asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current trend in levels of income in the agricultural sector.

Farming income fell by 43 per cent. in 1985 compared with 1984, when it rose by 35 per cent. compared with 1983. The weather plays a large part in these figures. However, the price fixing will help our producers to sustain returns overall. Our industry, which is in surplus, faces difficult adjustments at this time.

Does the Minister accept that the underlying trend in these figures is downward and ever more downward? Given the essential importance of agriculture and the agriculture-related sectors in rural areas such as the Highlands of Scotland, but particularly in two other parliamentary constituencies that I can think of today, what will the Minister do to arrest the underlying essential trend, which I fear will lead in the Highlands to another form of Highland clearance if nothing is done to reverse the trend?

The Government share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about agriculture and its economic prospects. The hon. Gentleman, typically for his party, is very good at stating the problems, but is short on providing solutions to them. The alliance is very good at claiming that incomes are going down, but it is very bad at telling us how it would deal with huge surpluses such as exist in agriculture. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's points about the Highlands, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a degree of generosity, might draw attention to the considerable improvements that we made last year in the subsidies for less-favoured areas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for Members of Opposition parties to lament the drop in farmers' incomes when they are planning to rate agricultural land?

We all know that. My hon. Friend should not accuse the hon Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) of that, as it is only the urban Members of those parties who tell us that they will rate agricultural land. The rural Members are understandably rather quiet about it.

Given the importance of beet and beet sugar to agriculture, is it not right and proper that any bid, from whatever source, for the acquisition of the British Sugar Corporation should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that these are matters not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Will not the Government's record on lowering interest rates and inflation, together with the reduction in the cost of commodities that farmers buy, have a marked effect in helping to sustain farmers' net incomes?

That is true, although I think that my hon. Friend has probably left out of his accurate list the fact that the changes in the green pound will also greatly help farmers.

As the right hon. Gentleman wants to be specific in his solutions, is this not the last year in which delays should be experienced in the compensatory allowance payments? Does he accept that some hill farmers are still awaiting their payments, and that that is quite unprecedented? Will he remedy the situation?

The hon. Gentleman should know that we are making every effort to make the payments as quickly as possible. He will also remember that earlier in the year we took the trouble to ensure that advance payments were made, particularly to some in the less-favoured areas. That, of course, was very welcome.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated revenue for 1986–87 from charges to farmers for statutory services; and if he will make a statement.

Estimated receipts for all activities of my Department are published in the Supply Estimates 1986–87, class IV, but our data do not distinguish receipts from charges to farmers, whether direct or indirect, from charges to other persons and organisations.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. When will the charges to nursery growers for growing season inspections be announced? The delay is causing considerable difficulty to nurserymen such as Hilliers in my constituency, who are heavily dependent on the export trade. If the charges are too swingeing there will be minimum export orders, which will only hand business to our continental competitors. Why cannot nurserymen such as Hilliers be licensed to carry out their own inspections, just as the seed trade does?

My attention has not been drawn to any particular difficulties, but we hope to circulate the provisional proposals to trade and producer interests within the next few weeks. On the question of licensing, the EEC directive requires Government certification, so inspection must be done by the Government.

Will the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—Give me a break.

He has never seen a cow.

Yes, I have. There are plenty on Wanstead Flats. Will the Minister consider charging farmers the storage costs of their overproduction which results in beef and butter mountains? We have beef and butter mountains in my constituency of Newham, North-West. Why do the Government refuse to give me the address of those mountains? Are they embarrassed or afraid of food riots in Stratford?

There is commercial confidentiality about giving the names of storage depots, and any payment for storage is part of the general EEC instruction.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many farmers in the Weald of Sussex, and particularly dairy farmers, resent the introduction of charges for statutory duties? I find it extraordinary that my hon. Friend cannot say how much the Exchequer saves by introducing such charges. If the Ministry cannot say how much is being saved, why introduce the charges in the first place?

