asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further plans he has for controlling resources in his Department following the report, "Financial Management in Government Departments".

The White Paper mentioned by my hon. Friend includes a summary of the Ministry's plans for improving the management and control of resources. Much detailed planning work is going on to put these systems into practice; in particular, volume trials of our new management accounting information system will start next week.

Will my right hon. Friend say how the new systems are helping him to manage the resources of his Ministry more efficiently?

My ministerial colleagues and I have benefited greatly from the returns made to us under the management information in MAFF system, known as MINIM. We have also benefited from discussions with officials on those returns. We have identified various areas where follow-up work needs to be done, and we shall be publishing the 1984 MINIM returns very shortly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers now farm fewer than 500 acres; and how this compares with 1973.

The information is not available in the form requested. However, in June 1983 some 219,000 holdings in England and Wales of fewer than 200 hectares—494·2 acres—were recorded in the agricultural census. Comparable figures for 1973 are not available because of changes since then in the coverage of the annual census.

Have not the vast sums of taxpayers' money which have been pumped into agriculture through the common agricultural policy driven up the price of agricultural land so much that small farmers have been squeezed out, and increasingly only wealthy individuals and institutions can afford to buy? Should not this factor feature prominently in any review of agricultural policy which might be carried out by the Ministry?

There are obviously many factors involved in the rise in the price of agricultural land. It is certainly not the case that increasinly only institutions and wealthy farmers can afford to farm. The amount of land in institutional hands is still, relatively speaking, very small.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there has been a large reduction in the number of small farmers? Will he take note of the welcome statement, at long last, by the National Farmers Union that it supports smaller family farms? What will the Minister do about the problem?

My hon. Friend will know that we have examined several proposals in the past, some of which he has advocated, such as control over farm size and the impact of the institutional farmers. He and I have had many exchanges on the subject. The fact that we have been concentrating our dairy farm outgoers scheme on the small farmers is a clear indication of our determination to help them and to continue to help the family farmers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the dairy quotas are being implemented properly in other European Economic Community countries.

I have raised this question in the Agriculture Council, and it is clear that most member states are making strenuous efforts to ensure that the supplementary levy is properly applied. I have pressed the Commission to take the necessary action to ensure that any failures to apply the levy are dealt with.

is my right hon. Friend aware that the milk levy system is not being implemented by most other Common Market countries? Will he press for penalties against those countries? What relief can he offer the British farmer who has cut back fully and is now seen as the fall guy of Europe?

The Agriculture Commissioner has made it clear that most member states have the necessary national legislation in force. Considerable progress has been made in establishing the administrative procedures. I remind my hon. Friend that there is no ban on production outside quotas. Provided that member states collect the appropriate amount of levy from those responsible for the surplus, they will be complying with the supplementary levy regulations.

Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on Agriculture is going to Brussels next week to try to find out whether other member states are implementing the levy? If the Select Committee discovers that they are not implementing the levy, or not implementing it correctly, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to abolish the implementation of the levy in the United Kingdom?

I wish the hon. Gentleman a pleasant trip to Brussels next week. I welcome the efforts of the Select Committee in persuading the Commission to make sure that every member state implements the rules properly. With the exception of Italy, which in fact has a particular derogation until the end of the quota year, my own feeling is a good deal more optimistic than it was that other member states are implementing the rules.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the stand that he has already taken in Europe on penalties, but will he bear in mind that the fear of those in British agriculture is justified and that there must be the most rigorous inspection and checking to see that people do not cheat, and particularly to see that next time the Irish do not get away with it?

I thank my hon. Friend for his initial remarks, but I remind him that I have raised that issue at the last three meetings of the Council of Ministers. As I said earlier, there is no ban on production outside quotas. With a levy of up to 100 per cent. of the target price, we expect most producers to make a strenuous effort to comply with their quotas over the year as a whole. Frankly, it is an expensive business if one does not comply with one's quota.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the fact that the milk quotas have had a disastrous effect on the Welsh economy. Will he now consider establishing a proposal for Wales to have an extra quota at next year's price review and negotiations?

If the hon. Gentleman were to look at the outgoers scheme, bearing in mind that there is a large preponderence of small farmers in his part of Wales,. I think he will agree that my intention to give preference through the scheme, to redistribute the quota particularly to smaller farmers, will be of particular benefit to farmers in both Wales and the south-west of England.

