? The subject is being debated now because millions of people in this country and throughout Europe are appalled by the treatment of live animals during export, and want the practice to be stopped. Is it Government policy to stop the process by which live animals are exported in conditions of great cruelty and stress, and treated inhumanely?

I will take the same position—a brave and sensible position—as was taken by the previous Labour Government. It would be mad to say that no animals could be exported from this country; what is necessary is to ensure that the animals that are exported are exported under tight welfare controls. If animals could not be moved at all, some of those who are campaigning on the issue—although not the great mass of concerned people—would simply move to the next target, while farming in this country, Scotland and Wales would become impossible. A few miles of water do not mean that an animal cannot be moved safely if the proper standards are applied.

Does the Minister agree with the Liberal spokesman on these matters, who viciously condemned the actions of protesters at British ports when all that they were doing was advocating what the majority of British people believe in?

I believe that the Liberal spokesman described the welfare protesters as "naive, hysterical and counter-productive". There is a fringe attached to this movement, as to many other sensible movements, which ruins the cause by using violence and going much too far. It would be unwise of the House and of the Liberal spokesman not to recognise that there is widespread, genuine concern about this matter, but that should not mean, as has sometimes happened in the House in the past, that we over-react and completely ruin the conditions for farming in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We must ensure proper welfare and proper enforcement. That is what we need.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in their latter stages, the previous Labour Government sought to impede debate on a private Member's Bill on live animal exports—a fact that I mention incidentally because of the indignation generated in the last Session about progress on private Member's Bills?

Some such rows are fairly synthetic because I suspect that they depend on which side of the House one is on at the time. I do not think that this is a party issue, and it would be unwise for one party to claim that it has the monopoly of wisdom on it. Hon. Members on both sides of the House care about the issue. We must not be pushed by that genuine concern into such extreme measures that we make farming in Britain completely impossible.

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), is my right hon. Friend aware that, at the same time as the Liberal Democrat rural affairs spokesman was telling farmers that his party was not in favour of the ban on animal exports, Liberal Democrat councillors in my constituency were telling the townspeople that they were in favour of it?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. Mr. David Bellotti, who was briefly a Member of the House, took a very different line from the Liberal Democrat spokesman. That is the joy of being a Liberal: one can say anything one likes in any part of the country and it does not matter at all if all the others say something different.

May I return to the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Official Report of 19 January and explain that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was referring to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire,. West (Mr. Marland), who intervened during Prime Minister's Questions? May I set the record straight by explaining that in 1973, on a Labour motion, which was opposed by the then Conservative Government, live animal exports were banned. I voted for that motion.

I have never sought to attack the hon. Gentleman on this. He seems to have taken a perfectly sensible position throughout and it is generous of him to try to protect the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). However, it would have been decent of his hon. Friend to apologise. He said:

"The House was thus misled by the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)."—[Official Report, 19 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 865.]

I did not say that.

That is what Hansard records. We should be making a little progress if the hon. Gentleman said that Hansard had made up and printed a whole speech for no reason that is obvious to me.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best scenario for calves is for them to be slaughtered in British abattoirs, thereby increasing employment prospects and adding value? The worst scenario would be an immediate and unilateral ban because that would reduce the price of small Holstein calves to nil and they would be knocked on the head straight after birth.

I believe that my hon. Friend is right. To change a trade such as this, which has become established, will take some time. We must, first, secure a veal crate ban. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we want to encourage the export of meat on the hook. That would create jobs and would be better in welfare terms. If we were to kill small calves on the farm immediately they were born, it would not be satisfactory in welfare terms, and would not be acceptable to the British public or to the great majority of British farmers.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage the local marketing of fruit and vegetables.

The development, of local marketing of fresh fruit and vegetables is an objective of my horticulture project and of the marketing development scheme.

Is the Minister aware of the increased consumer interest in direct marketing, which brings the benefits of fresh produce, often organically produced, at competitive prices? There is also a better return for producers. Will the Government emulate the United States Government by funding research into improving direct marketing and by promoting it among consumers and producers?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that interesting development, as it has a particular application to rundown city areas. When my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) was Minister responsible for food, he visited the American version of what the hon. Gentleman described—the so-called "green markets" in New York. As a result of that, a project is now being undertaken in Knowsley on Merseyside and approaches are being made through the city challenge mechanism—introduced by this Government—to promote the introduction of that interesting scheme.