We proposed the charges because there is an identifiable and substantial benefit to customers in cases where we now charge, or propose to charge. A precise estimate of the savings is difficult, because in some of the areas in which charges will be made we do not yet know the scale of demand for the service. Consequently, we cannot estimate the income.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable feeling in the industry that statutory functions carried out in the public interest should be funded by the Government? Is she aware that many farmers are worried that the Minister will thrust on the industry the £2 million per annum cost of implementing the milk and dairy regulations? Furthermore, is she aware that there is considerable concern in the already hard-pressed dairy sector of the industry?

Assertions that statutory work is solely for the public good are wrong. Where there is private benefit, we expect the recipient to pay. The high quality and reputation of the products that are involved in the milk and dairy regulations work help to maintain consumption and thus benefit the producers' returns.

In view of the statutory obligations that the Ministry has for testing, will the Minister comment on the contamination of milk in becquerels per litre in the high rainfall areas of Britain and compare them with those levels found in Holland, where the cows have been housed?

The levels in Holland are a matter for testing in that country. I can only reassure the hon. Gentleman that we tested in many spots in the entire United Kingdom. The figures that we announced are accurate. He will have seen that although the National Radiological Protection Board had marginally different figures, it had tested at fewer points than we had.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the final decision on cereal prices taken by the European Economic Community Council for 1985–86; and if the EEC Commission's proposal on prices for 1986–87 is based on the previous year's figure as adopted by the Council, or as operated by the Commission.

The Council of Ministers took no decisions on cereals support prices for 1985–86. Price levels for 1986–87 were set by the Council at its meeting of 21 to 25 April and did not depend on those which the Commission applied in 1985–86.

I am grateful to the Minister for the latter information. Does he accept that what happened in the price negotiations last year, when the Commission overruled a West German veto on cereal price reductions, shows the fragility of the Luxembourg compromise and contradicts the assurances given to the House by the Foreign Secretary that the Single European Act posed no threat to the Luxembourg compromise?

The hon. Gentleman should recall that last year the Commission was obliged to take measures to maintain the smooth running of the cereals market. It is not helpful to quibble about this pragmatic approach in the circumstances of last year's deadlock. This year's decisions have been taken clearly by the Council without any threats of the Luxembourg compromise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent discussions in Europe on agricultural prices have been disappointing? We shall not solve the basic problem of surplus production in Europe by tinkering with prices. We must get our European partners to consider a far more fundamental reform of the CAP.

My hon. Friend is not as optimistic as he might be about the effects of the recent price-fixing. It constitutes a considerable reduction in prices in the cereals sector. I shall be surprised if it does not have some effect at the margins. I agree with my hon. Friend that one is unlikely to deal with the cereals problem by price policy alone. That is why, as he knows, I have lately been discussing—I have also mentioned it to the House—the prospects of a policy of set-aside, which could help us to deal with the growing surpluses.

Why, then, did the Ministry give evidence to the Select Committee, whose report was issued this week, that it was depending on prices alone to counter and control the cereals surplus? If the Minister is so confident that it will work at the margins, why will he not give us an estimate of the amount by which cereal production will be cut as a result of the price agreement?

It is impossible to predict the effect on production, because the weather plays such an important part. I guess that the hon. Gentleman has read carefully what I have said during the past few months and that he knows that I have said that I believe we shall solve the problem of cereal surpluses only with a package of measures, of which price restraint should be a front-running member.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that argument is convincing nobody? Indeed, I doubt whether he is convincing himself. What possible sense can there be in reducing prices, which will encourage every farmer in Europe to produce more cereals, while talking about a package of set-aside? Could he concentrate his mind on this subject and realise that only a mandatory set-aside throughout the Community and other surplus producing areas of the world will solve the problem?