Despite all that my right hon. Friend has just said, is he aware that dairy farmers in this country have presided over a 9 per cent. reduction in production and witnessed a £1,875 loss of income? How can we justify a policy of milk quotas to our dairy farmers if it is continually disregarded by our Common Market friends?

The cut that British dairy farmers have to make is not 9 per cent., as my hon. Friend said, but 6·5 per cent. Within the Community I see evidence that member states are moving towards their levy quantity. The latest information that I understand the Commission has about the French dairy industry is that the French authorities expect that the current trend in milk production in France and the response from their outgoers scheme will mean that no levy will become due at the end of the year.

Can the Minister tell us how many farm workers have lost their jobs because of the imposition of quotas? Will he give further consideration to the payment of compensation to any farm worker who loses his job because of quotas?

I have answered that question before. I have no knowledge of the number of farm workers who may or may not have lost their jobs, but I have told the House before about the arrangements to compensate those who are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs.

What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give to small dairy farmers producing 200,000 litres and less that their quotas will be brought back to 1983 production levels?

Our outgoers scheme has been oversubscribed in terms of applicants. We have already issued invitations to a sufficient number of applicants to reach the 2·25 per cent. of quota which will take up the £50 million that I have provided. So long as that amount of quota is made available for redistribution, I hope that the smaller dairy farmers will enjoy most of the benefits by having their quotas brought back to 1983 production patterns.

We all know that the quotas are not being properly implemented in other European countries, whereas in the United Kingdom they are being properly implemented. Nowhere is that more apparent than in Northern Ireland, where 5,000 dairy farmers stand to pay a levy of £5·2 million. Is the Minister aware of the serious damage that this will do to Northern Ireland, agriculture and does he regard it as fair in view of the absolute failure of the buy-out scheme in Northern Ireland which has not come up to his expectations?

I am aware that a smaller proportion of Northern Ireland dairy farmers than we expected have applied for the outgoers scheme. Many dairy farmers throughout the Community will be liable to pay a levy, but for Northern Ireland producers who have overshot their quota the Commission recently agreed that 50 per cent. of the levy should be collected as planned at the end of the present quarter, but that the remainder would be due at the end of the 1984–85 marketing year.

What protection has our domestic market against over quota production of butter in the Republic of Ireland being dumped here?

As my hon. Friend knows, there is a free market for dairy produce of certain types within the Community and there is a relatively free market in butter between member states.

Will the Minister publish a comprehensive review of the legislative and adminstrative arrangements which other EEC countries intend to make to collect the levy so that we all know exactly what is happening? Is he aware that in almost every EEC country but our own production this year has already reached such a level that the balance of quota remaining is far less than the expected production between now and March? How can he be so sure that the levy will indeed be collected?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a question on this I shall do my best to answer it in the detail that he might prefer. I should point out, however, that many Community countries were reducing their milk production towards quota levels in the first months of the scheme. For instance, the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg made reductions in the April to July period. As the hon. Gentleman and I well know, however, the United Kingdom reduction has been greatly accelerated due to the exceptionally dry weather which our dairy industry had to put up with in the summer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size of the dairy herd; how this compares with the number two years ago; and what decline has been noted in each of the other member states of the Community.

The provisional results of the 1984 June census show that there were 3,265,000 dairy cows in the United Kingdom herd—0·5 per cent. more than in June 1982.

In the light of that and previous answers, have the Minister and his colleagues begun to have any misgivings at all about the wretched failure of the Government's dairy farming policy? The figures that he has just given may well be accurate, but does he accept that the fact remains that we are much nearer to reaching the position that the Government pledged than any other member state within the Community?

Like my right hon. Friend, in the past few months I have been spending a great deal of time in many parts of the country with dairy farmers. There is increasing acceptance that it was necessary to curb the ever-spiralling costs of the dairy surplus throughout the Community. We have been devoting much effort in Brussels to ensuring that the Commission's regulations are applied fairly and uniformly throughout the Community. There is increasing evidence that they are and that milk supplies are coming down in other countries.

As the number of dairy cows is crucially decided by milk quotas, will my hon. Friend confirm that within the EEC there is no machinery for the enforcement of those quotas if a member state decides to defy the EEC?

