asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much butter is currently stored in intervention in the United Kingdom; how much butter is imported annually into the United Kingdom; and what steps he is taking to improve the marketing of British butter.

The United Kingdom currently has about 260,000 tonnes of butter in intervention. Imports have declined in each of the last five years and stood at 138,700 tonnes in 1985. The marketing of British butter is primarily a matter for the industry itself, but the Government have taken the initiative of establishing Food From Britain, with substantial Government funding, and are pressing for reform of the Community's milk regime in order to secure a viable long-term future for the United Kingdom dairy industry.

Can the Minister confirm that butter stocks in British intervention stores have increased by a staggering 33 per cent. in the past six months? That being so, will the Government make a quantity of butter available, free, to old-age pensioners this Christmas?

If we could find a way to ensure that the butter that was given to deserving people did not mean that there was less butter sold and, therefore, more going into intervention, we would be happy to do it. I am looking carefully at proposals, but I have not found a way to do it. I would like to, but I cannot see that it is sensible to increase the stocks of butter by providing at great expense the sort of system which we have done before.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the New Zealanders and other importers have access to the United Kingdom market but do not have the right to sell? They must sell their butter on better performance and better price. Therefore, it is the English butter industry which is failing to sell its British butter production.

It is important that the British butter industry should seek to sell to British housewives. It is difficult to talk about the fact that we are self-sufficient if we are putting so many tonnes of butter into intervention while other people, not just New Zealanders, are selling their butter on our market even though, in many cases, that butter is more expensive than ours. New Zealand butter was more expensive than British butter in Tesco's last Monday, and it is only 1p less expensive in Sainsbury's today.

Mr. John Hume.

rose—

It is not the first time you have made that mistake, Mr. Speaker. Other people in Northern Ireland have suffered worse for the same mistake.

The basic arguments about the reform of the agricultural policy are on the agenda for the meeting of the Agriculture Ministers next week, when we will try to get an answer to our dairy and beef problems and the structures. That is where the negotiations ought to take place, and that is where we shall take the steps which this presidency is determined to achieve.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that we keep confidence in the dairy industry?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] Is he not disturbed by the remarks of Sir Stephen Roberts, the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, this morning, who said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

The hon. Gentleman must paraphrase not quote.

The chairman of the Milk Marketing Board is predicting that there will be a cut of 11 per cent. in the British dairy quota. He is also predicting the loss of thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom creamery industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such scaremongering, ahead of any consultations and any proposals, is damaging the British dairy industry?

The kind of statements that are sometimes made frighten people entirely unnecessarily. There needs to be a more sensible balance between supply and demand in the dairy industry, and it has to be achieved on a time scale that is acceptable to the industry. We must also ensure that it is fair across the whole of Europe. That is what this Government are determined to achieve, and that is what we shall be fighting for on Monday.

As the British presidency is about to finish with an all-time record butter mountain that is costing £1 million a day, is the Minister aware that the whole House hopes that he will be able to redeem his reputation at next week's Council meeting? The Opposition would strongly support effective action to control over-production, but we expect the Minister not to sell out Britain's interests, as he did in 1984, otherwise this particular turkey is likely to be set aside long before Christmas.

We obtained an extremely good deal for Britain's interests in 1984. We have never sold out Britain's interests. The only people who sell out Britain's interests are those who suggest that this Government do not stand four square behind the consumer and the farmer in Britain.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the percentage rise in food prices between 1980 and 1985 as compared with all consumer expenditure items.

Between 1980 and 1985, the food component of the retail prices index rose by 31 per cent. compared with a 42 per cent. increase in the retail prices index as a whole.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a splendid success for British agriculture and for the British Government? Will he compare the average annual increase of 6·1 per cent. under this Government with the 16·4 per cent. each year under the last Labour Government?

I should like to compare that increase again and to emphasise the comparison. I reiterate the 6·1 per cent. increase under this Government and the 16·4 per cent. increase under the previous Government. We try as hard as we can to keep food prices at a reasonable level.

Would it make any difference to the comparison the Minister has drawn if the base figure was that for 1978 or 1979?

The fact remains that food prices have increased at a lower rate under this Government than when the hon. Gentleman was a Minister in his party's Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the marvellous record of the food producers of this country is a great contribution towards reducing the rate of inflation?