My hon. Friend has advanced arguments that are familiar to the House. He will know that a mandatory set-aside is not very far removed from quotas and the House has largely agreed, although I know that my hon. Friend does not wholly agree, that it would be bad for Britain if we had quotas to deal with the cereals problem. I believe that a policy of a voluntary set-aside could sit very well with a policy of price discipline on the lines that we have succeeded in negotiating at the most recent price fixing.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when Her Majesty's Government expect to be able to announce their conclusions on the Farm Animal Welfare Council report on July 1985 on ritual slaughter; and if he will make a statement.

The Government are giving careful consideration to the Council's report and to the many comments which have been received on it from interested parties. The response will be issued as soon as possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that toleration of the rights of religious minorities is a mark of a civilised society, but that that toleration cannot be absolute? We now have a constructive report which was published as long ago as July 1985. Does she agree that, if people knew about ritual slaughter, the vast majority would find it abhorrent? Does she further agree that it is a problem which the Government will have to tackle sooner rather than later?

I assure my hon. Friend that I am mindful of the fact that the report is extremely important. We have received many comments and observations from a wide range of interested persons. We consult widely. I assure my hon. Friend that we are giving the matter the deepest consideration. We will take a decision and make our report just as soon as possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be difficult to find many veterinarians in the country who would support this abhorrent practice? Does she further agree that agriculture has enough enemies without it being associated in the slightest with pandering to this barbaric practice?

The issue has been debated in Parliament several times. The prevailing view has been that the religious requirements of the Jewish and Moslem communities should be respected in the absence of conclusive evidence that animals killed by religious methods suffer more than stunned animals. We now have this very important report. In view of decisions made by Parliament over many years, we recognise how important it is.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the sheep industry; and if he will make a statement.

The sheep sector is relatively profitable and I consider that producers should remain confident. We derive considerable benefits from the EC sheepmeat regime, and these will continue following the recent CAP price settlement.

Is the Minister aware that, for sheep farmers in Wales, the fodder compensation scheme has failed to mitigate the consequences of last year's disastrous summer? Is he further aware that many fair-minded farmers feel that it has discriminated unfairly against them when they see their neighbours receiving compensation in precisely the same circumstances? Does he agree that the attitude of some banks, which charge many farmers as much as 3 per cent. above the base rate, is doing great damage to the sheep industry?

It is true that if one tries to provide specific help for those in particular need one has to draw lines, and that means that people on the wrong side of the line find it unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman has made that point before. I do not think that it could have been done more fairly. I know he will accept that it is better to try to give the aid where it is needed than to provide blanket aid across the country. As for the hon. Gentleman's comment on the banks, one cannot comment on a general statement of that kind. In many cases the banks have been extremely helpful.

My right hon. Friend should be aware that there is considerable disquiet in the sheep sector of the industry at the possibility that, if there are quotas on cereals and producers go out of production, they may well move into the sheep sector, causing considerable problems there. In the light of the excellent result achieved by my right hon. Friend in the EEC last week, despite what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said—the sheep sector welcomed the achievement—we do not want to see over-production in the sheep sector as in the cereal sector.

My hon. Friend is right, and that is one of the reasons why the concept of quotas has its major disadvantages. We have to remind the House that in the price settlement we achieved the things that we sought. We got rid of the discriminatory proposals on flock sizes and stopped the proposed merger of Northern Ireland with the Republic into one region. As a result of the changes in the MCAs we have given an increase in the basic sheepmeat price. That means that there is considerable benefit for that part of the industry.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the bargain he reached in Brussels over the sheepmeat regime. Will he please draw attention to the fact that the sheepmeat industry is probably one of the most profitable farming sectors at present?

The sheepmeat industry provides a real reason for confidence in the future for those working in it. The industry faces a number of problems and we have to keep that closely in mind. However, I do not think that the industry is helped by the constant doom which we hear from the Liberal and Social Democratic parties.

To what extent have the sheep rearing higher land areas of the United Kingdom been affected by the fallout from Chernobyl? When the NRPB said today that the levels of fallout were 100 times higher at the weekend than today, where was it referring to? We were never given those figures. That may not be a departmental responsibility of the Minister, but, in so far as he has responsibility for agriculture, especially the sheep industry, will he look at that matter?