If a member state decides to defy the EEC by not implementing the regulations, as distinct from the individual producer going above his quota, there is the stiff penalty of disallowance on Community expenditure in that country in the dairy sector.

Is the Minister aware that the national milk production trends quoted by his right hon. Friend a couple of minutes ago are highly selective? Is it not deeply disturbing that in France, Italy and Ireland milk production between April and September increased? Whatever views the hon. Gentleman is attributing to farmers, let me make it clear that no one in the dairy industry wants thousands of jobs destroyed in order to pave the way for increased production on the continent.

We have already made it clear, and I underline it, that we are determined that the system is applied fairly throughout the Community. It is true that the pace of decline differs from country to country. The speed with which the system has come in in different countries has varied, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the drought has had an effect here; but there is evidence of a decline, and we shall continue to watch it carefully.

When does my hon. Friend expect to see the first quota payments into the Commission from those countries which are in excess of their quota? That is when the money will be on the line and when we shall know whether people are playing fair.

I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. The answer is mid-November.

Does the Minister not recall having gone down this road once before when he came to the Dispatch Box as a Minister in the Department of Industry to assure us that the Europeans would cut the steel industry down to size? They did not do so on that occasion and they will not do so on this occasion. Will the Minister finally learn a lesson?

I do not think that I came to the Dispatch Box and made that particular comment, but I repeat that at every Council meeting we raise the point that the system must apply fairly throughout the Community. We fully understand and share the United Kingdom dairy industry's interests and we are determined to see that that is done.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with present procedures governing the burning of straw and stubble; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the new guidelines on straw burning have operated satisfactorily.

The new stricter model byelaws have been adopted by most district councils in the cereal growing areas, and the National Farmers Union has issued a revised code of practice. Together they have brought about a considerable improvement in straw and stubble burning practices this year. The number of incidents has been much reduced. I shall be studying reports on the season as a whole, and considering whether any further action is necessary.

The vast majority of farmers take a responsible attitude to straw burning, but will my right hon. Friend accept that some problems continue to occur? Will his Ministry continue to evaluate new machinery and techniques for the incorporation of straw and to spread that practice throughout the industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that the majority of farmers are responsible people.

How many prosecutions have there been under the byelaws, and what sort of penalties have been imposed as a result of the introduction of those byelaws? Does the Minister accept that neither the byelaws nor the code of practice has made any difference? The majority of farmers were already carrying out good practice, and the irresponsible ones do not appear to have taken any notice of either the code of practice or the byelaws. They have continued to cause a nuisance to their neighbours, to put lives at risk on motorways, and to put a large number of wild animals at risk when the burning gets out of control and hedgerows and other areas are damaged.

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that there has been a great deal less trouble this year than last year. That is reflected in the number of complaints received by my Ministry, which is about a quarter of the number received last year.

I wholly condemn the infernal nuisance caused by irresponsible straw burning, but will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the vast majority of farmers—especially in Cambridgeshire—who have not only scrupulously observed the code, but are pressing the authorities to prosecute the irresponsible and reckless minority?

I endorse what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that what he has said about Cambridgeshire could be said of many other counties too. I know that farmers have tried hard to stick to the code of practice and the byelaws, and that many of them have suffered considerable inconvenience because, in order to avoid causing a public nuisance, they have not burnt straw at weekends, even though that might have been the best time to do so.

I have burnt some straw this year, in accordance with the code of practice, but I assure the Minister that most farmers would far rather use this material for a productive purpose. Will the Minister answer the supplementary question of his hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor), and tell us more about what his Department is doing to assist with research into alternative uses for straw?

As one who—having burnt straw for many years—did not burn any at all this year, I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department spends nearly £2 million a year on research units and development of these matters. Projects which we are financing include the incorporation of chopped straw into the soil, treatment of the straw to improve its value for animal feed, and its use as a fuel. We urge farmers to burn only when there are no alternative uses for the straw.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there are now adequate funds in the European Economic Community agriculture budget to guarantee the requirements of the 1984 price fixing agreed in the Brussels price review 1984.

The draft 1984 supplementary budget, which is now under consultation in the European Parliament, is based on estimates of expenditure requirements to the end of the year which take account of the effects of the price-fixing settlement.

