asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to announce details of compensation for farmers affected by the recent controls on the movement and slaughter of sheep; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to consider the payment of compensation to sheep farmers who have suffered losses as a result of the measures announced on 20 June.

My colleagues and I have had discussions with the farmers unions on the compensation issue. We have agreed that, as yet, it is too early to assess the overall impact on producers of the restrictions, since that will depend upon the relationship between the length of time the restrictions are in operation and the individual farmer's marketing patterns. In this connection, I am happy to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have today signed another order to come into effect at midnight to release a further area of Cumbria from the restrictions. I understand that he will be making a similar announcement today, in relation to further areas in Wales. These releases are based on the results of intensive monitoring, which is continuing. Full details of the area, and the results of latest tests, are being published today and a copy is being placed in the Library of the House.

In thanking the Minister for that informative reply, may I stress to him that in my constituency in Easter Ross, which obviously and understandably will not be covered by the decisions that he is making today, we have the continuing difficulties of last year's bad weather, a 75 per cent. fall in farm incomes and, within the past 48 hours, confirmation from Lord Gray of a further increase in Scottish farming indebtedness to the banks of 9 per cent.? Given those difficulties, and appreciating what the Minister said, may I urge him to take all possible steps as arid when sufficient evidence becomes available to help compensate those farmers, who are already suffering badly at the margins and who will be plunged even further into indebtedness, because the survival of the whole rural economy in the highlands of Scotland is dependent on their well being? Can the Minister give us that undertaking?

I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. Many of his points are matters for my right hon. arid learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I remind him that I said on 20 June that we were prepared to discuss cases of compensation for severe loss in particular circumstances to specific farmers. That undertaking still stands.

That is not all that helpful to farmers. Recently we have also had discussions with the farmers union, and the farmers want to know the Government's criteria on compensation. When will the Government make a statement on that? Is the Minister suggesting that the Secretary of State for Wales may be making that statement somewhere else, because he should be present on the Front Bench if it is a measure affecting Wales? Is the Minister aware that in Wales the scare is so great that a butcher in Monmouth must use a geiger counter to sell lamb in his shop? Is it not time that the Government came clean and told farmers how they will compensate them and the criteria that they will lay down?

The hon. Gentleman should be a little careful before he starts making irresponsible statements of that sort. Questions today are for my Department and not for the Welsh Office. I shall repeat to him—he probably was not listening when I said it earlier—that the leaders of the farmers unions in England and Wales have recognised that until more data are available it is not possible to consider the compensation question in detail. I accept the importance that they attach to early decisions as soon as sufficient data are available.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that we appreciate that he is concerned about the serious economic plight of many farmers in our part of the world? Will he deplore, as he did partly in his answer, the scaremongering that may lead people to cease to buy lamb which is perfectly safe? Will he continue to press the Russians, who are responsible for this disaster, to cough up some cash?

I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the perfect safety of consuming sheepmeat at this time. I believe that the British housewife has demonstrated that clearly because the market price for lamb, both last week and, as we forecast, this week, is rather higher than it was in the corresponding weeks last year. With regard to the points my hon. Friend made about the Russians, I warned Mr. Murakhousky when he was here last week of concern about the impact of the Chernobyl disaster on our agriculture. Of course, any matter of claims is one for the Foreign Office, and not for me.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that I am reassured by the fact that he admits that compensation is needed? However, in addition to the sheep farmers, haulage contractors and auction markets have suffered a fairly dramatic drop in their income. Will their position also be considered? Will he confirm to the House, as I had hoped my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health would confirm, that there is no danger whatsoever to any man, woman or child in this country in eating sheepmeat?

I can gladly confirm that there is no danger. With regard to the matter of abattoirs and markets, the undertaking that I gave to consider compensation was for specific farmers. One has to realise that abattoirs and markets were able, if they wished, to draw sheep from outside the areas in which the restrictions applied. With regard to compensation, I can only repeat what I said. We are prepared to discuss cases of compensation for severe loss in particular circumstances by specific farmers.