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is a matter for the Department of the Environment, and I shall see that his points are raised with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, there are two ways in which we do no service to the public in this matter. The first is to cover up what has happened, as the Russians did, and the other is to spread alarm and despondency when it is entirely unnecessary.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about permitted variations to the proposed standard milk quota.

None other than those raised by hon. Members during the debate on the Agriculture Bill on 17 April. We have however consulted the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union about this issue. We shall be tabling amendments in another place to take account of the comments made. These amendments allow greater flexibility for arbitrators to depart from the standard yield to take account of individual circumstances. Those moves should be especially helpful to farmers on marginal land.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many farmers on difficult land will find it difficult to reach yields of the standard quota? Therefore, will he be sympathetic to representations made on their behalf, even if they depart from the standard quota by less than the 20 per cent. mentioned in the Bill?

I am glad to be able to say that it is our intention to remove that 20 per cent. restriction so that farmers, especially on more marginal land, can make better use of the arrangements. The impact of that will be to leave a good deal more discretion to the arbitrators.

Do the Government intend to introduce any other amendments to the new clause in another place?

This is the most important amendment that we have decided to make, and we shall make any other amendments that we believe to be right in the light of circumstances.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the level of profitability in the livestock sector; and if he will make a statement.

The whole of the livestock sector will benefit from the recent agreement on CAP prices, in particular as a result of the devaluation of the green pound, which favours livestock as compared with the arable sector. Further, the reduction in cereal prices should be of benefit to the livestock sector as well.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many milk producers have benefited from the reduction in feed costs and have enjoyed a consequent increase in profitability? Does he accept that this is a one-off exercise and that something must be done about milk prices if dairy farmers are to enjoy continued profitability in the future?

I should point out to my hon. Friend that the devaluation of the green pound will raise the price level for milk by around 2·75 per cent. At the same time, he will remember that the cereal price package will reduce feed costs. In fact, for the cereal sector, the package should cut the price of feed grains by about 4 per cent. Those two factors should help dairy farmers quite considerably.

Will the Minister draw the attention of his colleagues at the Scottish Office to the problem facing the livestock sector in the north of Scotland and in the Highlands and Islands, especially as we are still seeing the feed-through effects of last year's very bad weather conditions, which have resulted in higher feed prices to the livestock sector, and which are now being accelerated through the agricultural economy to other aspects? If the Minister were to look constructively at other ways of providing additional support to that welcome help which the Government provided last year, we would be extremely grateful.

My answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. He has acknowledged the way in which the Government moved to help last autumn because of the very had weather, in addition to the adjustment that we made to the grants for the less-favoured areas.

Is there not a certain lack of Conservative ideology in continuing a regime that the Government do not apply to other industries—that of maintaining profitability by having enormous unsaleable mountains and by selling some of the surplus to the Soviet Union at 15p a pound? Will my right hon. Friend explain to my constituents the logic of paying massive sums to dairy farmers to get them out of milk so that they can switch the land to livestock production?

I agree with my hon. Friend—and he has heard me say so on many occasions—that the CAP has suffered over the years, because while in general its principles are right, it has been extremely badly managed by the application of too generous price increases. That has caused the surpluses to build up. However, the principles of the CAP are right. It was right to switch from a policy of maintaining agricultural incomes by deficiency payments and guaranteed prices to a system of support through import levies. Only the other day I looked at some of my hon. Friend's election addresses and noticed that there was nothing in them that argued against that switch in basic policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards organic farming.

My Department takes an interest in all farming systems, including what has become known as organic farming, with the objective of helping farmers to make the fullest possible use of the resources available to them according to the economic circumstances and to meet market requirements. Provided that those farming organically continue to pay attention to the market for their products, I believe that this form of production will develop to meet a specialised retail demand.