It is not difficult to agree with that question. Indeed, I fully agree with it.

Does the Minister agree that the figures he has quoted are averages and that they are quite misleading in respect of poor people? Does he agree that food prices for the poor are much higher, certainly when they are expressed as a percentage of the total income of those who fall into this category?

Not all food prices rise and fall at the same rate. There have been declines this year in the price of food that the poor buy—for instance, in lamb, margarine, cooking fats, tea, sugar, processed vegetables and processed fruit. There has been a relatively stable market in fresh beef, bacon, chicken, pork, butter, milk products, soft drinks and ice cream. Therefore, a total diet can easily be constructed by buying food that has not increased, or has increased very little, in price.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures have been taken to compensate sheep farmers affected by the restrictions imposed following the Chernobyl disaster.

Following full discussions with industry representatives, we introduced three schemes of compensation for sheep producers in the areas in which movement and slaughter restrictions have been imposed. We consider that these compensation arrangements represent a fair and balanced response to the needs of sheep producers whose marketing, prices and costs have been affected by the restrictions.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the steps that he has taken, unlike any other country, following Chernobyl. However, will he do all that he can to ensure that every farmer who has lost income because of the disaster receives compensation through one or other of these very helpful schemes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I shall certainly be prepared to consider any new cases which might slip through the arrangements which we already have. I should have thought that we had already thought through almost all the cases where there has been hardship.

What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that British sheep farmers are compensated for the sheep that were stolen or damaged when they were taken across to France? Will he ensure that France pays that compensation to British farmers? Will he take retaliatory action if that sort of thing is continued by the French?

Although the question was about Chernobyl, I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman, as he will no doubt have seen in the press, that the French Government have said that they will be responsible for compensation in those lamentable cases.

Will the Secretary of State, having acknowledged the fact that the sheep farmers have been badly affected by Chernobyl, now recognise that they face further threats in the less-favoured areas from the cereal set-aside policy? Has the Secretary of State plans to assist—

Order. The question concerns compensating sheep farmers.

Has the Secretary of State plans to assist the sheep farmers who may be affected?

Answer.

I am afraid that I did not hear the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, because of the noise made by hon. Members wondering whether the hon. Gentleman was aware of what Chernobyl was. He will no doubt have seen—although perhaps he has not—the various schemes, which have been widely welcomed by the sheep farmers affected by that unfortunate fall-out.

In view of the public concern among sheep farmers and others about Chernobyl, which is reinforced by the fact that sheep are still under restriction and affected more than seven months after an event which took place 1,400 miles away, will the Minister undertake to publish new contingency measures to deal with nuclear emergencies as soon as they are prepared?

Levels remain high only in the upland areas. Of the 4 million sheep in the United Kingdom which were originally subject to controls, fewer than 300,000 remain under control. Levels remain high because of a number of factors arising from the nature of the terrain and the dietary habits of sheep in upland areas. I shall certainly make announcements as I think it right and proper to make them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about European Community document 9402/84 on the approximation of laws relating to quick-frozen foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

We have received recent written and oral comments from the representatives of frozen food manufacturers, retailers and refrigeration engineers. Discussions are continuing in Brussels. We are maintaining a general reserve on this proposal.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will continue to oppose this unhelpful draft directive, which is harmful to both consumers and traders? Will he tell the Commission that this nation of shopkeepers knows more about selling frozen foods than the rest of the Common Market put together?

I agree that this is one of the dafter Common Market directives. We will oppose the Community measures in this field unless we can modify them to meet United Kingdom interests.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the entire frozen food industry, especially at the retail end, is extremely concerned about the regulations concerning cabinets and so on—

There is nothing wrong with our Cabinet.

I was referring to freezer cabinets. That is causing great concern to the trade, and I hope that my hon. Friend will look into it.

I am fully aware of the retail trade's concern. I have arranged today to meet some of its representatives so that we can see whether we can possibly find a way through this directive that will help everyone in the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the proposed charge to dairy farmers in respect of inspections.

I explained the basis of the proposed charge in the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on 20 November. The £90 charge will cost wholesale producers with the best standards less than £30 a year. Even so my right hon. Friend and I are considering a reduction to £80 for herds of fewer than 20 cows. We also propose to adjust our arrangements so that charging will bear less heavily on the untreated milk sector, including farmhouse caterers using untreated milk. Proposals for regulations are being issued today.