Will the Minister assure us that in any event adequate financial resources will be available for British agriculture for the rest of the calendar year and that there will be no recurrence of the arbitrary measures taken last year to try to save money, which had the effect of destabilising markets and withdrawing support from agriculture in Britain?

My belief at the moment is that there is not likely to be a significant shortfall, provided that the draft supplementary budget is adopted.

If there is a carry-over of spending for the 1984 budget, how does my right hon. Friend think the Common Market will be able to afford the huge budget provided for 1985, which includes provision of £120 million a week for storing, dumping or destroying surplus production?

I remind my hon. Friend that, at the end of 1984, funds ran out. Many colleagues who represent agricultural constituencies will remember that many grants and aids in the last months of 1984 were deferred until the money came in in 1985. If the draft supplementary budget is adopted, I hope that we will not have serious difficulties.

Is there not a 700 million ecu deficit in this year's budget which is to be carried over into next year's budget? How will that money be found and how can the right hon. Gentleman repeatedly say that agricultural spending is under control?

I have said repeatedly that we have made a giant first step in getting common agricultural policy spending under control. The steps that we took earlier this year to reduce the amount of milk going into intervention throughout the Community was a major step. The prices of most agricultural products were reduced and we imposed guarantee thresholds across a broad spectrum of agricultural produce. We have made giant steps towards putting spending in order, although I readily acknowledge that there is much left to do.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many decommissioning grants have been paid to vessel owners since the inception of the scheme.

Fifty one.

Does the Minister expect the rate of applications for the grant to increase during the next six months in view of the Government's sell-out to the European Community by increasing the percentage by-catch in the Norwegian pout fishery, which has been universally condemned by fishermen's associations throughout the country as threatening the health and wellbeing of the fishing industry?

I should be surprised if the effect of decommissioning grants was as the hon. Gentleman outlined. I shall write to him about the Norway pout by-catch issue. I do not believe that the grants will have the effect that he described, as the stock that will be most increased in the by-catch is whiting and we are well short of our quota for whiting. That will remain the case, so there is plenty of opportunity to catch the fish.

Does the Minister agree that more decommissioning grants will be called for in the light of the report which appeared in The Scotsman, which said that, by September, the Dutch had already fished three times their quota of mackerel for 1985? In view of the long delay in mackerel fisheries around the west coast of Scotland, does the Minister agree that the continual breaking of the rules will result in disaster for our fishermen?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the British Government insisted on the setting up of the Inspectorate of Inspectors. There is already clear evidence from several fishery closures that the inspectorate is working. We are awaiting Commission reports on one matter relating to the Dutch Government. We must wait and see what it says. We shall look to the Commission to take vigorous action if any irregularities are uncovered. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the inspectorate is beginning to have the impact that we desired.

Perhaps I might make the rhetorical point that hardly any Danish vessels have been decommissioned under schemes such as this. Does the Minister agree that the English industry's real need is not decommissioning grants, which go to the owners rather than to the fishermen and simply reduce our ability to catch fish that are rightfully ours, but operating help to keep the industry going. whether in the form of a fuel subsidy such as the French enjoy or measures to keep ports such as Grimsby open? Grimsby has been threatened with closure recently and may be again unless the entire industry becomes more profitable.

My rhetorical answer to the hon. Gentleman's rhetorical point is that the Danes have had to close fisheries this year as a result of the inspectorate's action. I saw that for myself when I went to Denmark last week. The hon. Gentleman is tenacious on the second matter that he raised and I shall have to give him an equally tenacious answer. We see no prospect of operating subsidies. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the impact of the decommissioning grant—£7 million has already been paid, some of which has gone to Grimsby. By December 1986, £15 million will have been paid. That helps to bring our fleet's capacity more into line with fishing opportunities in pressure stocks. That is bound to help fishermen.

Given that vessels need crews to sail them, what is the likelihood of EC decommissioning grants being awarded to redundant fishermen?

That would not be permitted under the regulations governing the decommissioning grants.

Will the Minister face his responsibilities for the men who have lost their jobs after years in the industry? It is not good enough for the buck to be passed backwards and forwards between this country and Brussels. The Minister has a responsibility to those who work in the industry as well as to the boat owners.

