asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the names of three principal countries receiving cereals grown in the United Kingdom in 1982 on which export subsidies were paid, with the round tonnage and subsidy in each case, respectively.

It is not possible to give figures for the 1982 crop yet, as exports from this crop are still in progress. There are also difficulties in establishing reliable figures.

Is not that answer surprising, in view of the written answer that the Minister gave me on 21 July in which he set out the recipients of British surplus cereals —including Algeria with 11 million tonnes, Cuba with 10 million tonnes and Saudia Arabia with 12 million tonnes—who received a total of £80 million worth of grain? Is this not a bizarre state of affairs, and will the Minister confirm that that £80 million is, in EC accounts, receipts to the United Kingdom?

I am aware that I gave a written answer, but that was in relation to exports for 1982, and the hon. Gentleman is asking about United Kingdom cereals grown in 1982. On his second point, there are aspects of this that worry us. We feel chat the cost of exporting the Community's cereal surplus is excessive, and that is why we have welcomed the fact that in the last three price fixings the increase in intervention prices for cereals has been below that for other products. We are in favour of measures to continue reducing the gap between Community and world prices, which will help to deal with this.

If, as my hon. Friend says, he would like to bring Community cereal prices more into line with world prices, will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of discussing an increase in own resources until we are much closer to those prices than we are now?

My hon. Friend will know that discussions will be taking place over the coming months on the post-Stuttgart situation and that part of the discussions will be on the common agricultural policy. We have not yet seen the Community proposals, but our attitude is in line with this approach.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that there will be sufficient United Kingdom grown wheat available to the United Kingdom poultry industry for the harvest year 1983–84 at prices which will enable fairly based competition with other European Community-based poultry producers.

Unless yields are unexpectedly low, there should be more than enough wheat to cover the needs of United Kingdom poultry producers and other users. On present indications, market prices for wheat will be lower in the United Kingdom than in other European Community countries in the early part of the season. This will give an advantage to our poultry industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is substantial anxiety in the poultry industry that last year's circumstances might recur in the coming year, in that more favourable prices for feed wheat in France led to exports from this country, leading to United Kingdom poultry producers having to pay higher prices than they would otherwise have had to? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to try to establish uniform interpretation of the differences between hard and soft wheats, especially by the French, because this is where the root of the problem lies?

The Government will do all that they can to ensure that the United Kingdom cereals market is supported to the same extent as markets elsewhere in the Community and to prevent excessive exports from this country. This season, the answer is very much in the hands of the buyers, sellers and users of grain. We are likely to have low prices for wheat at the beginning of the season, and I hope that all those who use the grain will take advantage of these low prices to cover their needs later on.

The Minister may want our cereals industry to operate on a competitive and fair basis, but will he explain why French eggs are brought into Britain and sold at prices which must be below the cost of production both here and in France?

It is difficult to make a case for saying that French eggs are dumped here. This year we have exported more eggs than we have imported.

On competition generally, will the Minister keep an eye on the other inputs that are available elsewhere in the Community and which are equally capable of distorting competition for our poultry industry, which is a highly productive and efficient industry?

We shall continue to do all we can to make sure that the competitiveness of our poultry industry is not undermined by unfair practices in other parts of the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice is offered by his Department on the control of vermin, particularly foxes.

When advising on the control of any agricultural pest, including foxes, and on damage prevention techniques, my Department recommends those methods that are most effective, economic and appropriate in the particular circumstances.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the higher than average incidence of stock losses in the north-west, caused above all by foxes, requires firm treatment? As the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council is seeking to prevent hunting with dogs on all its tenanted land, does she not agree that that will make the control of such vermin increasingly difficult for farmers, to the long-term detriment of the consumer as well?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the increased incidence of stock losses. I earnestly advise him that the occupiers concerned should seek urgent advice from their local Ministry office. I am advised that the action taken by the county council does not extend to persons practising essential agricultural pest control operations.

Does the Minister agree that it is a known fact that more damage is done to crops by fox hunting than by the fox? On animal cruelty generally, should not the hon. Lady's Department consult the Home Office so as to bring up to date the Cruelty to Animals Act, which goes back to 1876?

