To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to make common agricultural policy surpluses available for distribution throughout the United Kingdom by the intervention board in the same manner as existing surplus beef stocks are distributed. [20809]

The level of intervention stocks both in the United Kingdom and in the European Union as a whole has fallen dramatically and the introduction of additional disposal measures would not be justified.

Is the Minister aware that 160,000 tins of EC surplus beef are being delivered to my constituency tomorrow for distribution to my constituents? Will he join me in welcoming the actions of volunteers who are prepared to distribute that beef to my constituents? Does he further agree that it would be far better if the surplus butter and cheese currently held in stocks was distributed to my constituents, many of whom are also willing to help the Government reduce the EC wine lake by being prepared to dispose of some of the stocks personally?

I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in thanking all the voluntary organisations which give so freely of their time, energy and effort to ensure that the stocks can reach those eligible to receive them. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that we are spending the full allocation of £26 million on the distribution of beef. He may also not be aware that butter is not included because, since the changes in the common agricultural policy, we no longer have enough stocks to justify national distribution. At present there are only three days' equivalent stock in store in the United Kingdom.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that intervention stocks of beef, cereals and butter have been reduced dramatically since 1993? Will he give the percentage reductions and confirm that that is very good news for the taxpayer as it has reduced expenditure on intervention stocks under the common agricultural policy?

My hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in these matters, is absolutely right in his line of questioning. Compared with the peak in 1993, total expenditure on this budget head has dropped by 44 per cent. in terms of Community money for the disposal of surpluses. With regard to the specific areas that my hon. Friend requested, the answer is that there has been a 73 per cent. drop in cereals, a 95 per cent. drop in beef stocks and an 84 per cent. drop in butter stocks since 1993. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, if we carry on like that there will be no beef in intervention at the end of the year, which clearly brings the future of this type of disposal into question.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about fur farming. [20933]

Welfare conditions are monitored regularly by the State Veterinary Service on the basis of recommendations adopted by the Council of Europe. The Ministry is responsible for the issue of licences to keep mink in secure conditions.

Does the Minister accept that there is great concern among many people, including my constituents who are concerned about animal welfare, about keeping arctic foxes in cages? Should not that practice be banned immediately?

The hon. Lady will know that the Golding report of 1994, as considered by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, covered the question of arctic foxes. We have consulted on the matter and are currently considering whether further action is needed.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that every fur farm is visited by the State Veterinary Service to ensure that the very highest standards are maintained?

Yes, I can confirm that. In addition, they receive visits from the Agricultural Development Advisory Service in respect of their licensing conditions.

The Minister knows that I took evidence to one of her predecessors showing many clear examples of mink farms not following any acceptable standards. Why on earth do we allow fur farming in this country? It is a barbaric practice and we should stop it.

There are two key points. First, if the hon. Gentleman has evidence, I shall be happy to look at it again as I did not deal with the matter when he originally made his complaints. If he will furnish me with the evidence that he gave to my predecessor, I will look at the individual cases again.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to take forward the environmentally sensitive area scheme. [20934]

The scheme has been an outstanding success as I saw on recent visits to Halvergate marshes in Norfolk and the mountains of Mourne in Newry and Mourne.

My right hon. Friend will know that the environmentally sensitive areas in my constituency, and the farmers who care for them, are thankful for the grants that are being made and that not only is that good for farmers and the environment, but it is good for tourism. Will he look at the effects that the Agricultural Tenancies Bill will have on the way in which environmentally sensitive area levies and grants are paid to tenant farmers or to landlords or to a combination of the two, as that matter is causing some concern to many farmers locally?

I agree with my hon. Friend and many other people that the environmentally sensitive areas scheme has been an outstanding success. What started all those years ago in the Halvergate marshes became a European movement and was the beginning of the greening of agricultural policy more widely in Europe. We in this country, through individual campaigners such as Andrew Lees, academics such as Professor O'Riordan and even the Ministers who were involved at the time, take genuine pride in that.

Should a farmer be able to make a profit out of an environmentally sensitive area?

The object of the payments is to ensure that enough people join the scheme to make it work, so there has be to be an incentive element in it. The previous schemes were all based on compulsion, so yes, there should be an incentive to enable people to join voluntarily. Up and down the country, we have found that those who join voluntarily put far more into the schemes than those who are compelled.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of the number of live animals exported from the United Kingdom each year. [20939]

Export trends vary by species. The latest figures from the Meat and Livestock Commission showed that exports of calves fell in the last quarter of last year compared with the same period of 1993 and the figures for sheep indicate a sharper drop.

