To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present state of the poultry industry.

The market for poultrymeat remains firm and producer prices for eggs are at a very high level.

Does the Minister agree that it is extremely difficult for consumers to identify British eggs among imported eggs? Is he satisfied with the arrangements for the marking of British eggs? What is he doing about imported eggs that do not meet the same standards as British eggs in respect of salmonella, for example? British producers have suffered greatly as a result of the impositions that have been placed upon them.

The British Egg Industry Council is conducting a programme to mark individual small packs of eggs, which is legal. There would be nothing to stop us marking packs of eggs with regional characteristics, for example. We cannot mark individual eggs. I am advised that when that was done in the past, it tended to denote that the product was not absolutely fresh. There is not a good case for that form of marking in marketing terms.

As for imports, we have discovered only eight incidents of infection in over 500 consignments that have been tested over the past 10 or 11 months. There is not a high enough incidence to justify the taking of emergency action, even if that were not to be illegal. I believe that the British consumer knows that he or she is well advised to purchase eggs that have the best guarantee of having gone through vigorous testing procedures.

I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to ensure that the poultry industry is not disadvantaged. Is he aware that there is substantial concern in the poultry trade that the British producer may be disadvantaged because of the different standards of hygiene that are being applied in the United Kingdom and the European Community? What steps has he taken to ensure that there are uniform standards of hygiene in operation throughout the Common Market?

I accept my hon. Friend's point. The industry is concerned, although it is co-operating well with the measures that we have introduced. We are seeking to obtain from the Community proposals that will be on the table by May. The proposals will set down a programme for achieving standards across the Community that are equivalent to those that prevail in the United Kingdom. We may not necessarily have to reproduce in every detail what we are doing. We shall be looking for something that gives just as strong a guarantee to the housewife, and which will be applicable and enforced throughout the Community.

Does the Minister accept that it is grossly unfair that British egg producers have to produce eggs that conform to high standards while other egg producers are allowed to import contaminated eggs that are sold to the British consumer? The hon. Gentleman has conceded for the first time that there is a possible course of action. Will he invoke clause 36 of the treaty of Rome and hold up at the port of entry the contaminated eggs until imported eggs have been found to be clear?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is categorically no, because he is wrong on all counts. First, the action that he suggests would be illegal. At a time when we are lecturing the rest of the Community on legal behaviour, we can hardly engage in illegal actions ourselves. Secondly, the level of infection is not enough to justify such action. Thirdly, the correct course of action is to obtain a sensible and enforceable EEC-wide standard that protects all the housewives in the Community.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is no good having common regulations if they are not enforced equally, and until that happens, will Her Majesty's Government consider putting a mandatory notice on imported eggs that are not subject to the same safety standards, to the effect that they have not been produced in accordance with British regulations on consumer safety?

No. That would be illegal. We would not contemplate that course, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we must ensure that whatever is agreed is enforced, and we shall pay particular attention to that when we come to the negotiations.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present state of the sheep industry.

The United Kingdom sheep industry remains well placed to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the new sheepmeat regime, as the increasing level of our exports demonstrates.

When will the Minister make a decision about the ending of the sheep variable premium in Great Britain, or will the scheme operate for the next two years or so?

We shall shortly consult the industry on that. The advantage of an earlier ending of the scheme is that we would move to the Community system, which would rapidly benefit our exports. At the same time, we must bear it in mind that the buoyant French market is the major market and we wish to to be able to continue our expansion there without causing disruption to it. Exports have risen by 96 per cent. since 1985 and our overwhelming concern is to maintain that growth in the market. We shall consult the industry and we must bear both factors in mind when we do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent increase in hill livestock compensatory allowances for sheep farmers in less-favoured areas is welcome support for the sheep industry in the uplands, as is the arrangement that was negotiated for British sheep farmers by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which was much better than what was originally proposed by the European Commission?

That is true. We were faced with proposals from Brussels that we felt were discriminatory. We opposed them in a determined manner and, as a result, we have a good outcome. We recognise that sheep farmers provide the main support for the uplands in economic and environmental terms and we are determined to maintain their livelihood.