I am deeply disturbed by the right hon. Gentleman's comment that abattoirs can draw from elsewhere. The butchers and abattoirs in parts of north Wales cannot, without great loss, call from sources elsewhere. They are as eligible to compensation as anyone else. Will they be considered, and will the right hon. Gentleman please ask that his right hon. and hon. Friends from the Welsh Office are present on such occasions?

With regard to markets and abattoirs, I can only repeat the truth. Markets and abattoirs, even if they were within the restricted areas, were and are entitled to draw their livestock and sheepmeat from outside the area.

We welcome the fact that the Minister has felt able to lift the ban in certain areas. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office told me in a written reply on 1 July that the Government were reserving the right to press a claim against the Soviet Union for any losses, but does the Minister accept that farmers whose lambs have missed the market cannot possibly wait to press a claim through the International Court of Justice? The right hon. Gentleman gave a clear commitment on 20 June to the principle of paying compensation to people who had sustained losses, and he repeated that commitment today, but he appeard to be back-pedalling in a speech that he made to farmers at the Great Yorkshire show. Will the Government try to wriggle out of that commitment, or will they pay compensation where it is justified?

The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. What I have done today is to repeat precisely the undertaking that I gave to the House on 20 June. Perhaps some newspapers misreported what I said at the Great Yorkshire show the day before yesterday. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Yorkshire Post, I think he will find that, in its customary way, it has got it right.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has had on food labelling.

We have recently received comments on our proposal for fat content labelling of foods and on guidelines for nutrition labelling, and on European Community proposals for amendment of the EC food labelling directive 79/112.

Does the Minister recognise that many hon. Members are getting weary of the complacent attitude towards food labelling and of the Government not going anywhere near far enough? When will the Food Advisory Committee's report on colouring be published, which has been suppressed? Will the Minister go further and issue instructions that labelling must include a warning that the azodyes, the benzoates, the sulphites, the sulphates, the nitrites, the nitrates, and the BHA and BHT additives, all of which are already banned from baby food, are possibly toxic to people in vulnerable groups?

The reasons why those additives are not in baby food is that there are two criteria for food additives —safety and need. If there is not an established need in baby foods, the additive is not put in, so that every additive that is passed as safe in adult food is safe if babies or children should eat it. Otherwise, it would not be in the food. I a sorry that the hon. Gentleman should think me complacent. We have a strict consultation pattern, which is required in the legislation. We issued our proposals on 13 February. We asked that observations should be received by May. We sent out to 700 interested parties, and we are now assessing their comments.

As the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy report recommended an increase in the intake of complex carbohydrates and warned against an increase in the intake of simple sugars to make up for the deficiency in calories consumed from eating less fat, how does my hon. Friend expect the consumer to make the right choices in the absence of the mandatory labelling of sugars?

COMA did not request or recommend statutory labelling for other than fats and saturated fatty acids. As my hon. Friend says, it suggested some reduction in other things. I should inform him that sugars are already required to be shown in the listing of ingredients, which came fully into effect on 1 July this year. I should further tell him that COMA advised at the 20 June meeting last month that a panel be set up to examine the effect of sugars in the diet. We shall, of course, consider the implications of any such report.

While it is to be welcomed that on this occasion the Government are at least consulting, which is very unusual for this Government, when will they cut the waffle and take action on labelling, and ensure that accurate labelling is provided, which is what the public seek?

The hon. Gentleman speaks in contradictions. The Government do consult, as required under the legislation. His Government consulted on agricultural matters as they were required to do under the legislation. He cannot expect consultation and, at the same time, expect us to carry out labelling without taking due account of the consultation requested.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the labelling of so-called health foods? Does she think that the description on labels is substantiated by scientific research? Does she not think that the time has come for approved definitions in which the Government would have some say?

Labelling requirements must be complied with. For example, those foods which purport to aid slimming must be labelled extremely carefully. If my hon. Friend has any instances that he wishes to draw to my attention, I shall happily look at them.