First, I deplore the outrageous letter bomb attacks on my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). Does my hon. Friend agree that a possible result of port-side mobs will be longer journeys for animals, and thus greater suffering, as well as the destruction of a legitimate livelihood for many farmers?

I am sure that my hon. Friend reflects the feelings of the whole House in deploring violence and terrorism in making a political point when in a democracy we have other, more suitable methods. With regard to the effect of demonstrations on animal welfare, my hon. Friend will know that officials from the Ministry and from trading standards departments would always ensure that if the welfare of animals at the point of departure had been so disrupted that it was felt necessary that they should not continue the journey, the necessary steps would be taken to ensure that the welfare of those animals was protected. My hon. Friend is quite right that windscreens being broken and lots of noise from thumping on the lorries cannot be in the interests of animal welfare.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek changes in the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement. [20940]

I will continue to press for improvements to the common agricultural policy at every suitable opportunity.

Does the Minister agree with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the common agricultural policy costs the average family in this country £28 per week? Is it not about time the Government took firmer action to scrap that policy, which is costing the taxpayer billions of pounds a year and leading to mountains of food going to waste and, last year alone, to more than £300 million being lost in fraud?

Figures of that kind are extremely difficult to be precise about. Subsequent calculations undertaken by my Department with the full agreement of the Treasury suggest that the sum is much lower—something like £4 a week. The whole basis of the figures is guesstimates about what will happen to world prices because of the dumping of agricultural products, and they are not a very satisfactory way to examine what will happen in future. I am not disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman—we want a far cheaper policy which is much nearer to the market. British farming is quite efficient enough nowadays to compete on the world market, and many aspects of the CAP are now inhibiting the gains in efficiency and proper farming practices. We should like people to be freer and freer to compete.

Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that on average the United Kingdom has much larger farms than many of our European Community partners, which sometimes means that we have different interests? Will he consider that aspect when he fights for British agriculture?

My hon. Friend is right. The history of British food production is entirely different from that in most of continental Europe. We have had a long tradition, going right back to the repeal of the corn laws, of fundamentally free trade in food, and the 1840s, 1850s and 1860s saw the departure from the land of a large number of people who had worked it. In many countries in Europe, that process has yet to be undertaken and there is a completely different land-holding structure as a result. My hon. Friend is right to say that we often find ourselves defending somewhat different interests from the rest of Europe.

Is the Minister aware of the fact that during a recent visit of the Select Committee on European Legislation the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) announced to a bemused Brussels audience that he did not want the CAP to be changed because it did too well for British farmers? Does the Minister share that view?

Notwithstanding my hon. Friend's important comments, the Government's position is that we want a policy which is cheaper for the consumer, which allows greater freedom to farmers not to have their business dictated by quotas and controls and which is cheaper for the taxpayer, too. I also believe that in such a world, if we can bring down agricultural subsidies in north America at the same time, British farming will do very well.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with his Department's environmental programmes. [20942]

My Department is making excellent progress on a number of environmental initiatives. We have recently added a new moorland scheme to the existing range of agri-environment schemes. We have also made significant progress in attaching environmental conditions to the common agricultural policy and in linking agri-environment and forestry schemes with set-aside.

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that, with no environmentally sensitive area in the North York Moors national park, the introduction of the moorland scheme will greatly help farmers and landowners there to conserve the much-valued heather and grouse moorland. Does not this initiative show that, while others talk of fancy ideas for conservation, it is the Government who are doing something practical? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that environmental schemes continue to be based on good science and proper and adequate compensation for loss of farm income?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. It is perfectly true that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, for example, and others have been, are and will remain strong supporters of these schemes. After all, the moorlands and uplands of England contain the only bird species that is entirely unique to the United Kingdom—the grouse—so it is a good idea to conserve them.

Is not the Minister's policy on the environment undermined by the privatised electricity companies retaining compulsory powers that they had when they were publicly owned, enabling them to string pylons across the countryside, which is cheaper than undergrounding, and to pay farmers peanuts in compensation for putting those unsightly pylons on their land?