That is a step in the right direction. However, when milk producers face further cuts in quotas, is this not a bad time to impose charges of up to £90 for a visit that often last much less than an hour? Should not those charges be substantially reduced?

I do not think that my hon. Friend is right about that. The charge is made not for the visit but to cover the cost of carrying it out, including all the back-up work, administration, testing, travel time and so on. I have been through every detail making up the charges and I have convinced myself that they are the right charges, with no element of profit whatsoever. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable that farmers should have to bear the cost of ensuring that their market is greater because their products are so clearly guaranteed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat misleading to use the argument about the number of visits that the £80 or £90 will cover? It is how he arrives at those figures that troubles dairy farmers.

My hon. Friend is no doubt right that people are troubled by that, partly because some people—I know that my hon. Friend is also concerned about this—have made statements that are entirely untrue. Consequently, I have sought to give the exact details. I should be happy to go into those details with any hon. Member, because I want people to know that we have been absolutely fair.

Why have dairy farmers been singled out for these excessive, unjustifiable charges, or do the Government intend to impose similar charges on shops and restaurants for their public health inspections?

The hon. Gentleman destroys his case by talking about excessive charges. They are not excessive. They cover the cost of undertaking that work. They ensure that the dairy industry can sell more milk than it would otherwise sell. We have been very careful in that we do not propose to charge those catering in their own homes using untreated milk. That seems to be sensible. We have tried to obtain a proper balance, but ultimately it is reasonable for people to pay the price of ensuring that they sell more of their products and that others in competition have the same high standards.

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House of the average cost to public funds of subsidising every dairy herd in the country?

On average, every dairy herd in the country is subsidised from public funds to the tune of £6,000 a year—

£8,000.

My hon. Friend may like to know that the figure of £8,000 was for the year before; it is £6,000 this year. I should like us to be absolutely accurate. The shops, restaurants and so on mentioned by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) pay rates, out of which their testing is done.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent steps the Government have taken to control industrial fishing within the EEC.

At the end of 1985 we successfully opposed an increase in the by-catch in the Norway pout fishery for the 1985–86 season; during the revision of the technical conservation regulations, which will take effect on 1 January 1987, we obtained further improvements including a total ban on the shredding and processing of fish for industrial purposes on board vessels, and additions to the list of protected species. I believe that we should fight against this kind of industrial fishing.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, although I do not think that it will affect the fishing fleet of south-west Hertfordshire. Will the new provisions that were brought in on 6 November have any effect on these industrial fisheries?

Indeed, they will. We are fighting such fishing in various ways. We have just made a trilateral agreement with Norway and Sweden, and will stand fast by our determination not to see the sort of industrial fishing that some want. It means that the Commission's inspectors will be able to require inspection and sampling in their presence of the catches of vessels that they have specified. Consequently, they will be able to oversee the discharge of industrial catches from specified vessels. Under this extremely successful common fisheries policy, we shall once again on a Community basis be able to control industrial fishing.

I welcome the moves which the Government have made to restore the Norwegian pout fishing by-catch to 10 per cent. Will the Minister take this opportunity to say whether at yesterday's meeting of the Council of Ministers there were any measures agreed that will help to control industrial fishing? Perhaps he will refer to some of the measures that will help the fishing fleet but are not directed to combating industrial fishing?

With the measures that we negotiated right through last night we shall be able to help the British fishing industry considerably. I shall be announcing later precisely what these are. On industrial fishing, the great advantage was that for the first time in the Fisheries Council no one even suggested that we should be extending the Danes' right to catch Norwegian pout. That shows how much we have progressed in the past 18 months. I believe that, on that basis, the battle has been won.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the position which he has set out today. Does he agree that industrial fishing of all sorts, particularly the dreadful experience that we had of the bulk fishing of mackerel, has brought stocks to a desperate state in the seas around our coast? Will he continue to fight against this exploitation of those stocks?

Fish is an extremely valuable food and far too valuable to be used for industrial purposes as some have done in the past. Production for those purposes can take place far more effectively on land. If other means are used for the production of that sort of protein, we should have a fishery that is used for human consumption.

