To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to encourage the production of regional food specialities; and if he will make a statement.

Grant aid has been available since March 1987 to encourage the formation of groups marketing speciality and regional foods.

When my hon. Friend next meets the bureaucrats in Brussels will he tell them how pleased we were when our hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food opened the national black pudding competition in Bolton? Will he tell them also that we wish to encourage such regional delicacies rather than have all our food homogenised?

I shall certainly pass on that message. I happen to know that one can get extremely good black pudding in Brussels, with apple sauce, its preferred accompaniment. We certainly wish to promote our regional foods—they are just as good as anybody else's. We will be on the watch to ensure that recipe law in Brussels does not produce precisely the protectionism to which my hon. Friend refers.

Despite the desirability of regional food specialities, surely the problem lies not so much in production but in the absence of profitability—something which applies not only to regional foods? Surely that is the matter which should be addressed.

I am not sure whether it is up to the Government to address the profitability of certain items. The Curry household purchases a considerable number of speciality foods and the Minister with responsibility for the housekeeping money makes adequate provision for the speciality foods that his wife persists in buying—that is, a Frenchwoman buying English speciality foods.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on industrial fishing; and what representations he has received on it.

Industrial fishing is not acceptable if it endangers stocks. Human consumption fisheries must always take priority.

I welcome my hon. Friend's condemnation of industrial fishing for the damage that it causes. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that it is the Government's policy to support the whole United Kingdom fishing industry in whatever part it occurs, whether it involves inshore fishermen, deep-sea fishermen, merchantmen and so on? Will my hon. Friend make every effort that he can to continue to support that industry?

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. He will know that we fought very hard to get a good deal in Brussels against proposals that were extremely dismal for the British industry. We got a particularly good swap for sole, which will benefit Lowestoft in which my hon. Friend takes a great interest. We are pushing for conservation measures at home if we do not get Communitywide agreement. Those two points are essential for the future of our industry.

Speaking as one who would like a complete ban on industrial fishing, may I offer my compliments to Her Majesty's Government for the decision to close the Shetland sandeel fishery? What compensation is being offered to Shetland fishermen who are being denied access to that fishery and who have to find alternative forms of fishing?

The hon. Gentleman will know that conservation measures are in the interests of fishermen above all. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has direct responsibility for that fishery. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Scottish Office has acted promptly. We regard conservation very seriously indeed, which is why we are consulting our own industry on conservation measures at this moment.

Would not a clamp-down on industrial fishing on a European level be an infinitely preferable conservation measure to the eight-day tie-up which will risk the lives of fishermen at sea? Has the Minister seen the latest announcement on substantial aid to French fishermen in the current crisis? How can he justify the fact that every other European country is giving substantial aid to the fleet while he washes his hands of the fate of Scottish fishermen?

First, it is false to suggest that if industrial fishing ceased we could abandon all other conservation measures. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman said and it is ridiculous. Secondly, my responsibilities cover British fishermen and I work in the interests of all fishermen in the United Kingdom. I do not have the narrow parochialism which the hon. Gentleman persistently demonstrates. Thirdly, the Government put a great deal of support behind the fishing industry. The volume of Government support is considerable in relation to the size of that industry.

I add my congratulations to the Government on the action that they have taken in closing the Shetland industrial fisheries. It is an important conservation measure. But does the Minister accept that the eight-day tie-up is a restriction on fishermen who have used a wider mesh net, which is effective as a conservation measure? Why should those fishermen suffer from that blunt, ineffective and possibly downright dangerous measure? I understand—the Minister will perhaps confirm it—that the measure was suggested by our Government in Brussels.

I refute what the hon. Gentleman just said. The measure was in the Commission proposals. It derives from the recommendation that fishing effort should be reduced by 30 per cent. The reason for the proposal is that an absolute tie-up delivers a reduction in fishing. We have to recognise that that is the objective. However, the Government recognise, and have always preferred, measures to restrict gear, as they are more effective and a better means of tackling conservation. We have submitted to Brussels an alternative which is under consideration now. If Brussels accepted our proposal to use larger mesh sizes as an alternative it would enable us not to apply the eight-day rule. It is important that we deliver the conservation. We cannot do so unless fishermen recognise that the object is a lower effort against the fishery.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect equines from live export after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

There have been no recent EC meetings to discuss the Commission's proposals on the welfare of animals during transport. When discussions resume we shall continue to press for the retention of controls to prevent horse exports for slaughter.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that I am the chairman of a committee of representatives from organisations throughout Britain which work for the welfare of horses and representatives of controlling interests? The committee is determined to bring to the attention of other European countries the need to take account of the welfare of horses. Horses are not merely pieces of flesh. They are important to this country. What are the Government doing to persuade the other 11 EC countries to support his admirable approach? Without effective effort in that direction we shall get nowhere.