Can the Minister assure the House, since the fast food merchants have taken considerable umbrage at the slight advances that have been made, that she will give priority to the consumer interests, and that all foods, with relevant cartons, will contain a complete and accurate note of the contents?

The regulations were introduced in 1984. They came into operation fully on 1 July. They require total ingredients listing in order of the amount in the processed food. Every additive must be put on the label in its generic form and with its E number.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the proportion of cereals grown in the United Kingdom which will be liable for the co-responsibility levy.

I estimate that about three quarters of the United Kingdom's cereals production is likely to be subject to the levy.

Is the Minister not aware that this is the first time that he has given any indication of the way in which the scheme will work? It should have been in operation at least 10 days ago. The whole industry has been thrown into confusion by this vacillation, and the Minister should be ashamed of himself.

We have continually made the industry as a whole aware of how the arrangements will work. We have had a good deal of difficulty, because we did not have the final version of the Community's rules in English until recently. It is wrong to suggest that the industry has been kept in the dark.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that the present proposals are a jolly sight better than the original ones. Having said that, many problems remain. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, especially in the south-west of England, feeders must pay at least another £2 a tonne as a result of the burden? The burden of the co-responsibility levy should be shared all over British farming.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. He is right in saying that we succeeded very well in the price fixing in reducing dramatically the discrimination that existed in the Commission's original proposals. I accept from my hon. Friend that many difficulties are inherent in the co-responsibility levy. That is why the House agreed that we should do everything we could to resist it. However, we found ourselves completely isolated and, at the end of the day, we had to accept it. I realise that it is likely that extra costs will fall upon the industry as a result of having to pay the levy.

What opportunity and what powers will the Minister have to resolve the problems that have arisen over the interpretation of first-stage processing in the Commission's regulations in this context?

So far there is no Community or national definition to work on as regards what is a holding. I think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to. We are still considering the detailed criteria necessary in the light of comments made to us by the trade organisations concerned. We shall be issuing guidelines to the industry as soon as possible. Ultimately, the intervention board must decide in individual cases.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that apparently the wretched tax is to be paid by compound feed mills but not by integrated units on farms, however large they may be? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is highly discriminatory? Will he, at the very least, tighten up the rules to achieve a measure of equality and to exempte only those genuine individual farmers compounding their own feed and giving it to their own animals?

Yes, but my hon.Friend should recall that, under the rules, a producer would be exempt from the levy if he processed grain on his own agricultural holding for use in animal feed on that holding. Exemption of an intensive unit would depend on whether an individual business met the criterion that compounding and livestock production were carried out on the same holding. We shall issue guidelines on that as soon as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that this tax came into force and should have been levied 10 days ago. He said that the criteria are ultimately the responsibility of the intervention board. How much later is "ultimately"? I understand that at a meeting yesterday the trade was given no greater clarity about the criteria. Who is to blame for this mix up?

The delay occurred because the Commission did not supply us with the detailed rules until a good deal of time had passed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, because he has read the regulations which have come from Brussels, that the levy will be paid on the new crop. The new crop has not yet begun to come forward for processing, or for exporting or to go into intervention.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has recently had with the National Farmers Union on the subject of coal mining subsidence.

None, but the National Farmers Union copied to me its representations to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Energy and for the Environment on the report of the Waddilove committee.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many small farmers and smallholders, especially in mining counties such as Staffordshire, are suffering severe hardship because they cannot obtain compensation for consequential loss against coal mining subsidence? Will my hon. Friend use her persuasive efforts to urge our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to implement some of the Waddilove proposals as soon as possible.

We are concerned that farmers whose land suffers subsidence should receive appropriate compensation where restoration of the land is not practical. As my hon. Friend knows, such compensation is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of food consumed in the United Kingdom is home-produced.

It is provisionally estimated that 60 per cent. of all food consumed in the United Kingdom was home produced in 1985.

What was the percentage before Britain joined the European Community? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the level is to be maintained and improved, the Government must continue to give strong support to British agriculture, especially the livestock sector?