I well remember the last great wave of pylon building, which happened during a period of Labour government. Very few of those great cables were put underground because of the expense involved. Nevertheless, individual schemes—I know that there is a controversial one, to which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is referring—will be looked at extremely carefully.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell the House a little more about his plans for putting trees on set-aside land? It is an excellent idea, on which he was active in European forums, and it is a much more constructive use of agricultural land than leaving it fallow.

I have made it one of my objectives, and we are making progress with it. The specialist committee examining the proposals has ironed out all the technical problems which remained. We now have to get the proposals through the Council of Ministers, and I have every confidence that we shall. It is a far better use of set-aside land than simply growing weeds.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to place dental health warnings on drinks with a high sugar content. [20943]

We have no plans to introduce labelling requirements of the type mentioned by the hon. Lady. If sugar is added, it must be mentioned in the ingredients list. Total sugar content may also be mentioned in the nutrition labelling panel.

Is the Minister aware that a typical carton of fruit juice aimed at children as young as four months contains the equivalent of 18 teaspoonfuls of sugar? Does she agree that that is contributing considerably to the deterioration in children's dental health? Does she not think that parents should be warned?

I certainly think that parents should be made aware of the dangers of any constituent in food which could have a dangerous effect on the health of anybody, whether young children or adults, if that is accurate. We seek to ensure that labelling is as comprehensive as possible, to inform people and to let them make informed decisions themselves.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is sufficient information on labels at present? On the sugar content of drinks and other foodstuffs and the link with dental caries, does she agree that the best way forward is to have more parental discipline, with children cleaning their teeth thoroughly morning, noon and night, and less interference by the nanny state? [Interruption.]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The new nanny state sits opposite us. Opposition Members jeer at the idea of parents giving their young children sensible advice and help in looking after their dental health. The cleaning of young children's teeth and gums with fluoride toothpaste is part of the programme that the Department of Health has initiated to make sure that we protect young children in a practical and sensible way.

Is the Minister aware that in Germany there are dental health warnings on all drinks that are marketed for children, including formula milk feeds? Why cannot we have similar warning labels to prevent the increasing scourge of infant tooth decay in this country?

Because this is not Germany. I admire the hon. Gentleman's last-ditch attempt to debate with me the rights and wrongs of infant formulae. He has had a full debate on the matter, and he has participated in an Adjournment debate, but he has not convinced me yet.

I assure my hon. Friend that the vast majority of parents in this country are probably already aware that sugar has a detrimental effect on teeth, and do not need a dental health label imposed by a regulating Labour Government to tell them so. My hon. Friend's reference to nuts was entirely appropriate in the context of that proposal, which shows that, for all the ditching of clause IV, the Labour party has lost none of its interfering, nannying attitudes.

My hon. Friend has summed up not only the Opposition's approach to the common sense of the British public but their indictment of the food industry in general. I agree that this is not a nanny state, and that so long as people receive the right information and can access it they are quite able to make the right decisions for themselves.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department has carried out on crops that can be grown for renewable energy purposes. [20944]

The Department is currently funding research on short rotation coppice, miscanthus and bio-diesel.

Perhaps the Minister could begin by taking the 50 per cent. tax off bio-diesel, thus getting a good headline on tax, for a change. Even more importantly, will the Ministry try to liaise better with the Department of Trade and Industry on coppicing so that renewable energy sources, which dramatically reduce levels of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide, can be produced?

As no product called bio-diesel, as such, is commercially available, it would be difficult to take a tax off it. It is typical of the Labour party's approach to invent a tax and then challenge the Government about what they intend to do about it. We are working closely with the DTI on coppicing, and the hon. Gentleman will know that we, with Sweden, are leaders within Europe in that respect. As for the so-called non-fossil fuel obligation—NFFO 3—three projects on short rotational coppice have now been approved. We are pleased about that because if the projects prove viable they will require the use of 9,000 hectares of land to produce the wood.

With reference to the earlier question about growing trees on set-aside land, have the Government been following the Swedish experience of growing short-life willow trees and using them to fuel power stations? Have the Government yet reached any conclusion about the viability of that?

I hope that I do not do the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, but when I was talking about short rotational coppice, I meant willow trees. As I said, 9,000 hectares of land would need to be farmed if the three projects technically approved under the NFFO 3 tranche of alternative energy sources come to fruition. If the promoters achieve financial viability, the opportunity to unlock the potential of the land using willow will be there.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new policies his Department has adopted following the last report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. [20945]

The report does not require any major adaptations to existing policies, but we shall take account of it as necessary.

