To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of the selective cull scheme in the north-west. [13102]

A scheme booklet will be available shortly and will be distributed to beef and dairy farmers, setting out the arrangements for the selective cull throughout Great Britain.

It seems probable that farmers in the north-west will have to import cattle to replace those taken out by the selective cull. Bearing in mind the fact that bovine spongiform encephalopathy exists in other countries, can my hon. Friend assure the House about the health status of any cattle that may be imported?

It is likely that a large proportion of the replacement animals will be bred in the United Kingdom. There is already evidence of farmers rearing more animals to replace culled stock. Trade in live animals between member states and the importation of live animals from third countries are subject to detailed animal health rules, most of which are harmonised within the European Community. The rules lay down precise conditions for trade, including a requirement that consignments are accompanied by health certification, signed by an official veterinarian in the exporting country.

How many of the carcases have been disposed of during the selective cull? I am led to believe that the number is very small. Perhaps the Minister could inform the House on the matter.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two schemes. The selective, accelerated cull has only just started—the tracing has just begun. As soon as the animals are taken, they will be slaughtered and incinerated. The hon. Gentleman is confusing that with the over-30-months scheme, under which, to get rid of the backlog of 1.3 million cattle, it was necessary to store some carcases to maximise rendering capacity.

May I support the gist of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd)? There have been problems with the veterinary inspection and certification of imported cattle. As we shall have to import more cattle, there are serious concerns to be addressed about the standards of veterinary inspection and certification in some European member states, although everyone in the House will have full confidence in the veterinary profession in this country.

The veterinary rules are harmonised throughout the Community. If we come across any examples of other member states not being up to standard, it is important that we deal with them. The House recognises that we have to get on with the selective cull to fulfil the Florence agreement. That means that farmers must have replacement animals. I hope that the majority can come from the United Kingdom herd.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Ministry has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into different methods of sea defence. [13105]

The Ministry invests more than £1.5 million annually on strategic research aimed at ensuring a better understanding of coastal processes and stimulating the use of new techniques in the design of flood and coastal defences. We also issue guidance to operating authorities.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. May I also thank him for taking the trouble to come to my constituency to see the experiment in managed setback that is taking place at Tollesbury? He will be aware from his visit that there is concern in the farming community about the possible adoption of managed setback as a widespread method of sea defence. Will he assure me that no decision will be taken until there has been a full and proper evaluation of the costs and benefits of such a policy?

I very much enjoyed visiting my hon. Friend's constituency and looking at the fascinating managed setback experiment at Tollesbury creek. However, as my hon. Friend says, it is an experiment. It is part of our effort to inform ourselves on the various options available which will be considered as part of the Essex shoreline management plan. As a native of that county, I am conscious of the fact that, with 250 miles of sea walls, it will not be the automatic expectation or recourse to retreat and avoid our responsibilities. We shall consider the appropriate solutions, having regard to various criteria and informed by research. There is no hidden agenda.

The Minister referred to best design. Is not the best design of coastal defence actually the sand dune? What is being done to protect sand dunes, especially from those who want sand for commercial purposes?

The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point in respect of particular parts of our coastline. I have seen some fascinating activity designed to build up sand dunes and reinforce natural defences. We all now know much more about various options that allow the nap to work with the grain of nature rather than fight against it. Clearly, sand dunes represent an important opportunity in Tollesbury, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) referred, where there is the possibility of recreating a salt marsh as part of the natural defences.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he intends to take to enable consumers to make a choice over whether or not to consume genetically modified soya and maize. [13106]

We intend to continue to encourage food manufacturers and retailers to provide information for consumers about the use of these products.

No doubt the Minister is well briefed on public anxieties about genetically modified ingredients in food. Does she agree that consumers should be free to choose non-genetically modified food and that their freedom depends on accurate labelling? Will she join United Kingdom producers and retailers in campaigning to get Monsanto, the American firm, to segregate genetically modified food from non-genetically modified food to allow for such labelling? Will she urge the Commission to reinstate its ban on unprocessed genetically modified maize?