That percentage compares with 50 per cent. in 1973 and represents a considerable achievement by the industry. However, self-sufficiency in indigenous foods — those that can be grown commercially in Britain's climate—increased from 62 per cent. in 1973 to 80 per cent. in 1985. I think that that will reassure my hon. Friend that we are giving that support to the farming community.

Is it not time that the Government took effective action against the high proportion of South African foodstuffs in our shops? Does the Minister not realise that sanctions of this nature would help home food producers as well as help to bring about the end to the evil apartheid regime in South Africa?

The hon. Gentleman's ideology should not persuade him that we could grow citrus fruit in this country.

My hon. Friend's comments are good news for the British producer. However, does she agree that much of this has been achieved by the promotional work carried out by the Women's Farming Union? Will she consider appointing a member of the Women's Farming Union to head Food from Britain, as Sir Richard Butler does not appear to be acceptable?

I note what my hon. Friend says, and I am trying very hard not to let my Freudian slip show. Of course I agree that the Women's Farming Union, the agriculture industry, the food industry and Food from Britain have all made a great contribution. It is also significant that, as well as home consumption, our food exports are now some £2·7 billion a year compared with £800 million in 1975.

Will the Minister comment on the position in the dairy industry, which is only 85 per cent. self-sufficient, and which is having to accept a further 3 per cent. cut in milk quotas, with subsequent unemployment among dairy creamery workers? Will she please make a statement about New Zealand imports and say whether these can be offset against quota?

In relation to the hon. Gentleman's latter point, the Community has a commitment, which we fully support, not to deprive New Zealand of outlets essential to that country. It is significant that New Zealand exports of butter to the Community have less than halved since our accession to the Community.

Does my hon. Friend agree that only rarely do urban consumers see the connection between what is happening in the fields in the countryside and what appears on their supermarket shelves? Would she therefore join me in congratulating Safeways and other supermarkets on displaying home-produced rape oil on their shelves?

Yes indeed. Of course, Food from Britain has, through its quality charter systems, also drawn the consumer's attention to the quality of British food.

Does the Minister agree that the British fisherman plays an important part in producing food for the domestic consumer? Will the hon. Lady and her ministerial colleagues give an assurance that the provision for the Sea Fish Industry Authority will be maintained so that a first-class product can continue?

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the great and increasing contribution that fish makes in persuading people of the high quality of British food. We support the Sea Fish Industry Authority in its promotion of fish. I am delighted to see that supermarkets also promote fish heavily.

Despite the fact that the agriculture industry has had great success in gaining a larger share of the home food market, will my hon. Friend accept that none the less, it is true that, since the introduction of milk quotas, that share has slipped back a little, to the benefit of French and Dutch dairy farmers, who produce a surplus, while British dairy farmers have had to cut back despite the fact that we are not self-sufficient overall in dairy products?

Domestic butter production, as a proportion of total new supplies, has increased from 57 per cent. in 1980 to 64 per cent. in 1985. For cheese, there has been a slight decrease from 70 per cent. to 67 per cent., but that figure reflects cheese imports and an increased range of choice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks his Department is currently undertaking into radiation levels in lambmeat; and if he will make a statement.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). I intend to reduce further the size of the designated area in Cumbria as soon as additional sampling results confirm the continued fall in radiocaesium levels.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the radiation testing and the open approach of his Department are most welcome? Does he regard it as unfortunate that certain sections of the media have indulged in unnecessary scaremongering about lambmeat, to the detriment of farmers and butchers? Is it not true that I received a larger dose of radiation when I had an X-ray on a tooth recently than I would have received if I had eaten lambmeat for each and every meal—at breakfast, lunch and dinner—for a month?

My hon. Friend has done us all a service in pointing out just how prudent are the safety levels to which we have been working. His conclusions are fully borne out by the fact that this year the price of lamb on the market is higher than in the corresponding week last year. That shows that the housewife also has confidence in the prudent safety levels that the Government have adopted.

Will the Minister instruct Ministry scientists to research into whether the future offspring of lambs born during the Chernobyl disaster could be infected with caesium? The House should remember that caesium has a 14 year half-life.