Are not the Government treating that important committee report like an old limp chip—left in the wrapping, thrown in the bin and forgotten about—when the dietary health problems remain? Britain has one of the highest levels of heart disease among comparable western nations, and we also have a higher rate of premature death in both men and women. Dietary causes are among the reasons. Should not the Government take real action by giving a much higher profile to dietary health education and forcing food producers to put less fat and salt in their products?

The hon. Gentleman is such a dear old-fashioned thing. If he kept up to date with what is going on, he could not help noticing that the Government have produced "The Health of the Nation" White Paper, which not only comprehensively analyses what has happened, especially with regard to heart disease and fat intake in diet, but has set measurable targets. The food industry has been most helpful in trying to meet the targets. I do not know why all that has bypassed the hon. Gentleman, but that is what has actually been happening.

In view of my hon. Friend the Minister's robust reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin)—in which she rightly let us know that the Government are not seeking to interfere with the dietary requirements of individuals—would it not be better to consign the report to the bin, since mass caterers unfortunately tend to read it, unlike the rest of the population who carry on regardless?

Any member of the Government or the Opposition telling individuals what they should and should not eat is not the best way to influence them. We welcome the committee's report on nutritional aspects of cardiovascular disease as it provides a useful review of the science, and also suggests guidelines for dietary advice. People who are providing food for their families and themselves must take those decisions for themselves.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the second report of the Welsh Affairs Committee on the export of live animals; and if he will make a statement. [20946]

I welcome the Committee's thoughtful report, which rightly reflects the importance of a Community-wide agreement on animal welfare issues.

Does my hon. Friend recall the informative and persuasive evidence that she gave to the Committee on 8 March? Does she agree that the report clearly demonstrates the folly of giving in to anti-democratic forces, banning a legal trade, prejudicing the livelihoods of Welsh and other British farmers and—by destroying our influence in the debate in Europe—reducing, if not halting, progress towards an overall improvement in animal welfare standards?

I hope that my hon. Friend will understand when I say that it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail today on that excellent report as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will wish to comment in the usual way. We appreciate not only the Committee's report, but the support of others in recognising the need for a Europe-wide agreement on animal welfare, and on transport in particular. My right hon. Friend the Minister has worked tirelessly in seeking such an agreement. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish him well in his further negotiations at European Council meetings. This is the way forward in the protection of animals as we attempt to ensure that animal transport is of the highest possible quality.

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the Welsh Affairs Committee did not have the opportunity to see the recently published legal opinion from Gerald Barling QC, which was commissioned by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the International Fund for Animal Welfare? Since that opinion makes it clear that the Government can legally halt the export of calves to the continent, will Ministers stop using the European Union as an alibi and act to end the trade? How can it be right to export our calves into a system on the continent which is banned in this country on the ground of cruelty?

My right hon. Friend the Minister has gone to great pains to study the legal advice in the Barling recommendations. We shall, of course, give our official response to that when lawyers have had a chance to look at it in more detail, and they are doing that at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman is telling the House today that the Labour party has accepted the Barling report, we would be interested to know how he has arrived at that assessment. It suggests that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to accept legal advice from a third party. If he had the responsibility, however, he would know only too well that that legal advice does not stand up.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts he is making to seek a wholesale review of the current European Union fruit and vegetable regime. [20947]

The Agriculture Council discussed the Commission's "reflections" documents last October and we are pressing for firm proposals to be submitted quickly.

What action is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that the outcome of any such review will improve the competitive position of United Kingdom fruit and vegetable growers in Europe, particularly the growers of that peerless fruit the English apple, who are threatened by structural over-supply in Europe?

We have argued effectively for the complete dismantling of the so-called withdrawals mechanism, which is a waste of £500 million in Europe and causes over-production of apples, cauliflowers, tomatoes and other products where there is no clear market. For our part, we have assisted through various grants under the marketing development scheme. We also fought for the grubbing-up scheme to allow our apple industry to be restructured into a more competitive fighting force, to enable our apples to triumph on the supermarket shelves of this country.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that European Community milk quota rules are changed to allow trading in quotas across member states' frontiers. [20948]

We proposed the transferability of milk quotas between member states during the debate on common agricultural policy simplification, in last year's CAP price-fixing negotiations and in Council earlier this year, when I advocated transnational quota leasing. The European Court of Auditors made a similar recommendation two years ago, but there is, at present, no support for our ideas in the Council of Ministers.