The hon. Gentleman touches on exactly the point in the production chain where segregation is needed—right at the beginning. Under legislation, it is not possible for me to ban a product; but, as he rightly pointed out, it is possible for the people who are sourcing the product to stipulate quite accurately whether or not they will buy genetically modified foods. I had a series of meetings with the industry on 7 January to discuss exactly this point. Some companies, such as Iceland and Tesco, have publicly said that they are making that a requirement. The hon. Gentleman will know that three committees of the Commission examined the issue which he raised. They decided not to change their mind about it and we are bound by Commission rules in terms of what we can and cannot ban in this country.

Arising directly out of the question asked by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), clearly the new food safety council will need to be carefully harmonised with the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee and other advisory councils, otherwise there will be duplication and a muddle, which would be unusual for the Ministry.

The chief food safety adviser will have an overview of all the committees. In respect of the matter that we are discussing, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes chaired by Professor Burke has been in place for many years to scrutinise and examine applications for genetically modified foods. We believe that strict scrutiny is necessary—something that is not available in other countries such as the United States—and we are pleased that the European Union has now adopted the British system whereby an advisory committee makes recommendations to Government. The point that my hon. Friend raised means that, when a chief food safety officer is appointed, he or she will also have the opportunity to comment on the advice that the Government receive and how they put it into policy.

The Minister may have seen early-day motion 280, which I tabled more than two months ago and which gained all-party support from Members. Does she accept the view of the Consumers Association published in today's Which?, which suggests that she and her colleagues throughout Europe may be simply too late to be able to guarantee segregation of genetically modified ingredients in our foodstuffs? Is it not a classic case of the horse charging around the countryside, having long since bolted, while we are trying only now to shut the stable door?

I wish the hon. Gentleman would do his homework a little more carefully. We have just agreed, in December, with the European Commission—a body of which the hon. Gentleman and his party are very much in favour—that we should have Europewide regulation in this matter. It has been the United Kingdom Government who have been pressing—

In the lead.

I could not have put it better myself. I notice that today's Consumers Association report does not question in any way the safety of the product. It raises the point about labelling—

And segregation.

And segregation. As a Minister I cannot insist on segregation; if I were to insist that only segregated crops came into this country, I would be in contravention, first, of European Union rules and, secondly, of World Trade Organisation rules. It is a matter of the industry, of which we are very supportive, sourcing its product by making it very clear what it will and will not buy.

Following on from the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), will she make it clear that the Government accept the principle that consumers should be able to choose whether they eat genetically modified foods? That means that there has to be proper labelling and segregation at the point of production. Is it not of concern that genetically modified maize incorporates a gene that confers a resistance to the antibiotic Ampicillin and that there is a danger that such resistance will be transferred to humans? Having failed to block the entry of that maize at European level, what are the Government doing about it?

The Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes, which looked at genetically modified maize, gave the product its approval, but added a caveat. The caveat was not sufficient for it not to allow the approval to come forward as a recommendation to Ministers. The committee stipulated, however, that work was needed in respect of unprocessed modified maize that could go into animal feed. We accepted that and took that case to Europe. Three committees of the European Commission looked at the advice of Professor Burke's committee that was given to us, and rejected the case.

Too late.

It is all very well the hon. Gentleman shouting out, "Too late." We have an extremely good and well-qualified advisory committee, whose advice the Government take. If European committees do not accept that advice, we are subject to qualified majority voting. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands how that works. Unfortunately, the European committees did not accept our committee's advice.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress in the intergovernmental conference on raising the standards of animal welfare across the European Union. [13107]

Discussions continue on our proposal for a protocol on animal welfare, which will place a legally binding obligation on Community institutions. I am pleased to report an encouraging response.

I am glad to hear that answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is much opposition in this country to the export of any live animals? In recognising that that trade is however, likely to continue, will she assure us that the progress being made in the intergovernmental conference will result in other European countries applying the same high standards on the issue as we have?

That is our exact objective. It would place a legal obligation on the Community to take account of welfare requirements. I believe that we have a very good record in this country on the transportation of animals, which my hon. Friend particularly mentioned. We would like such standards to be applied and enforced throughout the Community.

When will the Government stop wringing their hands and give consumers a choice? In terms of animal welfare, what consumers want is to be able to walk into a shop or supermarket and buy a product made from an animal that they know has been treated humanely over its lifetime. Whether we are talking about animals or genetically modified food, the Government do not seem to understand that consumers want a good clear choice.