I am aware of the strong contribution that my hon. Friend makes to the cause of protecting horses. Of course, the Government are pressing, through every EC channel open to us, to retain the minimum value controls. I urge my hon. Friend, his committee and various other welfare organisations, who can perhaps move more freely in Europe and do not use the diplomatic channels that we use, to redouble their already excellent efforts to bring home to people in other European countries that the minimum value system should be retained.

Does the Minister accept that the matter causes concern in many areas—urban as much as rural areas? The anxiety is about not only horses but all animals. There is a feeling that if animals are to be killed, it is better that it happens before transport and that, if they are transported live, there should be stringent standards in force to ensure that there is no suffering.

The majority of animals are slaughtered and exported to other countries in carcass form. We want the toughest possible controls on the movement of any animals to any country in the EC. However, we regard horses as a special category because of their particular physiological characteristics. Horses must be protected. The minimum value rules do it. They disadvantage no one commercially except Britain. We are happy to be disadvantaged commercially because of the welfare benefits.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, the attitude of the British towards the health of horses is unique within the EC, which presumably explains the many letters that I have received from constituents calling for the retention of the minimum value system? I sympathise to the hilt with my constituents' concerns. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while those who write such letters to us fully accept that the problem is not of the Government's making, they look to the Government to ensure that, one way or another, the preservation and safety that we want, will remain?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are making strenuous efforts to maintain the minimum value system. I understand that Ireland also has some special and unique controls. Horses and, I suspect dogs have a particular place of affection in the British character, probably going back many years in our history. We want to maintain that and there is no reason why we cannot. We shall use every means at our disposal to argue the case.

May I assure the Minister that he will receive wholehearted support from the Labour party in any efforts that he intends to make to prevent the introduction of the live trade in equines for export and slaughter? Will he acknowledge that there are unique problems involved in the transport of equines from Ireland and Britain that are invariably linked to difficulties associated with transporting goods across the sea? If the Minister fails in his endeavours to maintain the minimum value legislation, will he use the specific geographical problems to which I referred in an effort to seek a derogation, if that is the necessary way to protect horses in this country?

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's words and the consensus that exists among all parties in the House and all organisations in the country. There are many animal welfare issues on which we are not all in complete agreement, but on this one we are, which is helpful and strengthens our arm in Europe. We are fighting, as our first priority, to maintain our minimum value system. There are fall-back positions if we are not successful in achieving that, and we can be fairly devious in coming up with other systems. However, our first priority is to win—let us not talk about alternatives, but let us persuade our European partners and everyone else to maintain the present system.

We know and appreciate how hard Ministers are working to prevent the export of live animals for slaughter, but will the Minister be frank with the House and answer the following question—if he fails, what power does Parliament have to prevent that vile trade?

We do not intend to fail—we just do not intend to do so. I do not think it appropriate now to discuss any of those secondary issues.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his policy for reducing the level of food poisoning caused by salmonella.

The Government have a whole range of measures for tackling the problem of salmonella food poisoning, whatever its source or wherever in the food chain it may appear.

If that is so, why did the number of salmonella cases rise from 8,000 last year to 12,000? Surely, the policy is not working. Is it not a fact that many of the cases are due to imported eggs from the continent, which the Minister could—but did not—have tested under article 36 of the EC laws? Why should an egg producer like Mr. Chapman of Hayton near Retford in my constituency have his flock destroyed and part of his business closed down without any right of appeal, when imported eggs from the continent are allowed to come in without any such checks? Will the Minister take notice of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the campaign that he has been waging to stop the spread of salmonella from increasing every year?