Scientists in my Department are already carrying out extremely extensive testing, and they will certainly consider that point.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that an essential factor in obtaining a reasonable price for one's products is confidence? When confidence has been shattered as a result of radiation checks, farmers are concerned that sheep, and sheepmeat from allegedly nuclear-free zones, could affect other areas that are not nuclear-free, where the price of sheepmeat has already been adversely affected.

The nonsense surrounding nuclear-free zones has nothing to do with the fact that the British housewife fully understands that sheepmeat is safe to eat, and is very good value.

Is the Minister aware of the interesting work done by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology? It is now preparing a national survey of all vegetation and grassland in order to establish radiation levels, with particular reference to Cumbria and the Lake District, which have lately been the subject of some fairly vigorous criticism, which has in turn damaged the tourist trade and the farming industry. Without pre-empting the institute's findings, does the Minister agree that they will probably help to secure a better image for the county?

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the fine work done by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology at Grange, in my constituency. It has been very helpful to us in the past few weeks in allowing us to isolate the areas where restrictions should apply. It has a very important future workload, and I hope that the results of those tests will help us, and will facilitate dealing with some of the rather silly criticisms about the safety of the Cumbria area.

Even if the Minister was misquoted in the press on the issue of compensation for sheepmeat producers, he could not have been misquoted yesterday morning on Radio Wales, because I heard him myself. Will he now state clearly the Government's policy on compensation? Will he also state clearly that, whatever the detail, the Government intend to pay the costs sustained by sheep producers in my constituency and others as a result of radiation levels?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber earlier—

I was.

Earlier, I said that the leaders of the NFU recognised that until more data are available it is impossible to look at the question of compensation in detail. But I am glad to repeat what I said on 20 June, as it still stands. We are

"prepared to discuss cases of compensation for severe loss in particular circumstances to specific farmers." — [Official Report, 20 June 1986; Vol. 99. c. 1321.]

Will the Minister think again about his refusal to review the contingency plans for radiation emergencies in the light of the Chernobyl disaster? Does he not accept that there is evidence that the Ministry was caught napping during the first week in May, and that there were serious shortcomings in the advice made available to both producers and consumers?

I strongly resist the suggestion that my Department was caught napping. Nothing of the sort occurred. The monitoring being carried out by my Department has been unsurpassed by any comparable department in the European Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the cereals co-responsibility levy will apply to large-scale livestock producers who process their own feed.

Any producer, whatever his size, who processes cereals on his agricultural holding for use in animal feed on that holding is exempt from paying cereals co-responsibility levy on that grain.

Does it not appear from the right hon. Gentleman's earlier answers that small and medium-sized producers, which are much more likely to have to buy feed rather than rely upon their own, will have to pay the levy? As a result, in an industry which is very competitive and in which margins are tight, is is not likely that some producers will go out of business?

I cannot accept that final comment. The hon. Gentleman should understand that many medium-sized and smaller farms mix a good deal of their feeding-stuffs at home and therefore would not pay the levy. However, grain that goes for processing, including the manufacture of animal feeds, will be subject to the levy.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is considerable urgency about resolving the problem to which he referred earlier? There is much uncertainty in the intensive livestock industry as to who will pay the levy and costs are, therefore, affected in one way or the other. There is also uncertainty about the future purchasing arrangements for feed. Does he expect to have the problem resolved within days, or weeks?

There is no uncertainty about who is exempt from the levy. A producer who produces grain on his own agricultural holding for use in animal feed on that holding is not liable to pay the levy. I am perfectly well aware that there have been delays in finalising the Community regulations and that that has disrupted trade. I regret this. I and my officials have kept in close and continuous contact with interested trade organisations. We have always sought to clear up the uncertainties as quickly as possible, and we shall continue to do that.