Under new Labour, people probably do not do their own shopping any more—I suspect that they send out for the groceries in Islington now—so I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, if one goes into a supermarket, as most of us do every week, one finds that there is a choice. I am sorry that he has not heard of Freedom Foods, for example, which offers a range of foods and is supported by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. [Interruption.] First the hon. Gentleman asks for something, then he denigrates those who are trying to provide it. He has demonstrated clearly that he is just making a bit of noise, and does not know what goes on in supermarkets. There is choice, and it is up to the consumer to decide whether to support those schemes, which sometimes add a few more pennies to the price of the product.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many advances in the treatment of animals—those in relation to veal crates and transport conditions, for example—have been achieved in the teeth of European opposition? Does she also agree that, if we had not been content to be isolated in Europe, we would not have achieved those advances, whereas the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to be isolated in Europe?

Absolutely. My hon. Friend speaks with the experience of representing a farming community, and he will be aware how important it is to farmers that farm animal welfare and animal transport be considered at a European level. It is not simply a question of what goes on here; we can do things on our own, as we have with veal crates, sow stalls and tethers, but that does not offer much comfort about what goes on over the channel. The Government have pressed for, and achieved, much better standards of animal welfare at the European level.

Before the Minister starts patting herself and her colleagues on the head, will she tell me why we are exporting eight and 10-week-old piglets to Spain and France, especially when we know how intelligent those creatures are? What is happening about leghold traps? What progress is being made? I understand that Commissioner Brittan is ensuring that the ban on such traps will not be introduced. What is he doing for animal welfare in the European Union?

I have received correspondence about consignments of piglets. The hon. Gentleman will know that, if people bring to our attention individual cases in which they believe the law has not been applied, I shall investigate them. I looked into the cases concerned, and I am satisfied that the animal welfare conditions were observed.

Will my hon. Friend make a vigorous protest to the Government of Greece about the fact that, during the recent lorry drivers' strike, horses were kept in horse boxes or lorries without food or water for eight days and then transported 1,500 miles to slaughter? Is it not time the Government of Greece and many other European Governments learned a bit about animal welfare?

Indeed, but when we want to influence countries whose cultural background means that they take a very different view of such matters, it is no good simply castigating them. The Government have spent many hours talking and negotiating with other countries and we have, for example, secured a Europewide agreement on animal transport, which is about to be applied. That will cover Greece, and I assure the House that, once the laws are in place, we shall expect the Commission to apply them, whether in Greece or anywhere else.

It is true that most people in this country do not support the live export of animals for slaughter; so it was surprising to hear the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting defending that practice. Does he not believe that most British farmers want their animals to be slaughtered in British slaughterhouses as near as possible to the point of production, so that value is added to British meat exports, rather than to be exported live for slaughter? The Minister also criticised the Labour party for receiving a substantial donation from the International Fund for Animal Welfare—a donation that we, unlike the Conservative party, made public. As the Conservatives have also accepted a substantial donation from the same organisation, will that donation now be repaid?

On the last point, discussions are in hand. On the wider point, it is in everyone's interest to add as much value as possible to exports on this side of the channel. However, that is very different from the position of some Labour Members who have campaigned for the total banning of live animal exports and who signed an early-day motion on the matter some years ago. The hon. Gentleman will know that we export breeding pigs and, at one time, we exported nearly 400,000 calves—a trade that Opposition Members wanted to ban. These animals are now slaughtered when they are less than 20 days old. We will always need provisions for some live animal exports, and our objective is to make sure that conditions for those exports are good and are enforced—particularly on journeys on the other side of the channel.

Is my hon. Friend aware that all the farmers whom I meet in Worcestershire are rightly proud of the high standards of animal welfare that they maintain on their farms? Would not Opposition Members and animal welfare groups be better employed supporting the British Government in their efforts to ensure that the same standards of animal welfare are maintained on the other side of the channel?

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If a person breaks the law either on farm or in transport, he or she must be brought to book. I always welcome people bringing information on any individual to me so that cases can be properly investigated. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that farmers in this country have been the best custodians of farm animal welfare. We have a good message to send, and it is one that we shall try to enforce throughout the Community.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met his European counterparts to discuss the lifting of the ban on United Kingdom beef exports. [13109]

I met the Agriculture Commissioner on 28 January to discuss our proposals for a certified herds scheme. We will submit those proposals in writing in the next few weeks and will press the Commission for an urgent decision.