Does the Minister accept that, for all practical purposes, the Government give no assistance for research into, or development of, systems of organic farming? Does she not accept that there are very good reasons, on grounds of both personal and environmental health, for encouraging these practices, and that if the Government were to reverse their policies and encourage those systems they it would go some way towards introducing a more extensive form of farming and reducing surpluses?

The first part of the hon. Member's assertion is untrue. MAFF began funding a three-year project at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth in 1985, designed to obtain, on a whole-farm basis, information on nitrogen balance and the nitrogen cycle in organic farming systems. Work is planned and monitored with the assistance of a steering group which includes senior representatives of the organic farming sector. ADAS is also carrying out a three-year study, monitoring pests and diseases in organically grown crops on a commercial farm in Wiltshire.

Can my hon. Friend give some assurance to those who are anxious about the fact that there are no satisfactory definitions in organic farming? Consumers do not know how organic "organic" is. It would be helpful if there were some definitions.

The Community intends to take action to promote organic farming by introducing a legislative framework that will ensure free movement for organic produce—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to give the answer, he might find out that I am interested in protecting the consumers' interests. The Commission is to make proposals for satisfactory guarantees to consumers through proper labelling.

Will the hon. Lady, in her ususal straighforward way, tell organic farmers whether the Government have any proposals to assist with the marketing of organic produce? Will she also tell us whether she is satisfied with the statutory protection given to organic farmers against those who label their goods falsely as organic when they are not organic?

I have just answered the last part of the hon. and learned Member's question. The Commission and Europe are looking at the protection of the consumer in respect of the labelling of organic produce. As regards the promotion of marketing, I have no doubt that they will support Food from Britain, the organisation which markets both agricultural and horticultural produce.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we should see organic farming in proportion? At the moment we are about 80 per cent, self-sufficient in temperate foodstuffs. If there were a big move to organic farming, there would be a massive shortfall of temperate foodstuffs that we could produce in this country.

I believe that there is likely to be an increasing demand for organically grown produce, but, although organic farming methods have attractions for some producers, they are unlikely to be the total answer for British agriculture generally.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

I am satisfied that, with the common fisheries policy now firmly in place within an enlarged Community, confidence is returning to the fishing industry. The value of catches continues to increase year by year, and investment in construction and modernisation of fishing vessels appears to be running at a very healthy level.

I am grateful for the Minister's response. Does he recall that at Question Time during the latter part of 1985 he indicated to me that before the end of the year he would make a statement on the future of the licensing system for the fishing of pelagic species? That statement has not yet appeared. Can he say when he expects it to appear? Will he accept that as long as there is delay there must be uncertainty in the industry and some suspicion about what is going on with regard to further licensing of freezer trawlers?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that any suspicions in that sense are unfounded. The only suspicion that people ought to have is that we are trying to come to a proper decision in the proper time.

Is the Minister in a position to make a statement on the story that has been running in newspapers for the last few days to the effect that there is a plan to divide the fishing grounds into areas, which would be allocated to individual vessels? That is regarded as a horrific suggestion in the fishing industry in Scotland.

If the right hon. Gentleman were to think for a moment about the possibility of doing that, he would understand that it is unlikely. There is no plan for an overall change of the present system.

Is the Minister satisfied with the performance of the Sea Fish Industry Authority in the promotion and marketing of the product?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that one is never wholly satisfied with any organisation that seeks to market anything. I am keen on the promotion of fish, a thoroughly good product which should be very widely eaten and which provides extremely good value for money. The SFIA is doing a good job and has increasingly proved that to the industry. It now has considerable support in the industry for the operation it is carrying out in circumstances that are not at all easy, particularly since herring was off the menu for so long and now has come back on it more widely.

I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the award last week of the FEOGA grants to the fishing industry. The Scottish fishing industry is extremely grateful for the £2 million which was granted to it by FEOGA last week. In my constituency, 17 projects will benefit by £1·2 million. Long may my right hon. Friend continue to work as hard for the fishing industry in Scotland as he has done since he took office.