How can the right hon. Gentleman say that when his Department has not defined an agricultural holding for the purpose of the levy? This is important, because if integrated producers are exempted from the co-responsibility levy, it means that one third of the feed grain produced in Britain will be exempt and the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) that small and medium-sized producers will be penalised unfairly is justified.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands what he is saying. He must understand that the more farms there are that are manufacturing feed and which we ask to pay the levy, even though they may be large integrated holdings, the more money may unnecessarily go to the Community's funds from Britain. We must weigh one thing against the other.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the application of the levy will cause great unfairness, specially to producers such as Twydale Turkeys in my constituency, which purchases 45,000 tonnes of feed from four mills and will be put at a competitive disadvantage? It could also result in those mills having to reduce employment. What action can he take to make the application of the levy fairer among various sectors of the industry?

My hon. Friend will recall that when we debated the matter before the price-fixing resolution we agreed that inherent in the levy system was some discrimination and unfairness, and so it has proved. That is why we did everything we could to avoid a co-responsibility levy in those price-fixing negotiations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the provisional figures for sales of finished lambs in markets in England and Wales, for the weeks ending Saturday 28 June and Saturday 5 July, compared with the same weeks in 1985.

Figures from the Meat and Livestock Commission, based on 64 sample markets in England and Wales, show that 87,517 lambs were certified in the week ending 29 June 1985 and 77,692 in the week ending 6 July. This year's corresponding figures are 61,426 and 63,505.

I am grateful for that information. In view of these figures, may I inquire whether, in respect of consequential losses outside the areas affected by the Chernobyl fall-out, the Minister will consider compensation for those lambs that did not qualify for the variable premium?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the change in the distribution of sales of lambs is largely due to the lateness of the season, and it is too early to make any kind of judgment. On the matter of compensation, my right hon. Friend has made his position clear.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate of common agricultural policy expenditure in 1986; how this compares with the budgeted amount; and if he will make a statement.

The Commission's preliminary draft supplementary and amending budget for 1986 provides 23,025 mecu for expenditure under the common agricultural policy. This compares with 22,009 mecu in the present budget as adopted by the European Parliament.

Has the Secretary of State read the recent speech of the Minister for Overseas Development calling for a radical reform of food aid policy in the Common Market? If so, does he agree with the principles involved and will he seek to extend them to the disposal of commercial surpluses, which are a major part of the costs of the CAP which he has just mentioned?

As usual, my right hon. Friend made a fine speech and the implications of what he said will be taken into account in dealing with the disposal of surplus products from the Community. However, I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises that at this time the Community is extremely short of cash.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 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 this House I shall he having further meetings later today.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not countenance force against South Africa, recalling the Leader of the Opposition's advocacy of mandatory United Nations sanctions, the logic of which, according to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), is that we must be prepared for a naval action against South Africa — and that was the ex-Minister who wanted to arm the South African navy?

I am glad to respond to my hon. Friend. The Government are not talking about the use of force in connection with apartheid in South Africa. Rather are we calling for the suspension of violence on all sides and seeking a peaceful solution. I hope that everyone on both sides of the House will wish my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary well in his great endeavours.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 July.

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

The House is rightly concerned with the issue of sanctions, and, indeed, with the effect that that debate is having around the world, but perhaps the House is losing sight of the positive steps that the Government are taking to help the blacks in South Africa and in the frontline states. Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind us of what the Government are doing to help those whom all hon. Members wish to help?

As my hon. Friend is aware, at the recent European Community Heads of Government meeting we agreed to take positive measures to help the blacks in South Africa and we have allocated a further £15 million over the next five years for that purpose in addition to the £22 million that we are already spending. Last year we gave £70 million in aid to Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland.

Has the Prime Minister seen the report from the Select Committee on Social Services, which has a seven to three Conservative majority, which says:

"Taking into account efficiency savings, on the most favourable interpretation of the Government's own data for the last five years, the Government has done no more than half what, by its own admission, should have been done … total underfunding of the hospital and community health services was £1,325 billion".

I have not seen the detail of that report, as it came out only this morning. I am aware of some of the figures. May I point out that spending on the National Health Service has increased from £7·5 billion in 1978–79 to £18·75 billion in 1986–87. That means that the average expenditure per family to finance the Health Service out of taxation has gone up from less than £11 per family per week to £27 per family per week. That is what families have to find in tax to finance the Health Service, which is the best Health Service that we have ever had.