It is the Government's view that people should be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not to hunt. We therefore have no plans for legislation to ban field sports. It is for individual landowners to decide whether to permit hunting on their property. In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will know that that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend at the Home Office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that hunting has been banned by the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which owns about 7,000 or 8,000 acres in Leicestershire, and that as a result my constituents have had no alternative but to keep the foxes down by much more cruel methods such as poisoning, gassing, snaring and trapping? Will my hon. Friend look into this matter, which is highly relevant, to see whether there is some way in which hunting can be restored?

The legality of hunting is a matter for the Home Office, but occupiers are free to decide whether co-operation with the local hunt would achieve effective pest control. It is for the occupiers to decide.

Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the hours of patient research into the control of vermin conducted in the House of Commons Library, and only occasionally elsewhere, by my predecessor, the former Member for Gainsborough, Sir Marcus Kimball.

:His name is legion in this place.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to assist the pig farming industry, specifically with regard to the cost of feed supplies.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with the feed incorporation proposals for pigs made by the European Commission.

I shall continue to press for more restraint on cereal prices in the interests of the intensive livestock sector.

Will the Minister give us some hope that he will seek an amendment to the cereals regime so that crops sold into intervention immediately after the harvest are more readily available to the pig producing industry at prices that it can more readily afford?

We have made representations to the Commission to find ways whereby the intervention system can work more smoothly and deal with shortages, when they occur. During the past two months we have had a number of discussions with the Commission to achieve that end.

Does the Minister agree that the main aim of the Commission's proposals is not to help the pig and poultry industries, but to dispose of surplus cereals? Does he further agree that the conditions so far outlined in the scheme would put our producers at a distinct disadvantage in that they involve an increased uptake of cereals—Britain already uses a great deal of cereals in feed incorporation schemes — they will not help the smaller home mixer, and they are not coming in at the right time of the year? In fact, they are coming in at the wrong time of the year, when there will be an abundance of home harvested cereals.

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a certain amount of disappointment about the incorporation scheme as proposed so far. As proposed, the scheme is not as likely as we should wish to help the United Kingdom livestock producer. However, we shall be having further discussions, and we shall seek to angle the scheme more towards the needs of the livestock industry.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the pig farming industry is suffering from bad marketing of its products? Will he help in the better promotion of British pork and bacon products?

I have already expressed my support for Food from Britain, the exciting new organisation that was set up by my predecessor.I strongly support the opportunities which are already resulting from the charter bacon scheme, and I was delighted that the figures which appeared recently showed for the first time for a long time that consumption in this country of home-produced bacon exceeded that of Danish bacon. Recently, we have been using 46 per cent. of our own charter bacon and bacon from other home sources. This is a great step forward.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hopes raised by his predecessor's statement a few month ago about intervention grain being sold at prices which would assist the British pig producers have, as a result of backtracking, not by this Government but by the Commission, not been realised? Does he further agree that it is therefore necessary to keep up pressure on the Commission to sell grain held in intervention at below market prices, rather than at market prices, because if it is sold at market prices there is no obvious benefit to British pig producers?

We have been trying to do exactly that. My hon. Friend is probably aware that I raised the matter at the very first meeting of the Council that I attended. I tried to press the Commission to stand by the promises that we thought we had obtained from it to release grain for the benefit of the British livestock sector.

Does my right hon. friend agree that substantial relief could be afforded to the United Kingdom pig industry by a ban on the importation of pigmeat from countries where Aujeszkys disease remains endemic? Will he consider the imposition of such a ban and will he show his readiness to use the Community's rules to benefit our industry in the same way as our partners in the Community have used them to benefit theirs?

We are already making a great deal of progress in eliminating Aujeszkys disease from Britain's pig population and I am delighted with the extent of that progress. That scheme is moving along well. Britain is always jealous of the health of its livestock and if there are further steps to be taken to protect our pig population from this disease I shall be glad to consider them.

Does the Minister accept that the pig industry is deeply disappointed by the failure of the incorporation scheme proposals? The remarks of his hon. Friend the Minister of State in the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments disappointed his colleagues, the pig industry and the Opposition. Can we not do better? Will the Minister press harder for an effective incorporation scheme?