Does the Minister accept that one of the major problems facing sheep farmers is dogs worrying sheep, which is particularly acute at this time of year when there are pregnant ewes and young lambs? Is he aware that the problem has been solved to a major extent in Northern Ireland by the introduction of a proper warden system paid for out of dog licensing? Is not it high time that that scheme was extended to the rest of the United Kingdom?

The answer does not lie in a universal scheme of dog licences. A farmer is at liberty to take action against animals that can clearly be shown to be causing damage to his livestock. The bureaucratic course that the hon. Gentleman outlined would be a considerable imposition and we do not wish to go down that route.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to extend the definition of milk to include sheep and goats milk; and if he will make a statement.

The definition of milk in the Food Act 1984 is somewhat restricted, but the Food Safety Bill will remedy this. That will allow us to make hygiene regulations on sheep and goats' milk.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the present definition of milk in our legislation is not logical or uniform and that it would be in the best interests of food safety and hygiene to modify that definition, to give confidence to all who purchase sheep and goats' milk? In particular, does my hon. Friend agree that microbiological tests on herds of a reasonable size would also help to restore such confidence?

I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend. Sheep and goats' milk is already produced to consistently high standards. We have issued voluntary codes of practice and guidance, but it would be in the best interests of the industry for sheep and goats' milk to be produced to the same high standards that already apply to cows' milk. We shall introduce regulations on sheep and goats' milk, but we shall make sure that they are not so over-regulatory that we have a nanny society.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution his Department is making to improve the marketing of British-produced food.

The Government are firmly committed to improving the marketing of British food. I recently announced further funding for Food from Britain and I am looking to the industry to make marketing a major priority.

What visits has my right hon. Friend made to European exhibitions of food and farming to assist and underline the marketing and excellence of British food?

I had the pleasure yesterday of being in Spain to see the Alimenteria exhibition and I was impressed by the way in which a whole range of British firms are presenting British food especially for the Spanish market, which is growing. We doubled the exports of sheepmeat to Spain last year. There is a great deal more for us to do and I believe that British industry can do it.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the development of co-operative marketing ventures between farmers will form an essential part of improved product marketing in the 1990s? Can he tell the House what steps he is taking to encourage such ventures, bearing in mind the opportunities that will arise in eastern Europe?

My hon. Friend is right that co-operatives will be one of the better ways of encouraging marketing throughout Britain and with the rest of the Community. We already give help to co-operatives. Under the diversification scheme, we provide extra help for farmers who need to do feasibility and marketing studies. My hon. Friend asked about eastern Europe. I took a group of business men and farmers to Poland to seek new opportunities for industry. They were pleased with the reception that they received and with the way in which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and our diplomatic posts in Poland and helped them. I hope to undertake further such trips.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the level of the green pound.

I have received a large number of representations pressing for the green pound to be devalued.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at present the green pound constitutes an unfair burden on the British farmer? Is he aware that the efforts that he is making to have that penalty removed command the enthusiastic and total support of farmers in Suffolk, South?

I am glad that my neighbouring constituency supports that, because I believe that it is of great importance that farmers in Britain should be able to compete on equal terms with farmers in the rest of the Community. The green pound means that they work at a considerable disadvantage. We are fighting for a substantial reduction in that disadvantage, and I take every opportunity to press the Commission for a more realistic proposal than the one that it has put on the table so far.

Is not it ludicrous that British farmers have been working under a green pound disadvantage ever since we entered the Common Market, which means that the unfairness has now lasted almost two decades? Does the Minister agree that British farmers want to compete fairly, especially at a time of high interest rates, and that that fairness can commence only when green pound anomalies are eliminated?

What the hon. Gentleman says is not true. For some time we had the benefit of a green pound that operated in the opposite direction and there was much less concern among British farmers to right the difference on those occasions. The fact remains that in recent years there has been a major disadvantage, and the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right about that. We know that it must be eliminated, and it has to be eliminated by the end of 1992. The quicker we redress the unfairness, the better. After 1992 we must have a system that is fair to all farmers in the Community, because British farmers will compete if they are given a fair chance to do so.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the European Economic Community sugar regime.

The European Community sugar regime is due for review by the end of June next year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the EC sugar regime is immoral because it encourages overproduction, it forces consumers in the Community to pay well over the world market price and it pauperises the Third world by encouraging dumping? Does he believe that national quotas are consistent with the 1992 philosophy?