My hon. Friend is well aware that in my constituency, as in his neighbouring one, horticulture is an important industry. Will he confirm that his Department will continue to support those who are trying to improve the marketing of excellent British horticultural products?

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the work that we are doing. I commend to him and his growers the marketing development scheme. It has a £10 million budget over three years, it is the most flexible scheme that we have had and it is aimed at helping people in horticulture and in all branches of the food industry. It could be of benefit to the Blackpool area.

Is the Minister aware of the latest report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, which exposes the absurdity of supermarkets in Scotland selling milk from Dorset or ones in Evesham selling asparagus from Spain when there is a glut of the same product locally? If not, will he read that report and then provide maximum help for initiatives such as those mentioned already, which would benefit local producers, local consumers and the environment?

I am certainly aware of the line taken in that report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks a few moments ago. We have had an extremely good response to the marketing development scheme, which is designed to do precisely what he has suggested—as is the £12 million that we have spent on horticulture research and development. In an earlier answer, I also referred specifically to extending the seasonal availability of British produce, on which we are spending a targeted amount of £3 million.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has to improve animal welfare.

We have a very wide range of measures in place.

Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate the demonstrators at the three sites for their great courage and foresight? They are in advance of public opinion and have roused the Government's conscience. Had the Government listened to Compassion in World Farming 10 years ago, the changes could have been made in an orderly way, thus avoiding the problems of sudden change now faced by farmers.

Order. That is a total abuse of Question Time.

Action was under way before I arrived at the Department. My right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Education was leading the way with a shift in the Government's position and a move to the vanguard of the campaign to improve transportation. That proves that action was genuinely under way.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to many of those people that there is a considerable movement of animals between Scotland and the west country and between Scotland and other parts of country, and that that movement has been undertaken sensibly for many years, with full protection for animals although those journeys are often much longer than those taken by animals exported across the channel?

I do not believe that the occasional abuse that takes place in this country is the source of all the concern. We have reasonable rules, which are policed. The concern is not that one cannot move an animal humanely a reasonable distance—one can. The concern is to achieve better welfare standards in Europe. That must be done by changing European law. Otherwise, as I said earlier, the whole of British farming will come to a halt. If that happened, the same people who are campaigning and complaining now would be asking what we are doing to support British farming.

Does the Minister agree that one of the steps that could be taken to improve animal welfare would be to introduce a licensing scheme for animal hauliers and exporters? Does he think it acceptable that exporters such as Phoenix Aviation from Coventry should operate cargo planes without proper export permits, that Hall Farms of York should continue to export animals after being prosecuted for breaking journey time regulations, or that people like Richard Otley, who is exporting sheep through Brightlingsea, who has criminal convictions for animal cruelty, and who was arrested last week for deliberately provoking and abusing local people, deliberately flouted agreements with Brittany Ferries and is associated with people convicted for violence? Incidentally, he claims to have been approached to be a Tory candidate and to have the ear of the Prime Minister. Does the Minister agree that such people bring the livestock industry into disrepute?

I am slightly disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, who is a decent man, did not take the opportunity to apologise. Last week he said a range of things which turned out to be not quite right, so I should like to check all his allegations closely before I comment on them.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the European rules relating to abattoirs in England and Wales; with whom he or his subordinates last discussed these at the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.

In the last few months of 1994, a number of discussions took place between the Commission and member states about the fresh meat directive. Organisations representing the industry were kept fully informed. Last month's Agriculture Council agreed, in principle, a number of amendments to the directive which will give small abattoirs more flexibility in their throughput.

I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that it is highly desirable that animals should be slaughtered as near as possible to the point of production. With that in mind, may I urge the Minister to press for a further upward derogation of livestock units for smaller abattoirs at the next Agriculture Council?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have made considerable progress on behalf of small abattoirs. We shall obviously continue to consider how the new changes proceed. There are new abattoirs being built, as well as abattoirs that are having to close.

Will my hon. Friend continue to encourage the building of the new abattoirs? Will she remind Opposition Members that if the codes of practice for the rearing and slaughter of animals were introduced across Europe there would be a great advance throughout?

Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend on that: we all want high standards on an even playing field throughout the European Community.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent job losses in the dairy industry.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent job losses in the dairy industry.