Will my right hon. Friend keep on trying—it is essential for British dairy farmers and the dairy industry that he does so? Does he agree that it is wrong that farmers in member states who cannot use their quota should keep them, while farmers in this country are crying out for more?

I strongly agree with the implication behind my hon. Friend's question. It would make an inherently unsatisfactory system slightly better if areas within the European Community where it is natural to produce milk were able to obtain quota from other areas. Many other countries, however—especially the remaining countries with socialist Governments—administer their quota because they like the centralised power that it gives their governmental organisation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that milk quotas, combined with the deregulation of the milk industry that the Government brought into operation on 1 November, are giving us the worst of all worlds, with milk being poured down the drain when we do not produce enough to meet our own needs, with hundreds of jobs being lost in our dairy plants and with the doorstep delivery system under threat? When will the Minister address those issues?

The hon. Gentleman is plainly pulling the House's leg. He understands these issues and he knows well enough that the doorstep delivery service has been in decline for 30 years or more. Furthermore, he will remember that when he was an Agriculture Minister the Treasury would not let him devalue the green pound at home, as a result of which British dairy farmers' prices were lower than anywhere else in the European Community. When 1981 was taken as the base year for quotas, we were systemically worse off than other countries in Europe. His party, although not the hon. Gentleman as I am sure he argued against the Treasury, bears a considerable share of the responsibility for the level of our quotas.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many successful prosecutions for fishing offences have been sustained in the past three years; and how many of these were against (a) Spanish and (b) Anglo-Spanish vessels. [20949]

In the last three years, 171, 182 and 135 vessels have been prosecuted, of which three, four and five respectively were Spanish registered and 16, 11 and 10 were United Kingdom registered landing into Spain.

I thank my hon. Friend for those figures. How on earth will we ensure effective policing from 1 January next year, when 40 Spanish vessels will be allowed into the waters of the Irish box? Will he give this House and, more particularly, the fishermen of the south-west of England an absolute assurance that we shall do everything in our power to ensure proper enforcement and that the Spanish do not get away with breaking all the rules in the book, which is what they have been doing until now?

My hon. Friend, who represents the fishing interests in his constituency with distinction, is right to make those points. Once the June Fisheries Council has agreed the final terms of the enforcement regime associated with the changed arrangements in western waters, we will carefully ensure that our resources are adequate for the job. As a result of keeping the Spanish out of the Irish sea and the Bristol channel, only one tenth of the portion of the Irish box that remains will be British territorial waters for the purposes of fishery protection. The remaining nine tenths will be policed by the Irish Republic and I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be in close contact with my opposite number in the Republic about joint arrangements to ensure full and effective enforcement.

I listened with interest to the statistics that the Minister gave, but will he tell us by whom the prosecutions were brought?

The prosecutions, when the coastal state involved was the United Kingdom, were brought by the United Kingdom Government.

What influence does the Foreign Office have on the enthusiasm and the frequency with which we enforce fishing regulations on the Spanish fleet? Does the Minister understand why British fishermen are perturbed—they will be even more perturbed when they read in Hansard the figures that he gave today—that we have arrested many fewer Spanish vessels than the Irish? Even if we accept that their waters are greater, it shows that we have not been as enthusiastic as we should have been.

I assure my hon. Friend that I have received no representations from my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to take it easy on enforcement. My hon. Friend may not have noticed that, during the Easter recess, the Spanish-registered vessel Chimbote was the subject of vigorous prosecution and its master had to pay some £34,000 in fines. My hon. Friend may have gained the impression that we are less enthusiastic than the Irish Republic on enforcement, but the bulk of the Spanish fleet fishes to the west of Ireland in Irish territorial waters, which restricts our opportunity to inspect. I assure him, however, that we make 5,000 inspections a year and, wherever we find vessels of any European Union member state breaking the rules, we unstintingly prosecute.

The Minister will be aware that fishermen claim that they have not been properly policed. How far does the Minister expect the new satellite system to help, and where will it work in the first instance?