I believe that we must make a distinction between the effects of the regime on cane sugar and its effects on beet sugar. It is satisfactory that the Community imports 1·3 million tonnes of raw cane sugar from the developing countries, and that concession is valuable to them. We have never disguised our belief that the price of beet sugar is far too high. We have always argued that the price should be cut. We did so yesterday in the Council of Ministers and we shall continue to press for that reform.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), I believe that British sugar farmers are the best and most efficient in Europe. Will my hon. Friend ensure that, whatever happens to the. sugar regime, there will be no reduction of sugar quotas in Britain?

My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the United Kingdom is not self-sufficient in sugar: she depends on cane imports for a good half of her supplies. If we are to begin to reform the Community regime and cut quantity, the process should not start in the United Kingdom.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current level of farm incomes.

We estimate that in 1989 farm incomes increased by 16 per cent. over the low levels of 1988. There were, of course, considerable variations between various types of farming and various regions.

I welcome the Government's determination to eliminate the green pound gap by 1992. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that a case can be made for faster action, to enable the farmers of east Yorkshire to begin to invest now and to take advantage of the opportunities that the internal market will undoubtedly present? Fixed capital investment in the agricultural sector fell by more than 40 per cent. in the six years to 1989: in any other industry that would be regarded as disastrous.

My hon. Friend will know that the offer on the table is "one third, one third, one third", leading eventually to the elimination of the green pound. We do not think that that is enough; I agree with my hon. Friend that faster progress must be made. I also agree that the green pound needs to be eliminated if British farmers are to take full advantage of the single market. That is why we remain adamant that there must be no green pound once that market comes into line.

When the Minister met the combined farmers' unions of the United Kingdom recently, was he able to give them an assurance that he would do his best to ensure that the beef sector in particular was placed on an even footing with its European rivals, especially in view of the present high interest rates?

I told the unions what I have told the House on several occasions—that the aim of the battle that I am conducting with our European Community colleagues is to receive an answer that will substantially reduce the gap for United Kingdom producers. I use the word "battle" because I believe that we must fight hard. No other country gains any advantage from the change to a smaller gap; every other country gains an advantage from the change to a wider gap. Any hon. Member who thinks that this is not a battle has clearly never gone in for negotiation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that dairy farmers' incomes are now enormously higher than any of them would have imagined a few years ago? Will he take this opportunity to confirm that his excellent scheme for the extra 1 per cent. of milk quota, 50 per cent. of which is to be given to the small farmers, has been accepted by the European Community?

I am happy to say that, after several discussions, the Community has accepted the overwhelming majority of our proposals for the extra I per cent. I shall be able to announce the details in the week beginning 12 March, which means that the quota will be allocated before 31 March, to the benefit of producers as a whole. The one part of the scheme that will have to wait is the part that we are still discussing—new entrants.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about monitoring of the welfare of animals at slaughter.

It is the responsibility of all involved with the slaughter of animals to ensure that it is carried out humanely and in compliance with the law. Local authorities enforce the legislation, and officers of the state veterinary service also visit all slaughterhouses to monitor standards and give advice.

Does the Minister accept that, because the inspections by local authorities and MAFF officials are, as it were, by appointment only, the findings and figures resulting from such inspections are somewhat artificial, as the slaughterhouses can prepare for the visits? Would not it be better if the officials had the power to make snap visits? They could then obtain a more accurate picture, and ensure that the regulations are being observed.

We are confident that the regulations are being properly enforced throughout the country. State veterinary service officials and local enforcement officers already have sufficient powers to visit slaughterhouses and catch out anyone who is committing a misdemeanour. However, we hope soon to be able to lay more detailed regulations dealing with further aspects of animal welfare at the point of slaughter. If we need to take further powers, we shall do so.

Several of my constituents, and others elsewhere, are concerned about the possible arrangements for the export of live horses for slaughter. Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to encourage the Government to retain the minimum value system for the export of horses?

I do not need to encourage the Government. We have said time and again that we want to retain the minimum value system. We are arguing for its retention in our European Community negotiations. My hon. Friend may have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently published a statement calling for greatly enhanced welfare treatment throughout the EEC for all farm animals, including the welfare of animals in transit. That would include horses and ponies.