The Government are contributing to that objective through their programme to improve the competitiveness of British industry and the £3.5 million that the Ministry spends annually on research and development in dairying.

I do not know whether the Minister has milk delivered to his doorstep, or whether he pays his own milk bill. If he does, he will be aware of the rising price of milk delivered to the doorstep. Is he aware that Dairy Crest, which has a plant in my constituency, is having to close plants across the country as a direct result—this has been stated by the chief executive—of the Government's deregulation of the dairy industry? What do the Government have to say today about the number of jobs that have been lost in the dairy industry as a direct result of deregulation?

On the latter point, I remind the hon. Lady that the number of people employed in the dairying industry has been falling. In 1984 it was 89,500, and by 1991 it was 72,300, which shows that there has been a decline in the consumption of milk and cream products. As for the rise in the price of milk, my local dairyman has benefited to the tune of 1.5p per pint from a reduction in the levy that he paid because there is no milk marketing board to pay, so he is pleased with the changes. Finally, the industry was carrying a great deal of spare capacity; as a result of the removal of the milk marketing board, there is now better utilisation of existing capacity, to the long-term benefit of the industry.

The Minister must be aware that Milk Marque now has a monopoly of the milk industry, and that, since the abolition of the milk marketing board cheese prices have increased substantially and continue to rise well above the rate of inflation. Is he also aware that the spot market is controlled by Milk Marque, which is exporting cheap milk from mainland Britain to keep prices high? What is he doing to help dairy producers who have to meet high costs for their raw material and whose product is undercut by the abolition of the milk marketing board, thus causing job losses in the milk marketing industry?

I am disappointed that, in his enumeration of various problems, the hon. Gentleman did not also point out some of the positive aspects of the changes that were introduced. For instance, many cheese producers used to have an on-off supply under the old arrangement, but now they can have certainty of supply. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts more carefully before accusing Milk Marque of having a monopoly in the milk industry, as companies such as Northern Food Partnership, Nestle and many other purchasers of milk would fundamentally disagree.

Is my hon. Friend aware that last year British dairy farmers were penalised in comparison with their European competitors because of the way in which the butter fat in their milk was measured, which resulted in their being well above their quota? What is he doing to level the playing field?

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter, which has also been raised by a number of my local farmers. Work is under way to examine some of the variable results that have been recorded. I stress that the tests which used to be carried out by the milk marketing board and the Agricultural Development Advisory Service are both approved by the Commission.

Will my hon. Friend press the European Union to allow milk quotas to be traded across national frontiers within the Community so that our efficient dairy farmers can obtain a higher quota and supply the milk that our processors need?

My hon. Friend, who speaks with the knowledge gained from a farming constituency, is absolutely right. We have one of the most developed markets for the movement of surplus quota, to the benefit of all our dairy farmers, and we are campaigning for a much more flexible approach to cross-Community transferability of quota. We shall continue to pursue that objective vigorously.

Will the Minister acknowledge that, as a direct result of deregulation, creameries have closed at Stranraer, Longridge and Whitland, as well as a number of small niche English cheese makers? How much capacity and how many jobs will be lost before the Government recognise the seriousness of the situation?

Sometimes the hon. Gentleman's synthetic rage overwhelms me. If he is truly concerned about the future of jobs in the dairy industry, perhaps he will join me in reviewing the claim for increased wages—above the rate of inflation—made by trade unions representing the dairy trade. They asked for two extra days holiday, a reduction in the working week, increases in weekend premiums and night rate allowances and—believe it or not—the setting up of a pan-European social partnership committee. Is that the way to safeguard jobs in the dairy industry?

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.

My right hon. Friend the Minister regularly meets representatives of all sides of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss issues of importance to them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that farmers in my constituency—[Interruption.]—are concerned about reports of black market trading in milk? Will he give an assurance that vigourous action will be taken against anyone indulging in such practices?

The importance of my hon. Friend's question was clearly acknowledged by cheers from the Labour Benches. I can certainly assure him that the intervention board is taking seriously the information that has come to hand about black market trading in milk. The fraud line which has been established has already received more than 100 calls on the matter. The investigations are complex, but they are being carried out with vigour.