The hon. Gentleman and the House could do with a few facts. The latest update on the salmonella food poisoning in this country will show slight increase in salmonella food poisoning in humans—a large decrease in the salmonella typhimurium and an increase in salmonella enteritidis. The latest figures for 1990 will also show that in egg-laying flocks there has been a huge and dramatic decrease in salmonella enteritidis. Those figures point to the success of the control measures that we have taken.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we have a common agricultural policy that is intended to ensure a level playing field in the market place, we should stress that the excellent measures that the Government have introduced to preserve people's health should extend throughout the European Community? Does he further agree that we should not tolerate the ridiculous situation that those producing eggs in Poland, Holland or wherever, do not have to reach the same high standards as British egg producers?

We agree that the measures that we have taken here on salmonella should extend to other countries in the EC, and we are pressing most strongly that they do so, as we do with animal welfare. Other countries should see the wisdom of our ways. My hon. Friend has made a good marketing statement on behalf of British-produced eggs, as he has pointed out our superior system for detecting salmonella. Consumers can be reassured about home-produced eggs.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the alternatives to sow stalls and tethers in the housing of dry sows.

On 10 January, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced the Government's intention to ban the installation of new close confinement stalls and tethers for pigs and to phase out existing systems of this type.

As the Minister said, only a moment ago, that he was concerned about animal welfare, he must agree that there is widespread concern about some aspects of intensive farming, particularly pig farming. Therefore, will he give a guarantee that the Government, and he in particular, will support the private Members Bill dealing with pig husbandry going through the House?

There is no difference between the main principles of the Bill and the regulations that my right hon. Friend the Minister intends to make. The trouble is that the Bill does not go as far as our regulations would go, nor does it encompass all the categories of animals—boars, fattening animals and animals in the field. Our regulations are a bit better.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the coming into effect of the regulations of which he speaks is the same throughout the EC and throughout the whole of the United Kingdom so that our producers are not put at a disadvantage compared with imports either from other EEC countries or other parts of the United Kingdom?

I take my hon. Friend's point. That is why we must ensure that we phase out our systems within a sensible time scale, so that the rest of Europe will be able to come in to our time scale. If we move precipitately on that, we may not be able to get complete agreement in the EEC, but we are pressing most strongly that other countries should follow our lead on this.

I have listened with interest to what the Minister had to say about the Bill to be introduced tomorrow. At this late stage, will the Government assure the House that they will support the Bill?

I have made it clear that I believe that our regulations go further and are superior to the proposals In the Bill. If the House waits, it will hear, when I speak in the debate on the Bill tomorrow, my response to it and what I have to say about the regulations, on which we started I o consult yesterday.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of Government assistance to sheep and cattle farmers in the less-favoured areas.

In addition to the support measures from which all sheep and cattle farmers benefit, producers in the less-favoured areas are eligible for a number of payments which are specific to those LFAs.

As the incomes of hill farmers in my constituency are now under considerable pressure, will my right hon. Friend take urgent measures to deal with the unacceptably long delays in the processing of payments for grants and subsidies? For example, one of my constituents, Mr. David Ridley, told me that it has taken four months to deal with his suckler cow premium and with an agricultural improvement scheme. Another farmer told me that the hill livestock compensatory allowance payment distribution forms are already four weeks later than they were last year. As a matter of urgency, will my right hon. Friend deal with this administrative inefficiency?

We are concerned to help my hon. Friend and farmers generally in respect of these matters. However, when the European Community changes the arrangements we have to change the whole system of payment and that holds matters up. I am trying to proceed as fast as possible. The fact that the HLCA payment forms have not yet been initiated arises from a legal problem between ourselves and the rest of the Community over the arrangements for the 1·4 headage limit decision. I did not want that decision. Indeed, I fought and voted against it. These delays are one of its costs. That is why I supported the bringing forward of some of the payments and this has at least helped to ameliorate farmers' problems.

Does not the Minister, despite his reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) a moment ago, recognise that the farmers in less-favoured areas·where, owing to difficulties in the industry, people are going out of business at an increasing rate—fear that land will return to the state that prevailed in the 1930s if the Government do not take action? Is it not a fact that serious difficulties arise from delays in making payments such as HLCA? Does the Minister agree that the Government really will have to do something to put this money into the hands of farmers as soon as possible? The situation is absolutely critical.

Our concern is to get to farmers the payments that are due to them as quickly as possible. However, we cannot do that unless the legal arrangements are satisfactory. We are pressing, but we are still waiting for the Commission to come back to us on these matters. I shall take action the moment I can and I am considering ways of ameliorating the situation thereafter.