Is not the beef ban still 100 per cent. in place? Following the Florence agreement, did not the Prime Minister come here and say that the ban would be lifted by November? The Minister has mentioned that he has not yet submitted the proposals on certified herds, despite the fact that that matter has been raised and discussed in the House on numerous occasions. The Government jump about from place to place—so much that one would think that the agreement was not from Florence but from Zebedee.

We have now implemented all five of the Florence agreement preconditions, and we are now looking to the European states to honour their part of the bargain.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets his counterparts in Europe, will he give them the latest figures on BSE? Can he confirm that, last year, there was a further and dramatic decline in the number of reported cases?

My hon. Friend is quite right. I am glad to say that the numbers of confirmed cases of BSE in the United Kingdom are falling year on year by about 40 per cent., and we hope to see the effective end of the disease in the United Kingdom national herd by around 2001. The latest figures I have—which may be of interest to the House—are as follows: in 1994, there were 23,944 confirmed cases; in 1995, that had fallen to 14,076; in 1996, the number of confirmed cases as presently assessed was 7,202. More pathological tests are to be completed, but that shows the trend.

Even after the cull is completed, the EC will still have to satisfy itself that any region of the United Kingdom is free from BSE. Will the Minister therefore press ahead with all speed to ensure that, as each region of the UK is certified as free from BSE, the EC will investigate and confirm that that is so? Will he also urge his noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to do what she can to sort out the problem of the suckler herd holdings?

The hon. Gentleman has always been concerned about the flagged herds. I understand that, and I know that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary shares that concern.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend concede that the ban was wrong and unjustified in the first place; that the Government's actions since it was imposed in March last year have meant that beef in this country is of the highest quality and free from any risk; and that, if only the rest of the European Union would take the same measures on specified bovine offals and meat and bonemeal, the same would be true there?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I share his view that British beef is the best and the safest in Europe. It is important that the European Union should agree to a proper offal regime in its abattoirs, as we have in ours. I regret the fact that the Agriculture Council decided not to accept those proposals from the Commission. It would be enormously helpful if the European Union would copy our measures in mainland Europe, so that the prohibition on the use of meat and bonemeal in food rations was extended to all farm animals.

Is it the case that the Minister did not find time yesterday to apologise to the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union for the fact that the Government have delayed the lifting of the beef ban by a whole six months by shelving the Florence agreement? Is it also the case that he did find time to insult his audience with a pack of nonsense about the Labour party?

I had a very interesting discussion with the National Farmers Union yesterday, in which I made a number of points, one of which was that, in respect of BSE-related expenditure, we had committed £3.3 billion, the equivalent of 2p on income tax. I asked whether those attending supposed that the Labour party would have done that; it was clear that they did not. When I raised the matter of the near certainty of the Labour party removing relief for inheritance tax purposes from agricultural land, I noticed that they all agreed with that. On the selective cull, I did not have to remind them, because they know full well that until October they were opposed to it.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to remind our European counterparts that in this country we have slaughtered 1.3 million predominantly healthy cattle; that we propose under the Florence agreement to slaughter a further 100,000 or so predominantly healthy cattle; and that, as he has just reminded the House, this process is costing the British taxpayer—predominantly, with some help from Europe—more than £3 billion? As we have public debates in the country over the next few weeks, not only the farming community but the taxpayers will show their resentment at the continued discrimination against British beef by our European counterparts, and at their failure to put their own house in order.

My hon. Friend's points are correct in every respect.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what bodies and committees his Ministry consults regularly on food safety policies; and how many of these represent scientific interests. [13110]

The Ministry of Agriculture takes advice on food safety issues from a wide range of advisory committees, most of which are able to advise on scientific issues.

Does the Minister remember that, 12 months ago, the Prime Minister rubbished the Labour party proposal to set up a food standards agency, yet his Department recently announced the setting up of a food safety council? Is that not another U-turn by his discredited Government? Is it not an attempt to steal Labour's clothes? Can he assure us that the council will not be a tame tabby cat for food companies but will instead defend the rights of the consumer?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rubbished Labour's proposals because they were rubbish, and they remain so, in so far as I understand them. The essential difference between our proposals and those that emanate from the Opposition is that, in so far as there is any substance in Labour's proposals, they combine the function of the implementing authority with that of the commentating supervisory authority. Such a body would commentate on that which it had done. We propose to separate those functions, so that Ministers are responsible for the implementation, setting and carrying through of policy, and for explaining it as and when necessary. The council and the adviser have a duty and ability to express in public their view on food safety, including the appropriateness of the policies of the Government of the day. That is by far the most effective way of reassuring the public.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on setting up the food safety committee. Will he now direct his attention to other food committees, and especially to the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee? What will he do about that?