I welcome the advance that has been made in reducing the by-catch in pout fishing. Will the Minister remember that there are certain forms of industrial fishing, for fish such as sand-eels and blue whiting, that are not for human consumption, and that that should continue despite his worthy efforts to end the other type of industrial fishing?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we do not want to stop industrial fishing for species that cannot be used for human consumption. The Government are determined in all the circumstances to lean towards conservation of stocks for human consumption. That is a proper and moral way of using the benefits of the sea.

Has the Minister noticed that the Foreign Secretary has found a pretty good answer, in his opinion, to the threat of industrial fishing around the Falklands, and that is the imposition of a 150-mile exclusion zone? If that zone will work there, why do we not introduce such a zone here and tell the other members of the EEC and the rest of them, who we reckon to be our colleagues, that we are taking the action to save the British fishing industry?

It is sad that the hon. Gentleman knows so little about fishing, as he would coming from his constituency, that he does not understand that it is because of the EEC common fisheries policy that we are protecting the fish for the whole of Europe. I am proud that we are doing so and that Britain is taking the lead.

Is the Minister satisfied that all the existing measures on by-catches are sufficient to protect commercial stocks, especially in respect of the Danes?

I am not satisfied, and we must continue fighting to ensure that the rules are kept. All the evidence this year shows that there is much more keeping of the rules. The fact that the Danish Minister of Fisheries has been attacked by Danish fishermen for being too tough, and that the Dutch Minister is under great pressure in his House of Commons because he has been so tough on conservation, show how successful our policy is. We in Britain should be proud of it instead of, like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), always attacking every success that Britain achieves.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to control the supply and use of pesticides.

Powers to control the supply and use of pesticides are contained in part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and were implemented in the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, which came into force on 6 October.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great anxiety about the pesticide temir, or dinoseb, or whatever it is called, and that it has been withdrawn already in the United States? Will he update the House on what he intends to do in future about this product?

I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in this matter because of his constituency interest in ICI and his own professional background. Today the Government have suspended all approvals that authorise the sale, supply and use of dinoseb, dinoseb acetate, dinoseb amine binapacryl and dinoterb, pending a full review by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is one thing to make regulations on pesticides to protect the public and the countryside, but quite another to make them effective? What is he doing to advise the public and farmers on the use of pesticides so that the excellent new regulations can work?

Nothing.

"Nothing" is not the right answer. There are 72 Ministry officers, the Health and Safety Commission, local authority officers and contractors in the trade to whom we are supplying information all the time. That information is constantly updated. With that army, we should be able to monitor the pesticide regulations.

I welcome the Government's decision, in relation to the recommendations, to reconsider the distribution of those pesticide products. Would it not be better, whenever concern is expressed abroad which leads to the withdrawal of pesticides from distribution, if that automatically triggered a re-examination of the distribution of those products on the British market?

That is what happens. I was asked a question on this subject on 7 November last, and I can give the House a more detailed answer. The scientific sub-committee, acting on the basis that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, considered data provided by companies supplying dinoseb products, and, as a result of its recommendation, and with the agreement of the chairman and other members of the ACP, we have introduced the ban today as a matter of urgency.

What further progress has my hon. Friend made in analysing the Union Carbide chemical, aldecarb? In a reply a fortnight ago he said that he was conducting experiments into whether it should be allowed to be sold in this country, in view of the fact that, in parallel tests that have been conducted abroad, it has been found to destroy, or certainly damage, the immune system.

We are carrying out those tests with the same urgency as we carried out those on dinoseb. I shall advise the House or write to my right hon. Friend as soon as those tests have been completed.

I welcome the Government's decision to act on and control the availability of dinoseb in the light of new evidence. Dinoseb has been on the market for a long time. That must raise serious questions not only about this chemical but about others, such as 2,4,5-T and aldicarb. Has the time not come for a further review of the procedures for clearing agricultural chemicals?

We are constantly reviewing, as I have already said twice today. This particular chemical is not dangerous to the consumer; it is dangerous to the person who applies it. We have taken this swift action because of the possible effects on female operatives. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the number of women engaged in farming and horticulture is growing, and is welcome.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made progress in European negotiations for maintaining beef variable premiums for United Kingdom beef products.

The Agriculture Council is considering proposals for reform of the beef regime, including a Communitywide premium scheme which would replace our variable beef premium. We are pressing for agreement on arrangements which give adequate and effective support to our industry.