While accepting that most of the problem arising from the delay in making HLCA payments lies with the European Community, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that, when that problem is sorted out, every effort will be made to get the payments through to the farmers by approximately the same time as last year, which was early or mid-March?

I can assure my hon. Friend that if it is humanly possible to make up for the delay that has been forced upon us, we shall do so.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of foodstuffs held in European Economic Community intervention stores in the United Kingdom.

A table showing intervention stocks held in the EC and in the United Kingdom is deposited monthly in the House of Commons Library. The latest figures were tabled on 15 January.

I thank the Minister for that fulsome reply. He knows that those intervention dumps of foodstuffs are now at a higher level. That is indeed very regrettable. Do the Government accept that the CAP is an absurdity which is ruining the European ideal? Is not it obscene that at a time when millions of people in Africa are suffering starvation they and we see large quantities of food that cannot be sold on the European market being stuffed into ever-increasing intervention stores?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on seeking so quickly to forge a new career in agriculture politics. I am sure that his Front Bench will welcome his conversion as much as I do. The most important point that he made concerned the effect on the third world. European surpluses are not an answer to the third world's problem. That is why a successful outcome to the GATT talks is of particular importance to the third world. With improved access to their products, the people there could earn their own livelihood. It is a very firm part of the Government's policy, first, that the GATT talks should succeed and, secondly, that some of the causes of these surpluses should be removed by bringing production under control and getting it closer to the marketplace. That has been and will remain our policy.

Is it appropriate to consider the level of intervention stocks in the context of EC proposals for agricultural reform? Do not those reform proposals discriminate against all but the very smallest European farms and appear to lack economic rationale?

There are four fundamental objections to the proposals that have been made. The first is that, quite simply, they are anti-economic. Any system that is designed to take an economic unit that can compete in the market place and render it incapable of competition must make nonsense economically. Secondly, of course, they are massively discriminatory against the United Kingdom and that is something we shall not tolerate. Thirdly, they cost a great deal. Fourthly, they are wide open to fraud. For those reasons the United Kingdom Government will be obliged to oppose the proposals. We have a much better scheme for reforming the CAP. What we want is to get genuinely into the marketplace and make sure that we create units that can survive in more market-oriented conditions.

Will the Minister be a little less coy in future when answering questions such as this? Will he confirm that there are 700,000 tonnes of beef, 260,000 tonnes of butter and 335,000 tonnes of skimmed milk in intervention stores? Will he further confirm that the CAP budget is likely to be increased by 25 per cent. in the next two years and that, as he told the Oxford farming conference, unless we take action quickly the CAP will be out of control?

If the hon. Gentleman wants recital of stock levels, I am perfectly willing to give one, but it would take at least 20 minutes. Yes, as I said at the Oxford conference, the CAP is in serious difficulty because, irrespective of the GATT negotiations, there is a major budgetary problem. Many circumstances have contributed to that. There has been the BSE crisis, during which the Opposition did not go out of their way to help us to reassure the public that the measures that we took were adequate—indeed, quite the opposite. Problems have also been caused by the Gulf crisis, the impoverishment of eastern Europe, the drought, German unification, increased imports and changing consumption patterns. On top of that, we have declining consumption and increasing output. They are structural problems which cannot be avoided. Yes, we are back in a serious situation, we will have to tackle it, and it would have to be tackled whether or not GATT existed.

What percentage of United Kingdom taxpayers' support for agriculture is getting through to the British farmer and thence to the rural economy rather than being eaten up in the corruption and bureaucracy of the CAP?

Most Community support goes towards market regimes, which means that it does not go directly to the farmer's pocket. For example, the substantial amount of money that we put into supporting beef last year has not appeared in the form of a cheque to the farmer. But that support is essential to prevent an immense drain on the taxpayer and major problems for farmers. One reason why the new proposals in Brussels are unacceptable to us is that opportunities for fraud are almost inherent in them. We have always fought that and we shall continue to do so.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the remit given to European Community negotiators on agricultural subsidies at the December GATT talks; and what changes have been agreed to their remit for the resumed GATT talks.

The Commission negotiated at the December meeting in close consultation with member states on the basis of the offer that the Council of Ministers had approved in November.

Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to tell the House the Government's position in the resumed GATT negotiations? Does he agree with the Financial Times yesterday that the situation of industry and manufactured and agricultural products could be as serious for the world as the Gulf situation is? Will he use the GATT negotiations as a lever to secure a more sensible CAP, which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see?

The Government's position on reform of the CAP has been and is clear. On the GATT round, it was Britain which managed to get the Community to put forward its offer, it is we who have sought to increase the elbow room in negotiations by the Commission and it is we who supported the Commission and pressed it to negotiate effectively. However, there must be a two-way negotiation and we hope that when negotiations are properly resumed the United States will begin to negotiate round the table and stay there until a solution has been found, rather than addressing the rest of the world as though everyone else had to change their system to fit in with the needs of American farmers.

Has my right hon. Friend read the excellent letter from Sir Simon Gourlay in The Times today and, if so, does he agree with its principal point that the MacSharry proposals would be devastating for British agriculture? May we have an assurance that he will reject those proposals outright?

Sir Simon Gourlay's letter in The Times today was extremely effective and pointed out clearly that it is not a sensible policy for European agriculture to make it impossible for efficient farms to compete and to prop up farms that have no chance of competing anywhere. It would not be good for Europe to go back to the canal age in agriculture.

Will the Minister stop running away from the problem? Does he not appreciate that while the GATT talks are perceived in this country as an agricultural problem, they are indeed an industrial problem? Unless we resolve the problem we shall get into a world trade war. As the key is in agriculture, will the Minister put forward, for the House to debate, a set of proposals for the reform of the CAP so that farmers and consumers may get a fairer deal and we as taxpayers will pay less towards it?

The hon. Gentleman seems not to realise that this country is a member of the European Community. He should come to terms with the fact that negotiations about GATT are done by the Community and that the common agricultural policy is a Community policy and not something that comes out of the back pockets of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen. It has to be negotiated in the Community if it is to succeed. My job is to do the negotiation. So far, we have got the Community to move sharply towards us in the negotiations on GATT and at long last we have convinced the Community that a radical reform of the CAP is necessary. We have now got to get a sensible reform which does not prejudice the United Kingdom. That is my battle and that battle is in the Community, rather than merely trying to make a few cheap points on the Floor of the House.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that Cheshire dairy farmers wish to see the GATT round brought to a successful conclusion in the best interests of world trade, but that they reject totally the MacSharry proposals, in their present form, to cut milk quotas? That. would result in this country having to cut back dairy and milk production by four times more than Germany and would have an adverse effect upon the competitiveness on our processing sector.

My hon. Friend might put it even more clearly. It would mean that there would hardly be a dairy farmer in Cheshire who would not have his quota cut by 10 per cent. and that there would hardly be a dairy farmer in Ireland who would not keep exactly the quota which he has now.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Council for the Protection of Rural England to discuss the impact of agriculture on the environment.

My noble Friend the Minister of State met the Council for the Protection of Rural England on two occasions in 1990, the last on 1 August.

Has the Minister noticed the uncanny resemblance between the recently leaked proposals from the Commission for the reform of the CAP and CPRE's excellent document, "Future harvests"? Is he aware also of the policies of the National Consumer Council and of the Labour party, which are also virtually indistinguishable from those proposals? Will he now change his approach to the problem?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not doing his party the disservice of suggesting that Labour policy is to ensure that the United Kingdom, alone of the countries of Europe, will carry the vast proportion of the cost of reform of the CAP. If that is what he says, I hope that my hon. Friends will make sure that every farmer, every consumer and every patriot knows.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a key factor in upholding the countryside environment and supporting the rural economy is a prosperous agriculture, since farmers are the managers of the countryside? Is he aware of the real difficulties currently facing livestock producers, particularly in the south-west? Will he confirm that, if the proposals put forward by Mr. MacSharry were to be implemented, the position would deteriorate still further?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that unless there is a prosperous farming, there can be no resources for farmers to look after the land. Therefore, if proposals would reduce the ability of competitive farmers, particularly in Britain, Denmark and Holland, those countries would find that the resources that we need for the environment were not available. My hon. Friend is right in saying that we oppose the MacSharry proposals because they would not deliver a reduction in the cost of the common agricultural policy, they would not preserve the environment and they would not protect the Community against fraud. They would enshrine for ever an entirely out-of-date, small farm system which cannot provide livings for farmers who remain on the land.