I was not passing the buck back to Brussels; I was asked a question about decommissioning grants, which come from Brussels. The matter raised by the hon. Gentleman is primarily the responsibility of the Department of Employment. When the main impact occurred, successive Governments, including the previous Labour Government, decided not to take action on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. It would be wrong to make payments going back many years and covering events that occurred under the Labour Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that the farming and wildlife advisory groups provide regular advice to farmers on all matters relating to conservation.

Farming and wildlife advisory groups are independent voluntary bodies, to which my Department gives substantial practical assistance. It is for the groups themselves to decide how best to pursue their aims.

Is it not a fact, that in spite of the commendable work of these groups, some farmers still seem unaware of the ecological and landscape importance of their land? Will my right hon. Friend and his Ministry do all that they can to encourage the advisory groups to be more vigilant and vigorous against the farming cowboys, who are only a minority, but who do great damage to our environment and to the cause of conservation?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says. I hope he will agree with me that we might all do well to remember that farmers have largely created the diverse and beautiful countryside that we know today. Generally, they are showing an increasing awareness of the need to manage their land in ways that are sympathetic to the interests of conservation.

With regard to Halvergate, why cannot the Ministry use article 3(5) of the European land development legislation to do what the Dutch have successfully done in northern Holland? Will the right hon. Gentleman take a giant step in that direction along the lines advocated by the Council for the Protection of Rural England?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I do not believe that article 3(5) is appropriate, because it relates to areas suffering physical handicap from farming. Some conservationally sensitive areas, such as Halvergate, are profitable and could not by any definition be described as physically handicapped farming areas. I doubt whether article 3(5) could legitimately be used in connection with the less-favoured areas directive 75/268 in areas such as Halvergate.

askedthe Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of wine production in England.

It is a little early yet to assess the size of this year's harvest, as many of the grapes have not yet been picked, but it appears that production of English wine might slightly exceed last year's level of 3 million bottles.

Will my hon. Friend consider stimulating the demand for English wine, which is produced from grapes grown in this country, by making it clear on the labels of bottles of so-called British wine that it is produced from grapes grown outside this country?

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. I am keen to encourage the increased consumption of English wine by United Kingdom consumers. One way in which that could be done would be to draw greater attention to the results of a "What Wine?" competition for white wines, in which two of the top three and five of the top 12 European wines were English. The winner was from a village in my constituency. I think that that is a tribute to the successful development of this young industry.

Would it not provide a welcome boost to our wine industry if we had a more sensible relaxation of this country's licensing laws? Will my hon. Friend have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find out why decent English wine, not least in the House of Commons restaurant, costs more than comparable French wine?

I shall refer my hon. Friend's comments to my respective right hon. Friends. However, it is not just the impact of taxation that makes English wine slightly more expensive. It is increasingly becoming a better quality wine, and therefore comparable with the more expensive ones.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about the control of pesticides.

Since my right hon. Friend's announcement on 10 May we have carried out a wide-ranging consultation exercise and we have made a number of public statements of our intentions. The comments received from the consultation have been taken into account in preparing primary legislation to ensure the safe and efficient use of pesticides. This will be introduced to Parliament at an early opportunity.

With regard to the concern about side effects, are the Government resolved that the use of pesticides should be kept to a minimum, as recommended in the seventh report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution?

Yes, Sir. The proposals that we are outlining—about which some fanners were clearly concerned—quote only maximum uses, and we are always concerned to have the minimum uses.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help his Ministry has given with the bird-proofing of sheds and warehouses in Liverpool; and if he will make a statement.

The Ministry's local professional staff have provided advice to the owners of those stores in Liverpool, which were put under restriction because of the danger of disseminating disease. More generally, a code of practice for storekeepers is being drawn up in consultation with the industry.

Is the Minister satisfied that warehouse owners will comply with the recent change in regulations and that there will be no more outbreaks in the sheds?

Yes, indeed. The Ministry veterinary officers derestricted the stores only after inspecting them. We have been giving advice about how to keep them free of birds. We have also inspected 70 other port areas to ensure that there is no spread of the disease by feral pigeons.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of farming land were lost in 1983–84 due to coalmining subsidence.