Will the Minister acknowledge that in areas such as mine, where beef production is crucial to the rural economy, and where the range of alternatives is limited, it is vital that some equivalent support to the variable beef premium is maintained? Will he fight to maintain that level of support to maintain the viability of rural economies in areas such as mine?

Although a number of member states remain strongly attached to intervention as the main form of support, there is a general recognition that intervention is proving too costly. There is a growing feeling of support for the introduction of a new premium on a Communitywide basis for the first time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a welcome move.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposal put forward by the EEC to limit the premium to specialist beef producers with 50 head of cattle discriminates against the British farmer and that he will have none of it?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Commission's proposal that the premium should be limited to the first 50 animals on any holding is unacceptable because it would discriminate against the United Kingdom. Any new premium would be acceptable only if it did not discriminate against us.

Did the Minister propose a scheme for beef producers similar to that for our sheep producers? If not, why not?

I should like to see our beef variable premium scheme being extended to the whole Community, but it is unpopular with other member states, which do not have the United Kingdom's administrative machinery for running such a scheme. The Commission is anxious to secure a more uniform regime, and a majority of member states prefer intervention as the main form of support. However, acceptance of a new premium Communitywide is growing.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to his European colleagues that the British beef variable premium scheme directly assists producers and keeps prices down for consumers, and that that must be better than piling up stocks in intervention?

I agree with my hon. Friend, because the beef variable premium scheme gives producers direct price support, keeps consumer prices down and is a less costly and more efficient method than intervention support for beef.

Will the Minister acknowledge that there are considerable difficulties in the beef sector at present because of fluctuations in green currency valuations? Does he accept that there is universal support for the principle of a beef variable premium because it is unique in CAP terms in that it benefits both producers and consumers? Will he fight determinedly to keep that principle?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am worried about the low level of beef prices at present, but, as a large farmer, he will know that beef prices are traditionally low at this time of year. Therefore, at present it is important that we match the devaluation of the Irish currency. He will know that immediately after that was accepted I made an application to the Commission in Brussels, which has at long last accepted it and put forward a formal proposal to the Council. Next week we shall fight hard to get the 6 per cent. beef green pound devaluation agreed by the Council of Ministers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce new regulations on the use of additives in baby foods.

The use of additives in foods, including those specially prepared for babies and young children, is already controlled by the Food Act and regulations made under it. As part of its continual review programme the Food Advisory Committee is currently reviewing the use of additives in baby foods. When completed, the committee's report will be published.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the considerable work being done by food retailers and the children's hospital at Great Ormond street in identifying additives with harmful effects? Does he agree that certain additives are essential for public safety to prevent risk from contaminated food?

We believe that at present there are no additives with harmful effects, but we continually review them. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Great Ormond street hospital and retailers do a great deal to monitor what they sell and what is produced.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in favour of incentives to farmers to diversify into the systematic planting of broadleaf trees.

I have received representations from a number of organisations and individuals on the benefits of an expansion of farm woodlands. These have stressed the environmental benefits of including a broadleaved component, but have not pressed exclusively for these species.

I thank my right hon. Friend for what I hope is an awareness of the need to encourage broadleaf woodland. When does he expect to be able to respond to the report prepared by the Nature Conservancy Council, entitled "Nature Conservation and Afforestation in Great Britain"?

I was interested to see the report presented by the Nature Conservancy Council during the summer. However, the Government's response is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. I hope that my hon. Friend will table a question to my right hon. Friend on that matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the growing concern in many parts of the country at the current system of grants and fiscal incentives used by management companies to provide blanket afforestation in many upland areas, resulting in considerable damage to farming and environmental interests, as well as to tourism?

We must remember that the reason for so much forestry today is largely due to the activities of specialist firms. My hon. Friend is especially critical of the environmental aspects, and I strongly agree that all future tree plantings must be examined to ensure that they are environmentally sympathetic.

What special arrangements would the Minister envisage being provided for tenant farmers who do not own the land?

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the greatest difficulties, bearing in mind that a farmer or anyone else who plants trees does not get a return for a very long time. One of the most difficult problems that we and others are considering is how to bring the tenant farmer within the wider group of foresters.