The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the trials that are now taking place throughout the European Union in the use of satellites to monitor the location of fishing vessels. If proven technically correct, satellite systems can deal with the location of fishing vessels but cannot identify what vessels are doing or their minimum fish or net sizes. Those matters still require the intervention of the coastal state to make on-board inspections. As I said a moment ago to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in the context of western waters, we shall ensure that our resources are man enough for the job.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contributions he has made to the efforts being made to boost the prospects for increased sales of Bramley apples. [20950]

I was delighted to help launch the Bramley apple campaign last season. My right hon. Friend and my ministerial colleagues and I take every opportunity to promote Bramleys and all home-grown produce.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is nothing more delicious than a baked Bramley apple covered in cream? Will he undertake a tour of the apple orchards—indeed, the gardens—of East Anglia, where he will find many excellent Bramley apple trees? Is not the British apple the best, and is not the Bramley the best British apple? Is he doing all that he can to encourage research and marketing opportunities to ensure that we sell as many, if not more, Bramley apples abroad as we do at home?

My hon. Friend gives me an irresistible invitation to canter through the orchards of East Anglia to see the Bramley apples and I should be happy to undertake such a visit with him at the start of the season. I assure him that we shall continue to do all that we can to promote the Bramley apple. Under the marketing and development scheme, we have already given some £150,000 to enable a significant marriage between east Kent packers and home-grown fruits. That newly consummated enterprise will enable our Bramley apples to be even better marketed in the forthcoming season.

As one of the main production areas of Bramley apples in the United Kingdom is County Armagh in Northern Ireland—I declare a personal interest in that respect—will the Minister confirm that any scheme to promote the sale and enjoyment of the Bramley apple will extend to the entire United Kingdom?

The right hon Gentleman is right. We try hard to ensure that all sections of the United Kingdom's apple-producing industry receive help with marketing. In that respect, I assure him that we are in apple pie order.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in getting the Commission to bring forward its review of the use of veal crates. [20952]

My right hon. Friend the Minister has secured the Commission's agreement to bring forward this year, instead of in 1997, its report, which will trigger the Council's review of the directive on the welfare of calves.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a new victory in Europe is needed in the form of a total and final ban on veal crates? Will she accept my congratulations on the fact that the Government have achieved a partial victory in bringing forward the date for consideration of the future of the veal crate from 1997 to this year? Will she go all out for a total ban on that disgraceful and unacceptable form of veal production?

Yes, indeed, that is why we are seeking a total ban throughout the European Community on calves raised in crates, which are deprived of roughage and iron. We want calves to be raised in a much more welfare-friendly way, as indeed they are in this country. Yet again Britain leads the way in Europe and as soon as the rest bring their standards up to ours, the better.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that the legal trade in live animal exports is able to continue when the specified welfare standards are met. [20953]

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sets statutory requirements to protect the welfare of animals in transit, which provide a framework within which livestock hauliers may lawfully carry out their trade.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the history of Britain, those who have inveighed against free trade have invariably allied themselves with the illiberal and the intolerant? Is not that true of those who call for a unilateral ban on the free trade of livestock?

Indeed. Anyone who is seriously concerned about the welfare of animals will recognise the greater prize of improving standards of animal welfare throughout the Community and will not just pull up the drawbridge, saying, "We are all right; never mind about the welfare of animals on the other side of the channel."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [20962]

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.

In view of renewed speculation that the Thatcher dynasty might emulate the Churchill dynasty by winning the lottery jackpot, will the Prime Minister set an example by ensuring free access to all his prime ministerial papers before they, along with him, are very soon consigned to the dustbin of history?

I agreed in 1991 that I shall remove from my office, in due course, only papers of a truly personal nature and no official material, other than that which, like speeches, is already in the public domain. I hope that my successors will follow that convention.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [20963]

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his visit yesterday to meet the victims of the IRA's continued brutality will be widely welcomed? Does he agree that Sinn Fein's protestations to be a democratic, political party ring hollow while it continues to orchestrate and to defend vicious attacks on the police and civilians?

Sinn Fein's mask slipped yesterday and it reminded us vividly of its character. As a result, I shall consider over the weekend whether the exploratory dialogue can go ahead. I shall probably decide that it should do so, because I wish Sinn Fein to become a fully democratic and peaceful party, playing a full part in negotiations with other parties. The purpose of the exploratory dialogue is to help to bring that about. As we have come this far, the wider interests of the people of Northern Ireland should not be abandoned without holding Sinn Fein's feet to the fire in face-to-face negotiations.

May I say that I associate myself entirely with those remarks?