Has it occurred to the Prime Minister that families not only pay taxes but need dependable health services, and that they have a real grievance now over the deficiencies in that Service? Does she not accept that, on her Ministers' own admissions, the figure that she used earlier should be at least a third higher in order to meet the realities of increasing numbers of frail elderly people, of changes in medical technology and of changes in provision of community services? The Prime Minister has asked that the facts should talk. Do not these facts of underfunding talk very clearly and say that the Health Service is not and never will be safe in the Prime Minister's hands?

No. We have the best Health Service ever. It is safe in our hands, and it far exceeds what the last Labour Government did. I note that the Merrison committee set up by the Labour Government said:

"We had no difficulty in believing the proposition put to us by one medical witness, that we can easily spend the whole of the gross national product on the health service."

Will my right hon. Friend examine the Commission's proposals for New Zealand butter imports for the next two years, which, if implemented, could have adverse effects not only for our dairy farmers but for our taxpayers? Will she recall that these arrangements were meant to be transitional, yet New Zealand today has a greater share of our butter market than it did in 1973 at an annual cost in excess of £100 million?

As my hon. Friend — and, I believe, the House—is aware, we have always fought for New Zealand in the Community, knowing full well the importance of both lamb and butter to that economy. The amount that the Commission is proposing should be permitted to be imported for the next two years is, of course, considerably less—indeed, almost half—what it was when we went in at the beginning, and the figures being proposed represent a reduction on current levels, but are in line with what was proposed when the question was last discussed in 1984. I believe that we should continue to fight for New Zealand in the Community, but I believe that the figures should be realistic and that those have been proposed by the Commission are realistic.

If I may revert to South Africa and look back at the whirlwind of interviews that the Prime Minister has given over the last 48 hours, of which result is she most proud? Is it the paean of praise showered on her by Pretoria state radio, the humiliation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in Zambia and Zimbabwe, or the damage to the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman does not know it, but I think that the argument against general economic sanctions and punitive economic sanctions has been won. I notice that The Guardian says today:

"Economic sanctions will not bring South Africa to its knees: they will mean that black children starve: the desolation of the Pretoria economy would he a tragedy for all Africa."

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on her view this morning of the new Rover 800 series car, and will she join me in congratulating my constituents at Cowley on a magnificent product and wish it well for the future?

I saw the car and it is excellent and of superb design. I hope that it will sell well, and I can certainly recommend the blue one that I drove this morning.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 July.

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

In applauding my right hon. Friend's determination to reduce the burden of tax on the lower paid, may I urge her to consider further increases in tax thresholds, further reductions in employee national insurance contributions for low-paid workers and the reintroduction of a lower rate of taxation, in preference to cutting the basic rate of income tax, as all those three measures are far more cost-effective ways of using available resources?

As my hon. Friend is aware, our objective remains to reduce the burden of income tax, particularly on those on average earnings or lower pay. Some 18 million taxpayers are on below-average male earnings, but they pay 42 per cent. of the yield of income tax. We must have special regard to the amount that they pay. It remains our aim to reduce it. My hon. Friend has a particular scheme, which I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

I am sure that the Prime Minister is delighted with the vindication of Mrs. Wendy Savage by the committee set up to investigate her clinical competence. Will the Prime Minister now ensure that those consultants who accused Mrs. Savage, and who deprived her patients of her skill and care for all these months, are investigated by the committee of the teaching district?

I shall draw what the hon. Lady has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Will my right hon. Friend warn the public, and particularly employees and trades unionists, against the reported Labour party proposal to remove from the courts and hand over to some trades union-based quango the power, such as it might be, to enforce their rights to secret ballots before strikes, and to elect union officials? How can this be described as either freedom or fairness?