It is not I who should be congratulated, but my hon. Friend, on the enterprise of his constituents. I point out to him that the common fisheries policy, which is producing such dividends to the United Kingdom, was wholly opposed by the Labour party, which thought that it would lead to the outrageous destruction of British fishing interests. In fact, we have seen that it is one of the most progressive and sensible policies that we have entered into for many years.

Is the Minister aware that there are still a substantial number of United Kingdom quotas which are not being taken up? Will he tell the House what specific steps he will take to encourage fishermen, especially English and Welsh fishermen, to exploit those quotas? Is he aware that if they are not taken up they will be exploited by other countries, which will make negotiations on next year's quotas much more difficult?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. It is important that we should fish to our quotas, except that some of the quotas are there for historic reasons but have not been able to be fished because the fish have not been there. We are concerned about that, because we want realistic quotas in every case. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we should fish to our quotas. In the end it is the industry which must respond to that, and not the Government who must force it to do so. I encourage the industry in all cases that I can.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend last met the president of the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance on 25 October when he addressed the annual luncheon of the alliance on a wide range of issues of concern to the confectionery industry.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. Will she take on board the need to stop the dumping of non-EEC confectionery, which is undermining employment in this country because bags of sugar confectionery are being sold into the wholesale trade at 9p a bag to retail at 20p, as opposed to double that price for United Kingdom confectionery?

There are well-established rules which govern international trade. Imports from third countries are subject to import duties. Any substantiated evidence of unfair competition will be urgently examined. I trust that my hon. Friend will bring it before my Department.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of hill farming; and if he will make a statement.

The state of hill farming is considered every year in the context of the autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands. As a result of last year's review, hill livestock compensatory amounts were increased by an average of 11 per cent. This was in addition to the special help, including exceptional weather aid payments, offered to farmers in many hill areas most adversely affected by last year's bad weather. Higher rates of capital grant and grants for on-farm diversification are also available in the less-favoured areas to compensate for the special hardship which farmers face there.

Will the Minister comment on the fact that some farmers in upland areas are on family income supplement, which is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs? What will the Government do about it?

As my right hon. Friend pointed out, last year some payments were made in advance to help with that. The 11 per cent. increase above the amount which was paid out in 1985 will have benefited some 60,000 to 65,000 producers.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 May.

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 Prime Minister of Sri Lanka.

Has the Prime Minister seen today's report of the Congressional decision to refuse endorsements of the latest proposals for arms exports to a middle east country? Does she sympathise with that rejection? Will she participate in trying to cut the obscene pouring of billions of pounds' worth of offensive arms equipment into middle east countries, causing political instability and the threat and risk of further wars in that area?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, that is not a matter for me. He will also be aware of our decision at the Tokyo summit not to export arms to Libya.

Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to consider the worrying fall in the number of Americans planning to visit the United Kingdom since the Libyan bombing? As that is completely unjustified, is she aware of any plans to invite the United States' First Lady to the royal wedding, since an early invitation followed by an early acceptance may well go some way towards reversing that trend?

That is not a matter for me, but I am well aware of the reports of the reduction in the number of tourists from America coming to the United Kingdom, and I have already had something to say about it. They should continue to come. This is a marvellous country to visit, it is extremely safe, and there is a great deal going on that they will wish to see this summer.

Has the Prime Minister yet had time to consider the Privileges Committee recommendation that Mr. Richard Evans of The Times be suspended from the Lobby for six months for publishing a leaked report from the Environment Select Committee? Does she not think it ironic that Select Committees, set up to throw light on the workings of Government Departments, should be in danger of establishing rules of secrecy around their affairs which they would condemn if it occurred in Whitehall? If the House were to punish a journalist while letting the source of the leak go scot free, would it not appear to many outside as both pompous and extremely unfair?