I regret that this information is not available.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many small farmers in coal mining counties such as Staffordshire have their livelihoods threatened because they are unable to obtain compensation from the NCB for consequential losses due to coal mining subsidence? Will he urge our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to implement the recommendations and proposals of the Waddilove report at the earliest possible date?

As my hon. Friend implies, the Waddilove report is most useful. As he knows, it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, but I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is considering it most carefully and that the Ministry is fully involved in the considerations on issues that affect agriculture. We shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments in that regard, but I cannot at this stage make any further comment as to the date.

Does the Minister agree that the problem could be resolved by treating the coal mining industry in the same way as the farming industry is treated? Does he further accept that in the Government's Think Tank report issued in November 1983 the subsidy figure for the year 1984–85 is equivalent to £1,000 million, plus all the money that comes from the Common Market? According to that report, it is equivalent to £20,000 per farmer. If the coal mining industry got that, it would solve all those problems.

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has read, but his figures are quite wrong.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stage he has reached in his continuing review of safeguards to protect live animals in transit.

Existing legislation provides substantial safeguards. We shall continue to keep these under review and will present proposals for improvements to Parliament where a real need has been identified.

As the regulations governing the transit of animals by air and sea have been under discussion for review since 1980, will my hon. Friend ensure that they are brought to a speedy conclusion, given that many people are very concerned about the way in which animals are treated during transit?

Transit legislation is under constant review. We are ready to make proposals whenever the need arises. We shall be making an order on the transport of animals by sea when we have finalised our views in the light of the many comments that we have received. If my hon Friend is nagging me to get on with it, I respond.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

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. This evening I shall be attending a dinner given by President and Madame Mitterrand.

In this no doubt welcome interlude in the Prime Minister's other engagements, will she take the opportunity to confide in the House and tell us whether she is proud of the fact that within the last month her policies have achieved the worst unemployment levels ever recorded, the worst manufacturing trade figures ever recorded and the lowest level for sterling ever recorded? Which part of the economy does she intend to destroy next month?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the policies needed to create greater industrial and commercial wealth. The policies needed are those being pursued by this Government. With regard to the manufacturing figures, it is only sense that if we have a big oil industry and a big balance of trade in our favour that has to be balanced out either by increasing imports or by increasing capital investment overseas. The Labour party is against both.

I appreciate the moves already made by the Government to bring emergency food and medical aid to the famine-stricken areas of Ethiopia. May we have an assurance that, subject to co-operation from the Ethiopian authorities, nothing—but nothing—will be spared to ensure that effective aid is brought to the afflicted as speedily as possible, not excluding the use of air transport?

We are very concerned about the situation and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made certain that increased food aid is available from Britain. About 6,000 tonnes of additional food aid and about £5 million in drought-related assistance is available to Ethiopia. I am in touch with the President of the European Community and I am urging him to encourage the other countries in the European Community to follow our example.

I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer and follow the question by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). The whole House will share the deep public anxiety about the famine in Ethiopia. The Opposition want to welcome the steps already taken by the Government to make some additional emergency relief available.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. British food aid shipments are already arriving regularly. The main problem is the internal distribution. We cannot choke existing port facilities that are under heavy strain. The additional 6,000 tonnes of food aid allocated yesterday will arrive in Ethiopia before the end of the year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Year?"] We are urgently consulting our ambassador in Addis Ababa on how the £5 million can be put to the best possible use. We shall have to ship food and pay for its internal transport We are providing lorries to facilitate unloading and are considering other equipment needed by the port. We are also considering the provision of drilling rigs to secure water supplies for relief camps. We shall continue to provide other forms of direct disaster relief, including medical supplies. Everything that can be done will be done.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

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

As the Prime Minister so magnificently organised the commandeering of enough ships to carry our Navy, Army and Air Force to the Falklands, will she explain why the famine relief in Ethiopia presents such a problem?

I have already explained the reasons. We do not wish to choke existing port facilities that are already under heavy strain. The analogy which the hon. Gentleman attempted to draw was wholly false.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, much as we deplore the ludicrous incident with the French security man, many of us would be distressed were that regrettable incident to mar the visit of the French President? Is she further aware that we would also regret it if that incident had any effect on the French ambassador, who is a very good friend of this country?