The hon. Gentleman should consider the steps that we have already taken to help the pig industry. The National Farmers Union made representations to my predecessor. We have done many of the things that were asked for. We have introduced an aid for private storage scheme. We have increased the rate of aid payable under that scheme. On two occassions we increased the export refunds and we have given a lot of new money to the improvement of United Kingdom pigmeat processing plants. We have remitted veterinary charges on meat inspections and, as I have said, we have supported the charter bacon scheme. The position of the pig industry is not as bad as it was earlier. Prices are still marginally below what they were a year ago and I hope that we shall soon see an improvement in the pig industry's economic prosperity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to pursue the continued expansion of agricultural net product in the United Kingdom.

The Government aim to provide conditions in which our agriculture can make the maximum contribution to the national economy, while taking into account the interests of consumers and taxpayers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of British farming output depends on the future common agricultural policy? In the forthcoming negotiations on the reform of the CAP, will he retain the objectives set by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) during the previous Labour Government to increase agricultural net output in the United Kingdom?

The Government are committed to tackling the problem of surpluses in the Community within the framework of the CAP, but it would be wrong for the Government to seek artificially to restrict efficient United Kingdom farm production, particularly as we are still less than self-sufficient in most temperate products.

In view of the Minister's commitment to ensure the maintenance of production, will he express his disappointment at the Milk Marketing Board's decision to close the creamery at Newcastle Emlyn? Is he aware that the board's decision was taken without consultation with the local rural interests? Will he now make representations to the board to review its policy to close that creamery until further consultations with local interests have taken place?

It is important that no Minister should interfere with the commercial decisions of organisations such as the Milk Marketing Board, which has been hugely successful over the years in looking after the interests of producers and consumers of British milk and milk products. I shall certainly look at the case that the hon. Gentleman has drawn to my attention, but I am not prepared to promise to take steps to interfere with the board's commercial decisions.

Has my right hon. Friend read the reports today of the continued expansion of agricultural net production of the Italian olive oil industry? Will he take steps to ensure that we cease paying for it?

There have been several discussions about the problems of the olive oil industry in the two meetings of the Agriculture Council that I have attended since the general election, particularly in view of the extension of the Community to include Spain and Portugal. Those matters are very much under review. I am well aware of the reports that appeared in the press this morning and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be looking into them.

Would not United Kingdom agricultural production be much expanded if the Government were to implement the most recent recommendations under the EC's less favoured area directives? Is it not true that there are 68 parishes in the county of Cumbria, many of which fall within the constituencies of the Secretary of State and myself, which have been allocated that new status by the EC and yet the Government refuse to cough up the cash to ensure that farmers there get money which they deserve and which has been allocated to them in principle by the EC?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows a little more about Cumbria than he does about the rules of the Community. I think that he is talking about the proposal to extend the areas that qualify for grant in marginal areas beyond the hill areas. That proposal has not been endorsed by the Community. It is still under consideration and we are expecting to have a decision from the Commission and the Council by September or October. We shall then have to look at that scheme to see whether we can find the cash to implement it. I am not sure whether that will be available.

Does the Minister accept that while the British people are not averse to paying for proper support for an improvement in Britain's agricultural output, they are loth to spend the kind of money that they are asked for just to pile up surpluses in Europe? Will he assure the House that any measures that the CAP takes to deal with those surpluses will not be made by cutting back on subsidised food prices in Britain and that they will not discriminate unfairly against efficient British producers? Does he accept that the British people also strongly resent this kind of money being used to subsidise food abroad and to maintain food prices at home? To destroy about 300,000 tonnes of fresh fruit and vegetables goes very much against the grain for the British people.

The hon. Gentleman has asked several questions. He seems to have forgotten that during the period in which the Labour Government were in office prices of agricultural produce rose a great deal faster than they have under my Government. Since the Government came to power prices agreed by the Community have risen more slowly than inflation. Nobody likes to see excessive food surpluses being created and even less to see them having to be destroyed or disposed of. The review of the CAP will attempt to deal with such problems.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about the state of the poultry and egg industries.

I am aware of concern among producers about the present problems of the egg and poultry sectors, and have received a number of letters as well as one recent representation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem affecting those industries stems principally from a decline in consumption, especially in the egg industry? Will he consider asking the European Commission to set up an organisation dealing with eggs and poultry to regulate supply and demand on a Community basis?