Is the Minister aware that, under the Milk Marque regime, a farmer who leases his quota must have his documents approved by the intervention board before they can be passed on to the quota broker and that that is currently taking two months whereas under the milk marketing boards it used to be done in a week? As it is causing a great deal of hardship for farmers, will the Minister look into the matter and see what can be done to speed up the process?

I can do one better than that for the hon. Member: I have already been down to the .intervention board to investigate the situation. It is true that there were delays towards the end of last year. The only remaining documents to be processed are those related to the extension for lease transfers that we gave to the end of the year. All other matters are now up to date, and a good level of service can be expected.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Does the Prime Minister think that Cedric Brown of British Gas is worth his huge pay increase—yes or no?

I think that is a matter for the shareholders.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since his answer in this House on Tuesday, public bewilderment and, indeed, outrage over the fate of Private Clegg has increased? Will he give the House an assurance that he and his Ministers will do all in their power to bring this injustice to a speedy end?

I set out the position in the House on Tuesday and how that should be developed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will have to consider any new evidence put to him and decide first whether that is sufficient to warrant a further reference to the Court of Appeal. In the meantime, the proper procedures—which I outlined at length on Tuesday and, with my hon. Friend's permission, will not repeat—have now begun.

What does it tell us about the Prime Minister's Government when his Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") Conservative Members may agree with that, but precious few people in the country do. [Interruption.] There they are—the Tory yobboes. What does it tell us when the Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more—

Your pay has doubled. What about barristers and wives' earnings?

Order. I have called the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) to order on many occasions before. I shall not be so lenient in future.

What does it tell us, when the Prime Minister's Secretary of State for Social Security says that Ministers should be paid more and that Back-Bench Members of Parliament should have more directorships and consultancies, while at the self-same time the same Social Security Minister is introducing a law that will savage mortgage protection for the unemployed?

The right hon. Gentleman is taking a very puritanical view, in view of the number of special interests that so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends have, including a number of his hon. Friends on the Front Bench. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, there is a proper procedure for setting ministerial salaries and the salaries of Members of this House. It is based on a widely accepted formula, it has been approved by this House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is entirely happy with that formula.

Is it sensible to cut mortgage protection when home owners are already facing rising interest rates and cuts in mortgage tax relief? Do the Prime Minister and his party not understand that we shall never build a strong and prosperous Britain by deliberately passing laws designed to make our people weak and insecure?

The right hon. Gentleman has obviously forgotten the policy commitments of his own party. For example, in view of what he has just said, he may have forgotten that on MIRAS—mortgage interest relief at source—one of the Labour party's own policy groups threatened to abolish the allowance entirely The right hon. Gentleman clearly belongs to that species of politician which believes that the facts are for bending whenever convenient.

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the fairer and more reasonable approach that we shall now receive from the Child Support Act 1991, the purpose of which was never in doubt, but the application of which caused very considerable concerns?

There has never been any doubt about the principle that parents should support their own children, provided that they are able to do so. That principle is accepted widely in this House and beyond. The changes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has now put in place will enable the agency to work in the manner that we would all wish to see.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

The Prime Minister is well known as a fan of the Commonwealth and a supporter of India. He will therefore know Gandhi's dictum that there is enough in the world for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed. I have that written here; if I give it to the Prime Minister framed, will he put it on the wall in the boardroom of No. 10 Downing street?

I think that everyone who heard that intervention, and the millions who may have watched it on television, will form their own judgment of its value.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Worcester Royal Infirmary trust on the significant improvement in the health care that it is delivering in my constituency? That is a tribute to the health care reforms, to the resources that the Government are making available and to the dedication and professionalism of all the trust's staff. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to continue those improvements is by the early construction of a new district general hospital, using the private finance initiative?

I am very pleased to hear from my hon. Friend about the excellent health services provided in Worcester. That is mirrored in many places across the country. Private finance certainly offers a cost-effective way of funding new hospitals and new developments. It is entirely right to explore that.

As there is not to be a statement to the House today, will the Prime Minister confirm that the White Paper on the civil service proposes a civil service code and an independent appeals system and that it keeps open the Government's mind about whether those should be backed by statute? Does he agree that the Government's adoption of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's constitutional agenda is a vindication of the Select Committee system?