That is a House of Commons matter, and the House of Commons will decide.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 May.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that she has the widespread support of the British people for the initiative she has taken to prevent terrorism? Will she take time today to consider the terrorism of British scientists by the Animal Liberation Front, which has caused millions of pounds' worth of damage during the past year and which is now resorting to the use of bombs and other forms of violence?

I agree with my hon. Friend. One can only utterly condemn the activities of the animal liberation movement, which deliberately poisons and contaminates food to cause great harm to human beings, and deliberately lets out animals, which causes harm to other animals. We support the police in their activities to deal with it. If further legislation were needed, we should not hesitate to introduce it.

First, I endorse every word of the Prime Minister's last answer.

I read what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said on Tuesday. I thought that it was an excellent statement. It was very well received. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, after the arrival of the radioactive cloud over the United Kingdom last Friday, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food set up an incident room to provide expert advice on foodstuffs, and the Department of the Environment is acting as the overall lead Department, with responsibility for co-ordinating, monitoring and disseminating relevant information and acting as a focal point for inquiries.

When the right hon. Lady has time, will she ensure that action is taken to remove the inconsistencies that have been apparent in the information, and that the information is put in a form which the general public can clearly comprehend?

That is one reason for the Department of the Environment information room—it acts a clearing-house for information. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's request to try to put the information in a form that ordinary people can understand.

May I first congratulate the Prime Minister on her safe return from an outstandingly successful conference. May I, in the context of the Chernobyl disaster, refer her to the tendentious, inaccurate and damaging advertisement published by Friends of the Earth in The Times today. Does she agree that the damage done to Western economies by OPEC in the last decade would pale into total insignificance if Western Governments were to be panicked by public reaction into closing down the nuclear industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is the first to know and to say that the record of the nuclear industry in this country has been excellent. As far as civil installations are concerned, there has been no fatality in this country. Provided we go on, as we shall, in safety in design, safety in manufacturing, safety in the mode of operation and safety in maintenance, I believe that that record will continue and will gain public confidence once again.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 May.

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

On reflection, does the Prime Minister not agree that she was rather unfair and hasty in dismissing the present Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from his position as chairman of the Conservative party? Is she aware that it is an open secret here that, even among his Cabinet colleagues, there is a good deal of dissatisfaction at the way in which the present chairman of the Tory party is carrying on, and no doubt by tomorrow morning there will be even more dissatisfaction? Being no doubt, in some respects at least, a fair-minded person, why does the Prime Minister not bring back the little fellow and give him another chance?

Both of them do extremely well wherever they serve, and that is what the hon. Gentleman does not like.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the outstanding part that she played in the success of the Tokyo summit and say how pleased I am that far greater prominence was given to the problems of agriculture than at any previous summit. May I tell my right hon. Friend that the present policy of cutting agricultural prices will fail, and urge her urgently to call a conference of all nations which have agricultural exports to form a concerted policy in order to avoid a trade war across the Atlantic?

As I think my hon. Friend knows, for the first time we had quite a considerable discussion on agriculture and on the tendency to protect and subsidise it so that we have enormous surpluses. He is the first to know that we have to find a way of getting down those surpluses. I am well aware of his personal opinion that price reductions may not be the only way, but I think he will agree, from the communiqué at the Tokyo summit, that for the first time all nations are looking at it together as a common problem instead of looking at it as a matter of competitive subsidies and competitive protection. I think that to look at it together and to cooperate in finding a solution—and through OECD—is the best way to go about it.

asked the Prime Minister if she has any plans to appoint a Minister with responsibility solely for tourism.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment exercises overall ministerial responsibility for policy towards tourism very effectively.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's comments. I hope that at the next opportunity she will consider a full-time post, bearing in mind that tourism is the fastest growth sector in the economy. Does my right hon. Friend understand that some 70,000 jobs were created last year and that those jobs are in no way, as the Opposition suggest, Mickey Mouse jobs?