I thank my hon. Friend. It was a most regrettable incident. The French authorities are aware of our view that it was wholly wrong for the individual to act in the way that he did. They regret the misunderstanding.

Does the Prime Minister feel it to be preposterous that a body calling itself the European Parliament should presume to debate and vote upon a matter internal to the United Kingdom—the dispute in the mining industry?

Yes, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. If the European Parliament attempts to debate a British internal matter, that will diminish that Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister what new steps the Government are taking to reduce poverty in the United Kingdom.

A better standard of living depends upon our success in creating more wealth in the country as a whole. This year's gross domestic product is now at its highest ever level, and income is higher than at any time under the last Labour Government. Resources have also been provided for a real increase in social security benefit rates of £2·75 billion since 1979. The retirement pension is at its highest ever level; so is the child benefit; so is spending on benefits for the sick and disabled; so are heating allowances. The Government intend to continue with the policies which have achieved these results.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that that answer will be of little comfort to the poor in Britain? Is it not true that under her Government the number of people living in poverty has increased and that the length of time that they have to live in poverty has also steadily increased? Will she consult her handbag to find out whether she has any unpaid bills for major items such as clothing, and reflect on the fact that for a large number of people living in poverty the unpaid bill is a nightmare and that many of them have less to spend in their annual budget for clothing than people in this House spend on one such item?

There are certainly more people on supplementary benefits than there were. There is an increase in the number of pensioners, but the main increase has been in the number of unemployed who have resort to supplementary benefits. The benefits which those on supplementary benefit receive are, in real terms, greater than they ever were under the previous Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that because there is such a close and obvious connection between poverty and unemployment, the most useful thing that the trade unions could do would be to abate their wage demands?

My hon. Friend is correct in making the connection between wage demands and unemployment. Those countries with the lowest unemployment rate are those with the lowest unit wage costs. The essential thing is to have a connection between wage demands and increased output. If we are to get unemployment down, it is also essential not to have the number of strikes that we now have.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 October.

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

Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to study the remarks made by the president of the National Union of Mineworkers when arriving at talks with the National Coal Board today, when he said that he had nothing to offer in these talks? Is this not the clearest possible sign that, although he may talk of wanting a negotiated settlement, he has neither the wish nor the will to negotiate or settle?

My hon. Friend will agree that the settlement reached with the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers yesterday was a fair one. It was a settlement reached between a union which was anxious to settle but had certain points to put to the NCB, and it was a settlement which suited NACODS and the NCB because it enabled the latter to run the coal industry efficiently and in accordance with its statutory obligations. I hope that any other people on strike will agree that that was a good settlement and join NACODS in accepting it and ending the strike.

Does the Prime Minister not understand that there will be no return to work in the coal mining industry—[Interruption.]—until there is a settlement that is acceptable to the NUM and its membership? What action or initiative does the Prime Minister have to bring about such a settlement?

The NCB has already negotiated within the limit of its statutory obligations, which are to run the industry efficiently, in accordance with the nationalised industries Acts and the objectives that it has been given. There is no longer any industrial reason for this dispute to continue.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 25 October.

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

Is it not the case that those miners who are working are those who have had a local ballot, and that the members of NACODS are working after having a ballot? Therefore, would it not be appropriate if those who are on strike were allowed the opportunity to have a ballot? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had a conversation this morning with the family of a miner on strike, which revealed that many who are on strike would like to have a ballot and would like to work?

There are some 70,000 people at work in the collieries under the NCB. Most of those people exercised their right to have a ballot and voted to continue to work under the rules of the NUM. They are at work, and so are the members of NACODS—which also had a ballot—as are those who work for the other union. Of the people on strike, I believe that most would like to have a ballot so that they can express their wish to return to work. They are being prevented only by the leadership of the NUM, supported by the Labour party and mob violence.

Will the Prime Minister have regard to the serious incident at the Stanley Royd hospital in my constituency during the summer recess, in which it is alleged that 21 people died through food poisoning? Is she aware of the concern over the incident and the allegations that have been made about shortages of materials and staff? Will she impress upon her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services the need to speed up the public inquiry so that evidence can be taken while events are fresh in the minds of those who want to give it, and the matter resolved?

I am aware of the incident and I shall make a point of bringing it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health. I shall draw his attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said.