I congratulate the Minister on the recent favourable publicity for his Department in respect of farm animal welfare, in particular the welfare of animals at slaughter. We shall support his negotiating stance in Europe and shall look carefully at what he brings back from Europe. If, however, he is so concerned about animal welfare, why has his Department chosen to ignore 33 of the 51 recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council report on the welfare of animals at slaughter? What does he intend to do about the recent Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals report, which showed that 53 per cent. of young bulls slaughtered in British slaughterhouses were not properly stunned before slaughter?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's assurance that aspects of animal welfare and improved standards at slaughter and at other times during animals' lives will unite both sides of the House. That is a very important matter. It is a shame, therefore, that his later criticism was slightly unfair. The Government have accepted 104 of the 117 recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council report on the slaughter of red meat animals. We are unable to accept the other recommendations at the moment because we need to introduce primary legislation before they can be implemented. Other recommendations will require the agreement of the European Community. That is a matter which we are also keen to pursue. The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred was financed largely by my Department. We are anxious to follow up its recommendations. Therefore, when regulations are laid, dealing with the welfare of animals at slaughter, we intend to include a paragraph dealing with head restraints, in order to ensure that animals are held properly and securely and are properly stunned before they are slaughtered.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made a recent assessment of the state of flood defences.

The state of the country's flood defences is kept under continual review, and we have greatly increased the grants in recent years. The effects of recent storms are likely to lead to changes in the National Rivers Authority and local authority programmes. We intend to ensure that Government funding is sufficient to take account of necessary adjustments to programmes and priorities.

That is very good news. I hope that my hon. Friend will never lose sight of the fact that underneath every flood lies someone's home or livelihood. Will he listen sympathetically to the National Rivers Authority, which may wish to reorder its priorities for the funding of our defences? It is not just that there have been coastal floods; there have been massive inland floods—for instance, from Salisbury Plain to the Solent. When the National Rivers Authority has undertaken hydrological surveys, I hope that my hon. Friend will listen sympathetically to what it has to say about its needs.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that flooding causes awful problems for the unfortunate victims. I sympathise with his constituents because of the problems that they are having to endure. I assure him that MAFF flood engineers are anxious to listen to the National Rivers Authority's representations. We should like to encourage the relevant local authorities, with which we also work in partnership, to let us have their assessment of their needs. We shall happily listen to any request to reorder our priorities so that the massive amount of extra funding that we are making available for flood defence can be spent in the best possible way.

Will the Minister draw to the attention of the NRA the fact that land erosion on many of our river banks contributes to the problems of flooding and, quite frankly, appears to have been grossly neglected for many years?

I shall certainly draw the attention of the NRA to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The Ministry, in conjunction with the NRA and the local authorities, makes an assessment of priorities. We have funding available and if the NRA and the local authorities determine that there is a substantial flood problem, the Ministry will make grants available.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we all have a responsibility to protect Britain's coastal heritage? Will he look particularly at the problems of smaller local authorities in putting together coastal protection schemes in conjunction with flood protection?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are particularly aware of the needs of local authorities. That is why next year we intend to increase the maximum amount of the staggered grants available to local authorities to 75 per cent. We usually operate a policy that if a small authority with small resources requires a large flood prevention scheme, we make more grant available than if a large authority with large resources requires a small scheme.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the level of compensation payable for cattle with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

I have received many representations supporting my announcement of 13 February 1990.

The Minister will be aware that there has been a staggering increase in the number of cows notified as having BSE since he introduced the 100 per cent. scheme. Does not that show the reckless negligence of the Minister in not having introduced the schemes earlier, with the result that contaminated cows have entered the food chain? What new measures does the Minister have to protect the food chain and, above all, to protect my constituents who are extremely concerned?

The only recklessness is the hon. Gentleman's in believing a report in The Guardian without checking the facts. There has been an increase in the number of cows reported as having BSE since I made my announcement as there was before I made it. When I made my announcement I said that I was doing so because that increase had taken place and would continue to take place because of the nature of the disease and the time that it takes to come out from original contamination. II am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of any danger to public health because for extra protection we remove from every animal taken to slaughter the offal that might otherwise have been thought to harbour the disease.

Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations from his hon. Friend on his decision to increase compensation? Will he confirm that the beef trade with West Germany is almost back to normal? Does not that vindicate those who kept calm during the recent media excitement and rightly pointed out that, given the range of measures that he has taken, British beef is perfectly safe to eat at home or abroad.

There is no question but that the first priority of Government is to protect the health of the public and we have done that. The second priority is for the House not to create needless rumours or fears as the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) has done.

Has the Minister noticed that the number of BSE-infected cows notified is running in excess of 460 per week? Does he accept that that figure is considerably higher than the peak figure anticipated by his own advisory committee, the Southwood committee, which suggested a peak of between 350 and 400 per week? Does he appreciate that there is therefore deep concern on both sides of the House? Finally, will he do one more thing and undertake a random survey of 10 per cent. of all cattle slaughtered at abbatoirs and slaughterhouses so that we can gauge accurately how widespread this pernicious disease is?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman mixes up two wholly separate things and, not surprisingly, comes to the wrong conclusion as a result. What are the two different situations? First, there has been, is, and will be —over the next few months and, indeed, probably for the next year or so—a continuing growth in the number of cases of BSE. That is exactly what I have said and what I shall go on saying. It has not changed at all; it is in the nature of the disease. These are not new cases; they are coming out because animals ate contaminated feed. The second issue is whether the Southwood committee was exactly right in the number of cases that it predicted. The growth that it predicted was exactly right. That is what we are seeing. The committee predicted that the growth would be exactly as we have seen it; its figures were merely slightly lower than the ones that we have at the moment. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but the fact is that he is using figures to frighten people who need not be frightened. He is instilling in people a fear that they need not have. As so often, he ought to be ashamed of himself.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received from independent scientific committees regarding the safety of food irradiation.

The safety of food irradiation has been confirmed in the report of the independent Advisory Committee on Irradiated and Novel Foods entitled "The Safety and Wholesomeness of Irradiated Foods". This includes reports from other independent scientific committees on a range of matters, including toxicology, nutrition, microbiology and radiology, and concludes that irradiation can safely be permitted.

The House will be pleased to hear that those committees will be joining the Ministry, the World Health Organisation and 35 other countries in saying that irradiated food is safe, but my hon. Friend failed to get that message across to the women's institutes of this country, who lobbied Parliament in force last week. Will he do something to improve his publicity? When he gets a package together, will he consider including in it details of the regulatory framework for irradiation? He will be able to include those once the Bill that we shall be debating this afternoon is on the statute book.

Like all sensible hon. Members on both sides of the House, my hon. Friend is in awe of the women's institutes. I take on board the points that he has made. When irradiation is being used, there will be the tightest possible regulatory regime for it. The Bill that is currently before the House is not the end of the matter. The one issue on which the women's institutes are in complete agreement with the Government is the freedom of the consumer to choose. If 8 per cent. or 13 per cent. of the public want to buy irradiated food I cannot see why we should stop them.

What does the Minister have to say about comments made last week by Professor Bevan Moseley, head of the institute of food research at Reading? The professor said that the number of cases of food poisoning in Britain could be halved if we were allowed to have irradiated poultry meat. Bearing in mind that only 21 out of 140 countries allow irradiation, that only 11 allow poultry meat to be irradiated, and that only two of those 11 have actually used irradiation for poultry, will the Minister take this opportunity to dismiss out of hand Professor Moseley's comments and assure the people of this country that the Government do not want to see the large-scale irradiation of poultry?

No, I shall not seek to dismiss the comments of one of Britain's most eminent scientists and experts on food irradiation. The extent of the reduction in the number of food sickness cases related to irradiation will depend on consumer uptake. If consumers want to use irradiated foods—and we all know that irradiation is a safe process—if there is a growth in demand, irradiation will certainly have a major part to play. If, as forecasts suggest, only a minority of consumers want irradiation, the part played by irradiation will remain relatively small.

rose——

Order. So that there may be no distress in the Chamber, perhaps I should explain that I am being heavily urged by the Procedure Committee to speed up Question Time. As those who are in the Chamber for agriculture questions know well, sometimes the sun comes out after the rain. If hon. Members do not remain in the Chamber it is difficult to call them.