I agree with my hon. Friend that they are not Mickey Mouse jobs. Tourism is an enormous industry in this country. Total turnover in 1985 was around £13 billion, which is far greater than that of the aerospace industry and about the same as the whole of that of the motor industry. Altogether that industry supports between 1 million and 1·5 million jobs. It is a growing industry. It will produce more jobs. However, I believe that the present arrangements under my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are very effective.

Does the Prime Minister agree that, in the interests of the African, Caribbean and Pacific cane sugar-producing countries and the sugar beet industry——

Order. The question concerns tourism.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answer that she has just given, and consider whether it would be a good idea to promote one of our women Members of Parliament into that job as, clearly, it is the women, the wives abroad and at home, who are——

Order. Would that add to tourism?

Yes. The women have far more say on tourism than the men.

I shall of course consider putting someone who will suit my hon. Friend in that Department.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the tourist industry is liable to be affected by the report of John Large Associates, consultant engineers, which suggests that many of our nuclear power stations are less safe than those in the Soviet Union? In particular, will she institute a review of safety procedures at the Trawsfynydd power station, which is in one of our finest Welsh tourist areas?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard me reply on the excellent safety record of civil nuclear installations in this country. He is casting aspersions on our most excellent nuclear inspectorate.

Will my right hon. Friend consider putting tourism together with the arts and heritage to form one larger and more effective Ministry with Cabinet rank, so that we can promote those great assets of the United Kingdom?

All those things are represented at Cabinet rank. Tourism comes under my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and heritage and various other things come under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I am often asked to take Departments apart and put them back together again in different ways. I am reluctant to do so because I think that too much effort goes into reorganisation and too little into considering the real subject.

Is the Prime Minister aware that it seems a little strange that Tory Members of Parliament want a new Minister responsible for tourism when they already have one—the Prime Minister herself? Since she came to public office in 1979, she has gallivanted round the world so many times that she has cost the British taxpayer more than £2·5 million already. What I want to know is how much the last Tokyo jaunt cost.

I do not think that I can be wholly responsible for the 1 million to 1·5 million jobs that tourism has created in this country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 8 May.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the outstanding achievement of the Tokyo summit has been the extraordinary unanimity that it has been possible for her to achieve among a large number of disparate sovereign nations? Does she agree that that unity contrasts rather strangely with the disunity that we see in the misnamed alliance parties, whose Members are rather short in number in the Chamber today?

Yes, Sir.

Did the Prime Minister take a recent opportunity to remind President Reagan that the mining of harbours in Nicaragua and the funding of the Contras are real forms of terrorism, especially in view of the fact that the Government of Nicaragua were elected democratically, as confirmed by an all-party committee of the House—the Human Rights Parliamentary Group?

The matter was discussed in Tokyo, I believe, among the Foreign Ministers. It was made perfectly clear that both we and the United States support the Contadora process. The regime in Nicaragua is becoming more oppressive. The free publication of some church newspapers and radio station broadcasts has been stopped.

While my right hon. Friend was so splendidly batting for Britain in Tokyo, did she notice that back home, in Wapping, 140 British police officers were injured, many of them badly, by those who masqueraded as peaceful pickets outside the printing plant? Did she notice also that an hon. Member described those police officers as "All that is rotten in our society"? Does my right hon. Friend agree with those comments? Will she invite the Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of the Labour party, to remove that smear from the Metropolitan police?

I saw the reports to which my hon. Friend referred, both of the activities last Saturday night outside the printing plant in Wapping—one can only totally and utterly condemn them and say that they were quite deplorable in terms of the effect on the police—and of the remarks of an hon. Member, which I also totally and utterly condemn. We support the police in the way in which they carry out their duties. Some 300 police have been injured in the demonstration outside the printing plant in Wapping. I note that the Labour party condones the tactics that lead to violence on the picket line at Wapping. The Labour party voted against the Public Order Bill and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. It tolerates Labour councils which harass the police and it cheers speakers at its conference describing the police as "the enemy". Our view is totally different. We support and admire the police.