I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations, which are always happily received. We want to find ways of yet further reinforcing the authority of the specialist advisory committees, and we shall do so in the context of the proposal for the food safety council. We are examining SEAC's terms of reference, and its structure, membership and operation, with special regard to the points that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and I made on March 20.

When did the Minister first realise that the public had lost confidence in his ability to deal with food safety?

I have recognised for some time—

Too little, too late.

I am answering the question. I have no reason to be less than candid with the House. I have recognised for some time that the public—this has probably been true for many years—has been rather sceptical about what Ministers and officials say about food safety. I have addressed that problem robustly and vigorously by proposing to set up an independent adviser and an independent council. I look forward to support from the hon. Lady because I am meeting her anxieties.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about reforming the European fisheries policy. [13113]

I have recently received a wide range of representations about reforming the European fisheries policy, including proposals from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

Does my hon. Friend welcome the news that Emma Bonino, at a meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), local Essex fishermen and me, agreed with our criticism of the common fisheries policy and said that it needed urgent reform? Will he also reflect on the recent meeting with local Essex fishermen and, in particular, on their point about regional management?

Everyone agrees, including Emma Bonino, that the common fisheries policy needs reforming. I welcomed the opportunity of meeting Essex fishermen with my hon. Friend. I am considering the points that they put to me and if, as I suspect, I conclude that different arrangements need to be put in place on the temporary closure of the North sea sole fishery, I shall consult the industry. I am well aware of the problems facing non-sector fisherman in Essex and elsewhere, which is why we introduced, in 1995, underpinning or guaranteed minimum quota allocations for non-sector fisheries, including North sea sole and cod. For 1997, I have extended underpinning to a wider range of stocks important to non-sector fishermen, such as North sea plaice and whiting, because I want to ensure that the fishermen of Essex and elsewhere have a viable future.

One much-needed reform would be a complete ban on industrial fishing. Does the Minister agree that industrial fishing is deeply harmful, particularly to juvenile members of commercially valuable species? Does he also agree that our once-rich seas are being swept clean, and one of the major culprits is the industrial fishing vessel?

It was for exactly those reasons that I pressed successfully in the Fisheries Council for measures to reduce herring mortality in industrial fisheries. Just as importantly, I pressed to include industrial fisheries in the first tranche of activities, subject to satellite monitoring, and insisted that industrial fisheries had a much higher position in the next round of decommissioning. It is crazy that the Commission's proposals for decommissioning did not adequately have regard to industrial fishing and its impact in the North sea and elsewhere.

Has the fisheries Minister heard recent reports of fishermen who have been out fishing in the Wash for sprat and have caught herring, which, under CFP rules, must be thrown back into the sea dead? Is that not yet another reason why the CFP needs root and branch reform?

We always have difficulty with mixed fisheries such as we have around our coasts. The whole question of discards causes understandable offence and we must constantly try to find policies that minimise the need for discards.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the storage of slaughtered cattle. [13114]

To speed up clearance of the backlog of cattle that were awaiting slaughter under the over-30-months scheme, some 69,000 tonnes of cattle remains, excluding specified bovine material, were placed in cold storage pending the availability of rendering capacity. In addition, dry storage is being used for scheme material that has already been rendered pending its destruction.

Who is paying the £250,000 weekly cost of that storage? Less than 4 per cent. of the cattle have been disposed of properly by incineration. What is the Minister doing to reduce that cost, and to allay the anxiety that meat from those carcases—thousands of carcases kept in cold storage—could find its way into butchers' shops?

It is helpful to remember that any cattle that exhibit clinical signs of BSE are disposed of immediately by direct incineration, and that specified bovine material is removed from all scheme cattle and sent direct for rendering, so no specified bovine material has been placed in cold storage. The use of cold storage was necessary to clear the backlog of OTMS cattle as quickly as possible and to maximise the use of a limited rendering capacity. Speed was of the essence to avoid potential animal welfare problems on farms as winter drew near, and to pave the way for a start to selective culling. The backlog is now cleared; no more material is being put into cold store, and clearly we shall get rid of the material in cold storage and get it rendered as speedily as is humanly possible.