I think that there is very wide support for the Select Committee system across the House and beyond it. The White Paper will command the very broad respect and support of hon. Members across the House on the points that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and on several others.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are about to place orders for support helicopters for the Royal Air Force? As the two contenders—the Boeing Chinook and the Westland EH101—meet the specifications required by the Ministry of Defence, does he agree that a mixed fleet solution would best provide for the needs of our armed forces and also be best for British industry as it would improve the already good prospects for the sale of the Westland EH101 helicopter in overseas markets both in its civil version and in the many military versions that will become available?

Negotiations with the companies concerned in relation to support helicopters are still continuing. I hope that we will be able to make a decision as soon as possible, but all the information upon which to base that decision is not yet available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear in the past the potential advantages of a mixed fleet to meet the Army's requirements for support helicopters. Of course, that will be borne carefully in mind when we are in a position to make a final decision.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

In so far as it is now over six months since The Sunday Times exposed the illegal activities of the so-called noble Lord Archer, Conservative peer—insider-dealing activities in Anglia shares—and in so far as it is quite clear that it is utterly impossible successfully to prosecute what we all know to be criminal activity, is there now going to be a review of the law in this area? [Interruption.] Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the last part of his question. He must not use that language and thus associate this House and all of us with what he has just said. I must ask him to withdraw it or rephrase it, please. [Interruption.] Order. Leave it to me. Will the hon. Gentleman please rephrase what he has just said?

As against what?

The hon. Gentleman has associated all of us in this House. I heard it very clearly myself. I ask the hon. Gentleman to rephrase. I heard the words very clearly. [Interruption.] Order. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a moment to reflect. I am sure that he will do as I ask.

I always defer to you, Madam Speaker, as you would know. I refer to what many believe to be criminal activity, but in my view it is unacceptable activity.

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make those criticisms, I must now ask him to withdraw his remarks and to put them in an orderly substantive motion. I am asking him to rephrase what he has just said; otherwise I must ask him to leave this House for the remainder of this day's sitting.

I believe that it is criminal activity, and I will leave. I will leave the Chamber voluntarily.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend prepared to widen the remit of the Nolan committee to examine sleaze in the media? Does he not find it unacceptable that three television executives, Mr. Greg Dyke, Mr. Barry Cox and Mr. Melvyn Bragg, should pretend to be objective in setting the agenda while they bankrolled the leadership campaign for the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? As First Lord of the Treasury—[Interruption.]

Order. Sit down. I have.just brought one hon. Gentleman to order and dealt with him. I intend to do the same in future with any Member who behaves in that way. There are perfectly respectable ways of putting questions in this House. I will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to do that; otherwise he must now sit down.

I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, but there may be a distinction between what I am asserting and what the gentleman—[Interruption.]

Order. I will determine whether there is a distinction. The hon. Gentleman can put a substantive motion on the Order Paper if he is going to assert that. Will the hon. Gentleman re-think his question, or shall I call someone else?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the standards now being asserted as required of Members of this House on the sleaze question should also be applied to those in the media who may seek to influence events by means which should not be in their repertoire?

I think, Madam Speaker, that there would be a general wish for high standards in every aspect of public life, whether those concerned are elected or not.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the strong public feelings in regard to the animal welfare movement, especially in connection with the live transportation of animals for slaughter? Will he talk to his colleagues about giving parliamentary time to my private Member's Bill, which seeks to make the practice unlawful? Does he agree that it is far better for our excellent British livestock to be exported on the hook than to endure the treacherous and hazardous journeys on the hoof to which they are currently subjected?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that I made precisely the same point about the preference for export on the hook rather than on the hoof three or four Question Times ago. Beyond that, as he will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is making considerable progress, especially on veal crates in Europe. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend clearly has the hon. Gentleman's support.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important thing in local government is high standards of competence? Does he also agree that the gaff has been blown on the Labour party's activities in local government by the McKinstry memorandum?

That was certainly an enlightening document to read, and I hope that it will have wide circulation. When the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) asked a question some time ago he said that if we wanted to know how Labour would look in government we should look at how it runs local councils.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 26 January.

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

Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the conversion of many of his Conservative colleagues to an interest in miscarriages of justice? Will he also join me in hoping that that interest will extend to people who are not members of the Parachute Regiment, such as the three innocent people in the 18th year of their sentences for the Carl Bridgewater murder?

I do not propose to comment on the particular case; I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that it has been examined from time to time. On a more general point, I assure him that my hon. Friends are as concerned as he is to ensure that justice is faithfully and truthfully carried out.