I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is slightly confused and is again seeking to spread a little despondency. I shall try to explain it for him carefully, so that he is able to remove any misunderstanding.

"We can close tax reliefs that are unfair, like reforming those for … private medical insurance"—

The right hon. Gentleman has not told us why he did not mention that review on Tuesday. How does what he has just said square with the fact that yesterday the Inland Revenue said that insurance payments other than those relating to mortgages were to be taxed and never mentioned any review, and why did the Chancellor say on Tuesday that it was a simple problem, that he had sorted it out in 10 minutes and that he had not even heard of the first review, never mind the second one?

We were carefully weaved round to the preordained soundbite again. I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I know that he is not nearly as silly as he sought to make out in what he just said.

May I return my right hon. Friend to more relevant matters? I add my congratulations to many on the skill and courage that he showed in persisting with his programme in Londonderry yesterday.

My hon. Friend is, of course, quite right that there can be no suggestion of discussing those matters with Sinn Fein in the exploratory talks under duress.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [20964]

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

Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he misled the House on 25 April when he said, in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), that the information that there were two bureaucratic staff for every three teachers was in "Social Trends"? It is not; it is in the Annual Abstract of Statistics, which goes on to say that the so-called bureaucratic staff are cleaners, catering staff and nursery assistants. Will the Prime Minister now tell the House that?

The source of the figures is even more appropriate than the hon. Gentleman suggests: the Local Government Management Board collected them.

Having studied the report of yesterday's debates—as I am sure he has—my right hon. Friend will have been reminded of the magnificent performance of our exporters, especially our industrial exporters. Does he agree that a number of Government policies have contributed to that success, not least privatisation, the reform of industrial relations, a sensible taxation system and inward investment, and that all those developments are threatened by the Labour party's policies?

There is no doubt about the remarkable performance of British exporters, including industrial exporters and exporters of services. They would undoubtedly be put at risk by many of the policies proposed by Labour, and the extra costs that those policies would impose on employers. Exports have successively reached a new record in about nine of the past 12 or 13 months. I cannot recall an occasion when that has happened before.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [20965]

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the concern and even fear among disabled people about the Government's proposed new tests for incapacity benefit? Does he accept that that concern is genuine, and will he dissociate himself from the disgraceful comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security, who attempted to brand all those people fraudsters?

My right hon. Friend did no such thing. He has taken a great deal of action to help disabled people, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. We are as concerned about disabled people's security of mind, and the provision of services for them, as any other party in the country. The Disability Discrimination Bill, which has passed through the House of Commons and is currently passing through the House of Lords, will be the biggest single advance for disabled people that we have seen in this country for many years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that air service agreements between the United States and the United Kingdom are a matter for the United States Government and his Government and are nothing whatever to do with the European Commission?

Yes, I agree with that point and we have made our views entirely clear in that regard.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 4 May. [20966]

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that desperately ill people and their families feel agony and anguish when they cannot gain immediate admission to local hospitals? My constituent, Lilian May Wilkinson, alas, died as a result of that situation. Does the Prime Minister understand that that is one of the many reasons why today people in the city of Leicester are pouring out to obliterate the Tories from our city?

I should have thought that if the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted a detailed reply to the difficulties that have caused the tragedy to which he referred he might have given some prior notice of the case before using it in that fashion. He knows that the overwhelming majority of people get a better service from those who work in the health service than they would find anywhere else in the world. Errors do take place in a service that size. People are human; even those who work in the health service can make mistakes.

I assure the Prime Minister that there is one party in this place which will not allow itself to be subjected to duress. I refer again to yesterday's incident which marred the Prime Minister's visit to Londonderry. Does he realise that the incident was not unprecedented? While it was of a slightly greater intensity than others, that sort of street demonstration has occurred regularly in the past few months and it is part of an IRA-Sinn Fein campaign to undermine the Royal Ulster Constabulary—a campaign which is assisted by other elements, some of whom are within the House. Therefore, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that those members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have protected society from terrorism for the past 25 years have his wholehearted support and that there is no question of disbanding or restructuring the Royal Ulster Constabulary?

I made clear in the speech that I gave yesterday in Northern Ireland my admiration for the work that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has done, not just yesterday—when I think that its members performed superbly—but over the past 25 years in seeing the people of Northern Ireland through a most difficult period in their history. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has a very proud record and I am happy to endorse it for the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.