Is there sufficient storage for, or the capacity to dispose of, any cattle slaughtered under the accelerated slaughter scheme?

Yes. I do not see the accelerated slaughter scheme in any way making more difficult our disposal problems with the over-30-months scheme.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in the past six months from consumer groups on his policies on food safety; and if he will make a statement. [13115]

We have had meetings and correspondence with a number of consumer groups on various food safety issues.

Will the Minister confirm that, following the announcement of the intention to establish a food safety council, the majority of responses from consumer groups have said that the proposals are inadequate and do not go far enough? Will the Minister tell the House why those same consumer bodies were not consulted before the announcement instead of afterwards?

My right hon. and learned Friend this afternoon gave the House a clear outline as to the independence of that food safety adviser and the council that he or she will chair. We believe that here at the Dispatch Box is the right place for Ministers to be accountable and to defend their policy—but if they get the policy wrong, or if the experts believe that they have not implemented it properly, they will be called to book and that will be done publicly. I am always interested to hear the views of consumer bodies, to which we speak on a regular basis, but that independence is key.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February. [13132]

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.

The Prime Minister will know, because I gave him advance notification of this question, that, last year, the Secretary of State for Health visited my constituency to open the new £7.5 million trauma and burns unit at Selly Oak hospital. People were relieved because they thought that, at last, the future of the hospital was secure, but now there is again talk of its closure. Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be barmy to close those brand-new facilities and those in the sister Queen Elizabeth hospital? Does he realise that local people do not trust his Government on health—especially when they know that the Secretary of State for Health does not rely on the NHS and takes out private health insurance?

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me notice, an hour or so ago, that she proposed to ask that question and I have made some inquiries in the interim I understand that the health authority is examining how best to deliver patient services. That is part of a process that, as the hon. Lady will concede, is in the interests of the health service in her region and has already resulted in improved care, more in-patients, more out-patients and more day care.

Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the inspired decision to give passports to 5,000 stateless south Asians in Hong Kong? Does he recognise that those families are major wealth creators in Hong Kong and that, as British passport holders, they will enable Britain to become not only the enterprise centre of Europe, but the enterprise centre of the whole world?

As my hon. Friend knows, I made it clear when I went to Hong Kong last year that I wanted the ethnic minorities to be assured about their future. I am aware of the widespread concern that there has been in both Houses, as well as in Hong Kong, about their nationality status. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has therefore decided that they can register as British citizens, with a right to abode here after 30 June. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority—perhaps even all—will continue to reside in Hong Kong, where they will continue to have a right of abode, but they were potentially stateless and they now have a nationality.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that, since he became Prime Minister, he has doubled the national debt?

I can also confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that there is not a single economy in Europe that can match our performance. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to see debt rise further, and to see the British economy fail rather than succeed, he should follow the policies of the social model to which he is committed in Europe, with the results that we have seen in Europe.

Perhaps for once we can get a straight answer to a straight question. We now pay out on interest payments on debt every year more than we spend on law and order and transport put together. Can the Prime Minister just answer that simple question? Can he confirm that, since he became Prime Minister—he is the only Prime Minister since the war of which this can be said—he has doubled the national debt? Yes or no?

The right hon. Gentleman spent the whole of the recession encouraging us to spend money to assist people in need. [Interruption.] He invites us to do one thing one day and something quite different the other. He says different things abroad and at home. At least on this occasion he seems to be seeking to quote me, not President Clinton.

Perhaps I can quote the right hon. Gentleman again. Does he not recall saying that he would be the Prime Minister who would balance the budget? Does he not recognise—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They complain about us. We have been trying to save the Government money over the past few weeks while he and his rag-bag of outgoing Ministers have been spraying around the post-dated cheques like there was no tomorrow. [Interruption.] Is that not true? Record borrowing, record tax increases and still they cannot run decent public services. Is that not typical of the Tories—unfair and incompetent in equal measure?

I suppose there was never a chance that the right hon. Gentleman was going to debate the real issues of today, on which the shadow Chancellor has landed him in such trouble. I will tell him about the—[Interruption.]