Will the Minister accept that, with the common agricultural policy in growing difficulties and with the problems arising from the GATT negotiations, it is time for us to rethink what the common agricultural policy is all about and that agricultural support should move to support for environmental protection? Will he also accept that in rural areas the survival of small farmers is paramount?

It depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "small farmers". If he means family farmers as we know them in the United Kingdom, that is reasonable, but if by small farmers he means what Mr. MacSharry means by small farmers, none of the hon. Gentleman's constituents will be very pleased.

I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that his first point is the better one—that we need progressively to move support that now goes almost exclusively to production-oriented systems towards help in looking after the environment. That is not the proposal of Mr. MacSharry, and I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) dissociates himself from the interpretation of his party's policy that we had from the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) earlier.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek to persuade other EC Agriculture Ministers to reduce the costs and eliminate the surpluses of the common agricultural policy.

I take every opportunity to promote a more rational and market-oriented common agricultural policy, with greater emphasis on the protection and improvement of the environment, as my answer to the previous question shows.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the latest proposals put forward would penalise British farmers with average-sized farms? Does he agree that the real purpose of reform of the common agricultural policy should be to reward efficiency and to help farmers compete on the world stage rather than to featherbed pocket-handkerchief homesteads and thus isolate them from market forces in the world outside the Common Market?

I think that my hon. Friend will agree that in no other sphere would the European Community decide to opt out of international competition. It is therefore important to have competitive agriculture. But I suggest that the second aspect is that we need agriculture that can look after the land, so we need a greater emphasis on the environment at the same time.

When discussions take place about reducing food surpluses, European Governments always discuss compensation for farmers. When will discussions take place on compensating employees in the food processing industry who lose their jobs? For example, if export restitutions are done away with, 30,000 employees will lose their jobs and I fear that some of them will be my constituents. Will the Minister introduce a scheme to compensate them?

I think that the Minister ought first to be concerned to ensure that the kind of export restitutions to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not abolished in the haphazard way that some have suggested. That is why we cannot dissociate export restitutions from the rest of the Community system—one of the propositions that the United States has put forward. That is why we and our Common Market colleagues have said that they must be part of the whole system and that the whole system must be reduced in a sensible, measured way. In those circumstances, we can protect jobs in a competitive environment.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on direct and indirect support to agriculture by the United States of America.

Provisional estimates by the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development are that total transfers to United States agriculture were some US $67 billion in 1989, of which $46 billion was directly funded by taxpayers and the remainder by consumers.

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer which indicates clearly that United States farmers are subsidised every bit as much as European farmers are. Will he assure the House that, although a satisfactory result on the GATT round is very important to everyone, it will not be achieved at the expense of our very efficient and hard-pressed farmers?

The level of subsidy is rather higher in the Community than it is in the United States and there is no point in trying to avoid that, but, although both sets of farmers are heavily subsidised, the subsidies are as nothing compared with those in Japan. It is extremely important to do a deal that is fair to both sides so that farmers can compete in the world market when they are efficient and looking to the marketplace.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to ensure the adequate protection of the public in respect of irradiated food in the United Kingdom since 1 January 1991.

The interests of consumers are fully protected by separate licensing and labelling regulations which came into effect on 1 January.

Can the Minister explain to us how that choice and protection can be offered, when there is no simple scientific test to show whether food is irradiated, especially when it comes from abroad?

First, whether we have irradiation in this country or not, there has always been a problem with irradiated food from other countries. By making it legal, licensing it and being careful about the places where it can be done, we are able to protect the public very much more, and we shall insist upon the labelling of all foods in such a way that the public can choose. I am not one of those who believe that it is the Government's duty to force the prejudices of some upon others. People ought to choose and I shall choose irradiated food as being considerably safer.

To ask the Prime Minister what discussions have taken place recently with other EC member states regarding the use of a common European currency.

The intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union opened in Rome on 15 December 1990. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor represented the United Kingdom. The next ministerial meeting will take place on 28 January and my right hon. Friend will continue to argue for the United Kingdom's proposals for the introduction of a common European currency, the hard ecu.

Despite the failure of the common agricultural policy and of attempts to form a common defence and foreign policy, does my right hon. Friend nevertheless accept that the common currency has the supreme merit of being market-led and that its use will be determined by demand and not imposed by centralised bureaucracy?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. That is the essence of our proposal on a common currency. No one would have the hard ecu forced upon them. It will be for firms, individuals and Governments to use, as and when they wish. I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that our proposals now seem to be attracting more support.