I agree that one of the problems stems from a decline in consumption. However, the other side of the coin is that last year's increase in the flocks has led to increased production. Thus, supply and demand are currently out of balance. However, I am not at all sure that my hon. Friend's solution is likely to be right on a European-wide scale. The marketing of eggs and poultry is important, together with the use of egg products. As my hon. Friend will know, a sectoral scheme for the processing industry in England and Wales is currently in preparation, and it may well help to deal with the problem.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people involved in the production of both eggs and poultry in my constituency see French poultry, for example, being sold in Liverpool markets more cheaply than they can produce such poultry on their farms?

The problem is that producers in Britain have had to sell eggs at lower prices than they can produce them, as have French producers. Recently French egg prices have been hardening and as a result French imports have been falling off. However, it is important not to exaggerate the situation. So far during 1983 imports have been running at an average of 9,000 boxes per week. I am glad to say that exports from this country over the same period have averaged 25,000 boxes per week, and have gone mainly to other member states.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that in recent weeks he has received representations from the chairman of the British Poultry Federation? Will he further confirm that the BPF has put forward proposals about cereal intervention and about changes that would greatly benefit our pig and poultry producers? What response will my hon. Friend make to those representations, which will prove most beneficial to our pig and poultry producers?

I can confirm that representations have been received from the BPF on that, and on one or two other matters. We are considering the representations that my hon. Friend mentioned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether a decision has yet been taken on marginal land designation.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned, although it has not yet come before the Council of Ministers for decision, a proposal was issued by the European Commission early this month for redesignation of the United Kingdom's less favoured areas in accordance with the case formally submitted by the Government last December.

Does my hon. Friend accept that a considerable period of time has elapsed since the original review was established and that many marginal land farmers in this country are anxious to lave details of the scheme?

I accept my hon. Friend's comments, but designation of marginal land as less favoured is not just a simple formality. Extensive data on a wide range of economic and social factors were required, and the Commission needed time to consider them. Furthermore, it required additional information, which we then sent. In those circumstances, the rate of progress has been reasonable. We want to see that maintained through early agreement on the proposal that has now emerged.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government have double standards about the operation of industries at the margin? On the one hand, Energy Ministers and the Prime Minister say that marginal pits must close, and on the other hand, all on the Treasury Bench say with one voice that to keep down the flow of imported food it is necessary to use all the marginal land we can get. Why do they operate such double standards?

The answer is that the marginal pits are in loss, while farming is in profit.

When the Minister has regretted that comment, will she accept the remarks made by her right hon. Friend the Minister at, I believe, the Great Yorkshire show, to the effect that if there is an increase of 40 per cent. in the designated areas, any additional funds from Europe can be triggered only by savings in the Ministry's overall budget?

I am sure that whatever my right hon. Friend said is accurate. However, I must stress again that the Government's commitment to see marginal land designated does not imply any commitment to additional assistance. Our first priority is to secure designation. The Government will then be in a position to decide where or when.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to publish a report on the scientific work being carried out by his Department to quantify the resources and potential of the Wash shell fisheries; and if he will make a statement.

The report to which my hon. Friend refers was produced as an internal document. I have, however, arranged for a summary to be prepared and am sending a copy to my hon. Friend and placing a further copy in the Library.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave problems facing shell fishermen in this country? Those problems stem, first, from the lack of attention paid by the Government and the Sea Fish Industry Authority to shellfish marketing, and, secondly, from a lack of EC price support for shell fisheries. In King 's Lynn, many vessels that should be out at least five days a week catching pink shrimps are laid up, while the London markets are flooded with cheap imports from Norway, Holland and Russia. What does my hon. Friend plan to do about marketing?

I recommend that my hon. Friend should look carefully at the report, because there are interesting aspects to it vis a vis the production of shellfish in the Wash. The Sea Fish Industry Authority will no doubt be considering the need for a national policy on shellfish marketing. I accept that attention must be paid to marketing and to increasing the consumption of shellfish, as well as to the availability of supplies.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his discussions with the British Tourist Authority about promoting the "Food from Britain" campaign.