Order. I really am getting very weary of barracking from a sedentary position, particularly from Front-Bench Members.

That puts me in the clear.

I can for once agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner): he is not barracking from the Front Bench, and I doubt that he ever will be.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that Britain is attracting more investment from throughout the world than any other European country? Is it not the case, however, that the social chapter would destroy jobs and drive out investment? What advice will he give to business leaders who have been invited to shell out £7,500 to attend a fund-raising banquet hosted by the Leader of the Opposition?

Seven thousand, five hundred pounds for a meal with the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition seems deeply engaged in conversation. He is perhaps persuading the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to cough up and come to the luncheon.

I was interested to hear the Prime Minister admit in his previous answer that the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong were potentially going to be left stateless, as he specifically denied that in answer to a question that I asked him along those lines three months ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, he did.

The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait a few minutes for the decisions on public sector pay, which will be fair to the public sector and fair to the taxpayer. If he says that that is entirely affordable, why is he promising to put up tax by a penny in the pound to pay for the teachers? Why is he planning to do that? The right hon. Gentleman does not know what the decisions are, does not understand the issues and yet again asks questions based on utter nonsense.

Will my right hon. Friend spare a moment to compare the position of a manufacturer in my constituency with that of his German competitor, who happens to be a friend? The German manufacturer in Bavaria is required to give each employee, every year, 29 days holiday, and an additional 13 days holiday for the religious holidays, which is more than eight weeks holiday in the year. Furthermore, it is sometimes the habit for people to arm themselves with a medical certificate and spend three weeks at Baden Baden.

My hon. Friend points to the different costs of the social model in Europe and the impact that that has had on unemployment.

The Germans are very successful.

There is an increase of half a million in German unemployment. I doubt whether those half a million Germans consider that very successful. Business costs across Europe are costing jobs. For every £100 spent on wages in Britain, there is an extra £15 for non-wage costs. In Germany that figure is £31, in France £41 and in Italy £44. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) may shake his head, but those are the facts of the matter. That is why business men across Europe—including, for example, the head of the German firm BASF—have said in the past few days:

"Britain is the best place in Europe to invest."

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February. [13133]

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

Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the doctors and nursing staff at St. Benedict's hospice in Sunderland on their pioneering integrated assessment of palliative care, which has been acclaimed internationally? While recognising the importance of the voluntary and charitable sectors in supporting hospices, what steps is he taking to ensure a national policy on hospice care?

I do not know the particular details of St. Benedict's. From what the hon. Gentleman says, its staff have clearly done an outstanding job. If that is true, I am happy to add my congratulations to them and to the hospice movement as a whole. I have had the opportunity of knowing personally of the remarkable work done by the hospice movement, which is truly astonishing. It has the Government's support and will continue to have it.

Will my right hon. Friend find time between now and 1 May to visit the Vale of Glamorgan—a particularly interesting constituency—in order to see for himself the benefits of low taxes, low inflation, the absence of the social chapter, and deregulation in attracting inward investment to south Wales?

My hon. Friend offers me an extremely enticing invitation, which I shall carefully consider. Were I to take the opportunity of visiting every part of the United Kingdom that had had substantial inward investment, it would probably take me until 1 May next year, because of the Government's remarkable success in encouraging inward investment, as a result of the policies that we have followed over recent years.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February. [13134]

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

Will the Prime Minister try to answer the question that he failed to answer on Tuesday? Can he give a categorical assurance that the Wirral, South by-election will take place on 27 February—yes or no?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have called the Wirral, South by-election, and whatever ingenious ways he tries to produce to entice me to tell him the date of the general election, he will have to wait. The election in Wirral is proceeding.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 February [13135]

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rise of nearly half a million in German unemployment in January is graphic proof that, as he said in Brussels this week, one signature on the European social chapter is half a million British signatures on the dole? Is not the British approach to competitiveness under the Government working, while the European social chapter, so advocated and loved by the Labour party, is not?

It is undeniable that the social model has contributed substantially to unemployment across Europe. The average level of unemployment in Europe is 3.5 per cent. above the rate here. My estimate of an extra half a million unemployed, were we to go down that route is, if anything, an under-estimate and not an over-estimate. A moment ago, I quoted the German head of BASF. I could of course have quoted the head of the Dutch business association who said:

"The British way is best."

"There is absolutely no need for a Europe wide set of rules."