I gladly agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It has been our purpose to give ordinary members of trades unions legally enforceable rights to have a proper ballot and we shall continue to pursue that objective.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the proposed social security regulations designed to restrict single payments available to claimants on supplementary benefit were expected to be laid on the Table of the House this week, but have now been deliberately suppressed by the DHSS until after the Newcastle-under-Lyme by-election? Was she consulted about the decision on timing, and will she give the House a guarantee that the regulations will be debated before the recess and not implemented by stealth during the recess?

It is my understanding that the regulations will be debated before the recess.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us who are very much opposed to her policy on South Africa hope, nevertheless, that the Commonwealth leaders, when they meet, will bear in mind that the Prime Minister does not represent the majority of British opinion, and moreover that the days of her wretched Administration are coming to an end?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is guilty of wishful thinking on the latter point. I believe that the overwhelming majority of the British people reject the use of force to try to solve the South African problem, wish to have a suspension of violence and a peaceful solution, and support my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in his mission.

Now that the European Court has delivered its judgment on compensation for nationalisation, will my right hon. Friend suggest how Parliament can protect the property rights of the citizens of this country, particularly if, God help us, there are predations from the Labour side of the House, if the Opposition are ever returned to government?

The people can protect the property rights of citizens by never returning a Labour Government.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 July.

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

The Prime Minister can get into a fit about sanctions against South Africa, but has she considered that the bloodstained coal of South Africa has caused the redundancy of many people in this country, particularly in my constituency, where her Government have closed five collieries and put 5,000 miners out of work? Is she aware that since the miners' strike hundreds of miners have been pushed out of work because coal is being imported from South Africa? What are the Prime Minister and her Government going to do to stop that?

Judging from the drift of the hon. Gentleman's question, he is against causing further unemploymeent by imposing sanctions on South Africa. To impose sanctions on South Africa would cause further unemployment there and would cause further unemployment here. I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not wish that to happen. Nor do I.

asked the Prime Minister of she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 July.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole nation will be watching carefully the progress that she makes with her new Rover Sterling car? As for the future of this car, does my right hon. Friend agree that it will outsell Mercedes and Audi only if its quality and reliability are of the absolute topmost maximum possible effectiveness?

I believe that that car is of the topmost design, that it has a super engine and that every attention has been given to every detail. Special extra provision will also be made for its export to the United States. We wish it well. I have great faith in the car.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to raise a point of order which relates to the business about to be called in relation to the Supplementary Estimate in connection with the European Community budget.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that there was an application under Standing Order No. 10 earlier this week from the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) which related to a matter on today's Order Paper. As I understand it, the position is even more serious than my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has stressed. This afternoon the Assembly Parliament in Strasbourg is being invited to pass a budget which, if agreed, will increase taxation transfer in this country from British taxpayers to the European Economic Community by amounts which at present are unknown, because the Government have not made a statement on that point.

None of these matters concerns me, as I am not responsible — as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said— for the business brought before the House. However, I can announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the debate that follows in the name of the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) which would, if passed, reduce the vote by £667 million.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am ready to acknowledge, as every hon. Member should, that you, Mr. Speaker, do not have charge of the business brought before the House. Equally, I am sure that you would be the first to acknowledge that you have primary responsibility for the good order of this House and for assisting in ensuring — although this cannot be your responsibility alone — that the Government do not become irresponsible in their relations with the legislature.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should make it clear that neither the Estimate nor the debate is designed to approve or disapprove of the 1986 European budget. The motion represents a proposal to validate transfers between the Consolidated Fund and the contingencies fund via a method that has long been recognised as satisfactory by the Treasury and Civil Service Committee. The Committee put forward the matter for debate. It does not depend on the size of the European budget because it relates to the collection of levies and duties.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Supplementary Estimates, it says that the provision of £930 million

"is sought to pay agricultural levies and customs duties which will have been collected under the common customs tariff to the European Community, approximately one month earlier than the dates on which they would normally be paid"

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary was absolutely accurate in what he said to the House a moment ago. We are being asked to approve an enormous sum of money. The motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary refers to payments to the budget of the European Communities for the year ending 31 March 1987.

It may not decide.