While I share his views on the common European currency, can the Prime Minister tell the House how useful a common foreign policy would have been leading up to the events of 15 January?

I think that the question of a common foreign policy is one of the matters that will be discussed at the political intergovernmental conference. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I had to say about that on Tuesday.

As bonds are being issued in greater numbers in ecu and as from March this year futures will be able to be dealt with in ecu, does my right hon. Friend agree that that adds weight to the argument that the hard ecu as an alternative currency to sterling could come about without anything being foisted upon us?

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. That is certainly the case. The real virtue of the hard ecu is that it would be determined by the market, driven by the market, and not imposed upon anyone.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.

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 the Foreign Secretary's discussions in Paris today, does the Prime Minister agree that long-term peace in the middle east should be based on nations enjoying security within existing recognised national boundaries?

That is one of the matters that have been under discussion for some time and which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is continuing to discuss with his colleagues. In so far as the particular problems of the middle east are concerned, as the hon. Lady knows, we strongly support the idea of a peace conference once the present conflict in the Gulf has been resolved.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, once Saddam Hussein has been expelled from Kuwait and reinvestment and reconstruction have commenced, those countries that have contributed most to the allied effort in terms of money, material and men should be at the front of the queue for jobs, work and contracts, and that those among our near neighbours who have contributed least should be firmly at the rear of the queue?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about that and I had the opportunity of raising the matter with the Emir of Kuwait during my recent visit to the Gulf.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is good for the morale of our forces and for the peace of mind of their families if there is easy, low-cost communication with home? What progress is being made in improving the current inadequate arrangements? Does the Prime Minister share my view that, just as our forces have long had access to free post, it is now appropriate in 1991 for them to have at least one free phone call from the Gulf?

I agree with the general proposition put forward by the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is working to improve communications home. However, we have not yet produced a free telephone system.

Has my right hon. Friend had any further news from the Red Cross about the future treatment of British prisoners of war?

We are trying hard at the moment to get access. The International Red Cross is trying as well and I believe that it has had a preliminary meeting with the Iraqi authorities, but we have not yet heard what the detailed outcome may be.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of the supplementary question that he intended to ask. No one wants a ground war in the Gulf—no one at all—and it can be avoided. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I will let the hon. Gentleman ask his supplementary question.

In the Prime Minister's answer to the question that I asked on Tuesday, he said that civilian casualties were to be avoided as far as possible and the instructions to the Air Force were to seek to avoid civilian casualties in Iraq. Will the Prime Minister therefore contact President Bush and tell him to desist from B52 carpet bombing, which is destroying vast areas around Basra where I loyally did my national service, to desist from napalm bombing in future and to desist from a ground battle which will lead to massive destruction and perhaps mutual destruction of both sets of troops?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for beginning to answer his question before he had asked it. As he knows, this was brought about entirely by his courtesy in giving me advance notice of the question, for which I am most grateful. It is a conspiracy which may not last for ever, but it is enjoyable while it does.

No one wants a ground war and it can be avoided if Saddam Hussein withdraws from Kuwait, as we have asked him to do for some time. We have made it perfectly clear before—and I reiterate—that we shall not use certain weapons, but I would not think it right to spare the Iraqi military at the possible risk to British soldiers at some future stage in the conflict. My prime and overriding concern must be, and will continue to be, for the safety of British soldiers and for the avoidance of unnecessary risk.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continuing presence in London of the Iraqi ambassador is not only offensive but unnecessary? After a suitable period for him to settle his personal affairs, will my right hon. Friend arrange for him to be removed forthwith?

We have already reduced the Iraqi embassy to a minimum number of four members. The Iraqi ambassador will be leaving the United Kingdom very shortly and we are considering further reductions below the tiny number still there. Final decisions on the last point have not yet been made.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.

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

I wish to express our concern about recent events in the Baltic states, where Mr. Gorbachev appears to be reverting to type—if he did not authorise the recent outrages, he is clearly compromising himself to the elements behind them. Will the Government now commit themselves unequivocally to giving every support to democracy in the Baltic states and does the Prime Minister agree that it would be entirely wrong for Moscow to impose direct rule?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point—it would be wholly wrong and I was able to say so to Mr. Jurkans, the Latvian Foreign Minister, when I had the opportunity of meeting him yesterday. I deeply deplore the actions that have taken place in both Vilnius and Riga, and the tragic consequences for those who have been killed. This is not what we have come to expect from the Soviet Union in recent years and we hope that it will stop without delay.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.