I have had no discussions with the British Tourist Authority, but the chairman of "Food from Britain," whose organisation is responsible for the better marketing of our agricultural and food products, is discussing with the British Tourist Authority ways in which the two organisations can work together to improve the quality and presentation of British foodstuffs.

Does my hon. Friend not think that added impetus would be given to those talks if he or one of his ministerial colleagues were to arrange to see the BTA? How close is the co-operation? For example,is the BTA to produce a marketing plan for "Food from Britain"? Is someone from the BTA to be put solely in charge or the plan? Is the Ministry in any way funding the BTA to carry out that work efficiently?

At present I do not see the need to have talks with the BTA, but I should not hesitate to meet its representatives if I thought that would be helpful or was necessary. "Food from Britain" has been given a clear statutory duty to develop and improve the marketing of British agricultural and food produce. Both it and the BTA recognise that they have mutual areas of interest and can usefully collaborate. I am sure that that is best taken forward by the organisations themselves. We have provided substantial funds for "Food from Britain".I am sure that those involved are of a mind to allocate some of them for that purpose, and I am confident of a successful outcome to the discussions.

Does the Minister not agree that it is quite remarkable that— [HoN.MEMBERS:"Reading".] I am not reading. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is remarkable that while all his Back Bench colleagues are asking for support help and for protection from imports, the rest of his Cabinet colleagues are conducting a campaign to increase imports of foreign coal? Should not the "Food from Britain" campaign become the "Fuel from Britain" campaign?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going slightly wide of the question.

I am not sure how "Food from Britain" or the British Tourist Authority can help with the problem of coal, but if during the holidays I can think of a useful way in which either might I shall see what I can do.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the trend in the level of imports of New Zealand lamb into the United Kingdom over the past two years.

Imports of lamb from New Zealand have been declining for many years, but there are fluctuations from year to year and they rose by about 40 per cent. last year from their lowest ever level in 1981. This year's figures are expected to show a decline on 1982, but still be above the 1981 level.

Are we not entering a cycle that is familiar in other EC food regimes, whereby tax is imposed upon food so prices go up and consumption falls and everyone —the taxpayer, our traditional suppliers and consumers —suffers?

The problem this year is somewhat different. The problem is that the low price for fresh lamb is affecting New Zealand exporters'decisions. In this instance the hon. Gentleman's point does not arise.

Do the Government wish to maintain, or progressively extinguish, imports of New Zealand lamb?

My hon. Friend will know that the voluntary restraint agreements are to be reviewed in the coming months. We shall be anxious to guarantee continued access for adequate supplies of New Zealand lamb and to ensure that the Community honours its international trading obligations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the European Community arrangements to ensure that fishing quotas are not exceeded by member countries.

My right hon. Friend and I have already made clear to the House, and have emphasised to our European partners, that it is vital that all aspects of the common fisheries policy, including the observance of quotas, must be effectively enforced in all Community waters. The Commission inspectorate and the Community log book system are, in our view, the best means of raising standards of enforcement in other member states, and we have an assurance from the Community Fisheries Commissioner that the first inspectors will be in place by the end of September and the log books by November.

:I thank my hon.Friend for that reply. I am glad that the Government intend to ensure effective policing. Is my hon. Friend happy with the assurance about the log books coming into operation later this year?

We have got this far and obtained assurances as a result of pressure by us within the Council of Ministers. We have taken a useful step in the right direction—but only that. We shall continue to take a close interest and pursue the issue with vigour.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of soft fruit pulp by fruit and tonnage that has been imported into the United Kingdom from east European countries during each of the past four years.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall publish the information in the Official Report.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the area round Blairgowrie where I live is the principal raspberry area in the country? Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern over imports of soft fruits from eastern European countries? What steps will she take to ensure that Community preference is used to prevent that abuse?

We have no intention of letting a viable United Kingdom industry be destroyed by unfair competiton from eastern Europe. The licensing system was introduced in 1980 at the United Kingdom's insistence. We have continually urged the Commission to press the Polish authorities to keep prices at reasonable levels. My right hon. Friend the Minister raised the issue at the Council of Ministers last week and the Commission agreed to invoke safeguards if necessary.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the anxiety, not only in the raspberry areas of Scotland, but in the soft fruit growing areas of Kent and elsewhere? I appreciate that my right hon. Friend did what he could last week, but is not this a matter of great urgency, since the season is short and upon us?