As the Ministry has proved to my satisfaction the safety of irradiation, will the Minister consider extending it to the carcases of chickens slaughtered under zoonoses orders because they may be contaminated with salmonella? Is not it an acknowledged fact that most chickens have salmonella, but that so long as they are properly treated they can be used in the food chain? Is not that better than wastefully slaughtering them and dumping the carcases?

My hon. Friend is certainly the sun after the rain—she is often the calm before the storm as well. It is better not to confuse two separate issues. All that we seek to do is to make irradiation available to consumers if they wish to use it. I have no intention of extending irradiation compulsorily to any process or foodstuff. If consumers want to use irradiated chicken meat, poultry meat and carcases, they may do so, provided that the food is safe.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present state of the fishing industry.

The most urgent need facing the industry and the Government is to work for effective conservation of fish as a renewable resource on a Communitywide basis.

While the Minister looks towards effective conservation, he will inevitably be aware of the great hardship being caused to some in the fishing industry and of the fact that bankruptcy threatens no small number. Will he consider again a decommissioning scheme to help the process take place naturally without the need for bankruptcy and the poverty that that brings? I hope that he will be able to bring better news to the House.

No, I do not believe that the answer lies in a decommissioning scheme. I believe that it lies in better management measures, which would introduce a greater element of market forces, and also in effective conservation measures of precisely the kind that we have announced today for haddock.

Is my hon. Friend aware that although the quota system has been with us for some time, fish stocks seem never to have been more inadequate? What is the cause? Is it that the quotas have been pitched wrongly or that they have not been adhered to?

I think that there is an element of both. I think that the quotas have been over-generous in the past, but the way in which fishing has taken place has meant that there have been discards. Equipment has sometimes behaved in a different way from that expected. For example, we have a 90 mm net, but when it is operated it is equivalent to a 60 mm net in some cases. Therefore, the answer must lie in much more selective gear in the fishing industry.

Is the Minister aware of the disappointment of fishermen that licences are still being issued for the dumping of toxic waste, even though the Government promised that it would be stopped by December last year? Is he further aware of the disappointment that licences will be issued for sewage sludge dumping for at least eight more years? I appreciate that there has been a decade of lack of investment in sewage outfall works, but will the Minister take steps to phase out licences for sewage sludge dumping and other dumping and stop our seas being used as a cesspit?

First, no licences are issued to dump toxic waste, because the waste is not toxic. Secondly, within two years from now there will be only a couple of licences, and they will disappear very shortly after that. Thirdly, it is by no means an open and shut question that there will be a net environmental gain from incinerating sewage sludge rather than putting it into the sea. We have decided that that is the effective course to take and we shall do so at the earliest opportunity, given the problem of planning permission for building plant. We have an extremely comprehensive programme which the hon. Gentleman should support.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has placed in the Library a copy of his speech to the National Farmers Union annual general meeting.

Yes, Sir.

Conservative Members are always grateful when my right hon. Friend puts a copy of his speech in the Library. Will he note that all farmers in the Esher constituency were delighted with that speech, which showed a forthright approach to all the problems of agriculture but in particular the Government's determination to make sure that the green pound was phased out by the end of the 1992 programme? Will he continue to reinforce that determination?

There is no doubt that the green pound should be substantially devalued as quickly as possible. I am sure that farmers in constituencies other than Esher —and even some Opposition Members—will support that.

As farmers who suffered were compensated following Chernobyl and such matters must have been dealt with at meetings and speeches to the National Farmers Union, why cannot the same principle be applied to the fishing industry? Why should fishermen lose thousands of pounds through storm damage while farmers are compensated when they suffer from things like. Chernobyl? Cannot action be taken, especially as the Isle of Man Government now pay compensation to their fishermen?

That really is a collection of things shoved together without a theme. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that farmers are not compensated for insurable storm damage. To compare Chernobyl with storm damage at sea is to compare two totally different activities and thus not surprisingly results in a wrong conclusion. The hon. Gentleman should accept that the British farming industry is helped to look after 80 per cent. of this country's land area and produce food for this nation. Year after year for the past 10 years, except for one year, the British fishing industry has enjoyed an increase in returns from its fishing activities. Many fishermen would recognise the past 10 years as being among some of the best that they have had.