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

At a time when I know that my hon. Friend has many things on his mind—including the plight of our prisoners of war who are in Iraqi hands—will he spare a thought for ex-prisoners of war from another campaign? Is he aware that in 1951 ex-Japanese prisoners of war received only £76 10s from Japan, which is equivalent to about £1,000 in today's money? Will he support their campaign to try to achieve a more appropriate settlement from their now wealthy ex-captors?

I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point. The problem is that the question of compensation was settled under the peace treaty with Japan which was signed in 1951. Under that treaty, Japan subsequently met her obligations. I fear that I must tell my hon. Friend that, much to my regret, the Government can take no further action.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of today's reports that Secretary of State Baker has a list of 500 firms from 50 countries which have apparently broken the embargo on Iraq and that the list includes a large number of German firms which appear to be still supplying Iraq with biological and chemical materials? Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that no British firm is on that American list? Does he agree that the families of the young men and women who have been sent to the Gulf—as a result of a policy with which I still disagree—would be horrified to think that the sacrifice that they may be called upon to make in the days and weeks ahead will have been made so that mere shareholders can grow richer out of profiteering?

I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. I am not aware of any involvement by British firms in the Iraqi chemical weapon programme. Although we stand ready to follow up energetically any advice to the contrary that we may receive, thus far I have no evidence whatever, from any source of any kind, of any British involvement.

Bearing in mind the very successful meeting that I understand my right hon. Friend to have had this week with the visiting Foreign Minister from Latvia, may I ask whether he will use the occasion to condemn before the House the Stalinist repression that has returned to the inventory of Gorbachev and the Government of the Soviet Union and get the whole of the west to condemn the abuse of human rights to which the people of the Baltic states are being subjected?

I am certainly content to do that. The present situation in the Baltics is clearly precarious. I must say that it is not entirely clear who is responsible for the latest actions there. It is not absolutely clear who gave the directions that led to the difficulties in Vilnius and Riga. In any event, we shall need to judge the Soviet Union by deeds and not words, and that is what we will do.

To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 24 January.

I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer that I gave a few moments ago.

If nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out in the fundamental review of the poll tax, may we take it that there will be statutory provisions rather than merely guidance to local authorities, which is not always observed, to exempt from payment of the poll tax service men and service women who are serving abroad, which includes the 270 of my constituents from RAF Leuchars now serving in the Gulf?

The power the hon. and learned Member seeks is already available to local authorities and has been for some time.

To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to make an official visit to York.

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

In the hope that my right hon. Friend will shortly—

Order. The question actually deals with a visit to York. However, the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) may continue with his supplementary question.

In the hope that my right hon. Friend will shortly be able to visit the city of York, may I ask him to use this opportunity to praise employee share schemes, particularly those in denationalised companies such as British Telecom and British Rail Engineering? Will he give a warning to the people of York that in the unlikely event of there ever being a Labour Government, they would take away the right—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister: Certainly, I will be happy to carry a suitable message to York or elsewhere on the value and importance of employee share ownership. I think that that is rightly recognised. One of the clearest indications of the success of the privatisation programme and employee ownership is the disinclination among those once in favour of nationalisation to renationalise that which has been privatised.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what prospects he sees for an early reduction in interest rates—[HON. MEMBERS: "In York?"] Such a reduction will, of course, affect enterprises in York. Will he also tell the House whether it is true that he said that interest rates in York and elsewhere would come down when Chelsea won the league championship? Notwithstanding the excellent result at Tottenham Hotspur last night, is the Prime Minister aware that large numbers of points would have to be taken away from Liverpool and Arsenal if Chelsea were to win and that he would have to make it illegal for any team to beat Chelsea during the remainder of this season? If he takes that very original approach towards the reduction of interest rates in this country—and in York—he will have my wholehearted support.

I look forward to the hon. Member's appointment as spokesman for sport in the not-too-distant future. I can only say that much as I look forward to Chelsea winning the championship at some stage, I hope that I shall not have to wait quite that long for a reduction in interest rates.