My hon. Friend knows a great deal about the subject. My right hon. Friend the Minister asked the Commission to introduce licensing arrangements for another fruit last week. The Commission has not yet agreed to that, but we intend to pursue the issue.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement as to his policy on the sale of Forestry Commission land.

The Government's policy on the sale of land managed by the Forestry Commission was set out in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 10 December 1980, as amplified in the debates during the passage of the Forestry Act 1981, which provided Forestry Ministers with the necessary powers for such sales.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she acknowledge the uncertainty among those affected? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the pace of sales? Is she satisfied with the method of sales, and has she considered that public auction might be the best method?

The sales are advertised, so that people know that they are happening. The aim of the sales is to reduce that part of the Commission's grant-in-aid that finances the forestry enterprise—no more and no less. I trust that, as that policy is continuing, people will not feel insecure or unsure.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 July.

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, including one with the Turkish Foreign Minister.

Will the Prime Minister explain the basis of military co-operation between British forces and American forces in Central America? What recent request has the right hon. Lady had for help? Will she give an assurance that no British help or support will be given for any United States military intervention in any Central American country?

I know of no specific request for help. Our forces are, of course, in Belize. What happens in the rest of Central America is very important to Belize, which is a bastion of democracy in that area. It is important that it remains so. Also very important to us is what happens in the Caribbean, where we have at least one ship. Therefore, what the United States is doing to try to bring democracy to Central America—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will remember that elections were held in El Salvador, in the face of great intimidation. What the United States is trying to do is not only is the interests of Central America and the Caribbean but in Britain's interests.

Will the right hon. Lady reconsider what she has just said? Has she made any request to the President of the United States in the last two days about America's intentions? The right hon. Lady talks about protecting people against aggression. Of course, we agree that Belize must be protected against any form of aggression, but have not the people of Nicaragua the same rights as the people of Belize? Have not the people of Nicaragua the same right to be protected against aggression as people in the Falkland Islands? Should not the British Government be seeking to uphold the United Nations charter in Central America, as elsewhere throughout the world?

I do not know who the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting should go to Nicaragua to protect the people there, but I have not a shadow of doubt that he, along with many other people, saw what happened to the Pope when he went to Nicaragua and tried to demonstrate his right to freedom of speech and to preach what he believed.

I agree with the aims, but I want to see that they are carried out. Does the right hon. Lady agree that Nicaragua has exactly the same right of protection against aggression as Belize? Will the Prime Minister uphold that right in the United Nations, otherwise she will be guilty of hypocrisy and, indeed, guilty of encouraging aggression?

The people of Nicaragua have a right to choose their own Government. That is exactly what the United States was trying to secure in El Salvador. That is the first of the four of President Reagan's policies. With which does the right hon. Gentleman disagree? I shall read them.

"In response to decades of inequity and indifference we will support democracy, reform and human freedom."

Is the right hon. Lady really trying to tell us that human rights are upheld in El Salvador? Can she not tell us that the British Government will exercise their duties at the United Nations to try to prevent aggression in Central America, as we have the right and duty to do everywhere else in the world?

Yes, and the British Government will try to secure self-determination and will uphold efforts to try to secure democracy throughout Central America. We have not the slightest shadow of doubt that, with the number of Cuban military advisers and the Communist efforts in Central America, if it gets Communism it will never get rid of it.

In view of the visit to London this week of the vice-president of Sinn Fein, who spoke about peace and Socialism but advocates the use of a gun for the establishment of a Fascist republic in the whole of Ireland, does the Prime Minister agree that the visit is a propaganda exercise on behalf of Irish terrorists, who have slaughtered and tortured and have nothing for the people of Ulster, Protestant and Catholic, but death, grief and fear?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are completely against violence and those who pursue violence for political ends.

The Prime Minister made an important statement yesterday about the National Health Service. Can she explain why more than the million or more people who work in the National Health Service should not have the opportunity to negotiate a no-strike agreement in exchange for a fair method of assessing their pay, so that they do not fall behind? Does the Prime Minister agree that if this issue were put to a ballot, the vast majority of Health Service workers would support it and the Health Service would thereby not have the disruption from which it has suffered severely in the past few years?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we are most anxious that there should not be industrial action in the National Health Service. I have been very very firm in condemning all such action.

"The new review body recognises the special position of nurses and other professional groups who do not take industrial action and on whom we have relied heavily in the last six months … The fact that these groups do not take industrial action has now been adequately recognised." — [Official Report, 9 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 429.]

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 July.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, in addition to the Royal College of Nursing strongly supporting the Government's decision to set up this independent review body, with a no-strike clause, the overwhelming majority of patients in this country consider that, as we live in a civilised society, it is an absolute obscenity that many patients' lives should be put at risk because of possible industrial action in the Health Service?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that we owe a great deal to the nurses who, at a time of great difficulty, when other groups in the National Health Service were taking industrial action, stayed at their posts, gave attention to the sick and often carried out as well the duties of others who were on strike. A review body is a proper recognition of the excellent standards that they uphold.

Reverting to the Prime Minister's meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister this afternoon, may I ask her why the Government abstained on the United Nations vote last May calling for the withdrawal of Turkish troops? Why has she changed British policy on this matter?

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, talking about Cyprus. We abstained because we did not think that the vote on that resolution would help to further the matter. We are, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, trying to pursue the matter through the good offices of the secretary general of the United Nations with the points in mind that I set out in reply to a question the other day.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 July.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that by the time she comes back to answer questions in the autumn the Labour party will have put up its fourth leader to face her? Can she assure the House that she will give him the same treatment as she has given the others?

I shall continue to give the facts, to be fair, and to be the essence of sweet reasonableness to the next three as I have with the last three.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 28 July.

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

Will the Prime Minister outline the manner in which Opposition Supply days will be allocated in this Parliament? Does she agree that it will be a scandal if the alliance does not get nearly half—

Why should it? How can alliance Members have Supply days when they have sabbaticals?

—or is the Prime Minister's determination to give the Labour party at least some credibility to be extended to maintaining the old fiddle?

As far as I am aware, there are to be no changes in the method of allocating Supply days, which is done through the official Opposition. I do not remember that we had such scintillating debates when the alliance chose the subjects.

Will my right hon. Friend be able to find an occasion later today to impress upon her right hon. Friends with departmental duties that there is no close season for hunting the quango? Will she perhaps encourage them to renew the cull of that species in the near future?

I am very much aware of the tremendous effort that my hon. Friend has made over the years to reduce the number of quangos. We should continue to do that and I hope that he will continue his splendid efforts to keep Ministers up to the task, as he has in the past.

As this is the last Question Time before the recess, may I ask the right hon. Lady to take time to reflect today, during her busy schedule that, despite having a handsome majority, she has suffered three heavy defeats in the past few weeks, on the election of Mr. Speaker, hanging and on Member's pay? Is she aware that unless she stops her overpaid, overweight Chancellor attacking the poorest people in this land she will face perhaps the heaviest defeat that she has had since she came to office?

If that is the hon. Gentleman's last question before the recess, I need not worry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her creation yesterday of an independent review body for nurses and other medical professionals' pay is widely welcomed? Will she extend the principle of generous pay agreements to those who enter into no-strike agreements beyond the NHS and into the caring services generally, in which action the vast majority of the country would support her?

As I said earlier, we have had no representations to this effect. One should remember that people should stay at their posts when they are dealing with essential services and not exact a large charge for doing so. The nurses have a particular professional standing in the way they carry out their duties. If we were to receive further representations we would consider them. I stress that, in any event, those who work in essential services should stay at their posts.

During the course of her busy day will the right hon. Lady consult the Secretary of State for Wales concerning the closure of the creamery at Newcastle Emlyn owned by the Milk Marketing Board, a closure which will mean that about 250 people will lose their jobs in that tiny township, and will also mean that Marks and Spencer will have to look elsewhere for its Leicester cheese?

I understand that that question arose earlier — I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House— when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food replied to the effect that there would be no interference with the commercial decision of the board.