Before my right hon. Friend becomes too attached to trees as a way of saving the rural economy, will he instead, or in addition, persuade planning departments to deal sympathetically with alternative enterprises and developments in those areas which will provide more employment at lower public cost?

I think that the use of trees is only one of a package of ways to help the rural economy. However, I agree with my hon. Friend's point about planning. Many hon. Members and people outside the House—especially in rural areas—would like to see greater sympathy by members of planning committees to allowing non-agricultural developments in the rural countryside, provided that they are sympathetic to the environment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on his priorities as President of the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

My priority as President remains the expeditious handling of the Commission's proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy, particularly in the beef and milk sectors, and the measures which contribute to the completion of the internal market.

Will the Secretary of State tell us what priority he will give to low pay in agriculture, especially at a time when we know that two fifths of those working in the industry are on wages at or below supplementary benefit levels, and at the same time farmers' profits have increased enormously? Is that not a scandal in an industry in which people work so hard and give so much for the benefit of this country?

The hon. Gentleman should have visited the Smithfield show this week and talked about farmers profits increasing enormously. He will know that, in real terms, since the middle of the previous Labour Government's term in office there has been a decline in in farmers' profits. Their profits were down by 43 per cent. last year. The hon. Gentleman would have been lynched if he had made his point at the Smithfield show.

Does my right hon. Friend accept the need to secure a proper scheme for the future of the beef industry? May I re-echo the plea for a scheme that will not in any way have a limitation on headage payments, to allow a viable scheme to carry on and give confidence to the farming community?

We are very conscious of the need to reform the beef sector. As my hon. Friend will have heard a few moments ago—and I am glad to endorse this once again—any limitation in the number of animals that would qualify for the new premium would be unacceptable to us.

Will the Minister make it his priority to ensure that the Government stop breaching the European social charter in relation to farm workers' pay, as two in five farm workers are paid wages below the decency threshold as detailed in the European charter? This is at a time when Lloyds bank has forecast a 50 per cent. increase in farmers' profits this year and when even the National Farmers Union has said that there will be a 20 per cent. increase in farmers' profits this year?

If the hon. Lady will give me a pound for every percentage point increase below 56 per cent. this year I will give her a pound for every percentage point increase above that figure. As she well knows, responsibility for farm workers' wages is not mine but that of the Agricultural Wages Board.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at least a tithe of the huge amount spent on subsidy to encourage food production should go towards encouraging good conservation policies to protect the landscape, bearing in mind that conservation of the countryside is not incompatible with sound food production and agricultural policy?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I refer him to a survey completed not long ago. The very large number of trees and lengths of hedgerows planted each year by farmers shows that they are the largest group of conservationists in this country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December 1986.

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 be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of the Netherlands.

As the Prime Minister had cast-iron legal grounds for stopping Pincher's book in 1981 and could not possibly have been advised that she did not, why did she deliberately allow its publication? Is it simply that when it suits her she is prepared to sacrifice the interests of national security to the interests of the Tory party?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I cannot comment on matters which are in issue in the proceedings in Australia.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the important work done for successive Governments by Lord Rothschild? In the course of her busy day, will she consider what steps can now be taken to protect his reputation against false innuendoes and smears?

I have seen Lord Rothschild's letter, published this morning. That letter is being considered in government. I cannot add anything further at this stage.

That is an extraordinary answer for the Prime Minister to give on this subject. Can she not follow the precedent that she herself set on 26 March 1981 in the case of Sir Roger Hollis and respond explicitly now to Lord Rothschild's plea by making it clear that he is not, and never has been: a Soviet agent?

Lord Rothschild's letter was published this morning. I have seen it. The letter is being considered in government, as it should be, and I cannot add anything further at this stage. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would understand that.

I certainly understand the implications of the Prime Minister's prevarication, and I hope that she does, too. Putting aside the personal anguish that her answer is bound to cause, Lord Rothschild was the head of the central policy review staff working in Downing street for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) when he was Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister not prepared to say here and now that Lord Rothschild was not a spy?

It is the right hon. Gentleman who is causing anguish. Lord Rothschild's letter was published this morning. I have seen it. The letter is being considered in government, and I cannot add anything further at this stage.

Even now, answering this question, will the right hon. Lady consider not simply the obligations of generous impulses, which she does not possess, but the damage that her answers are doing to the British Security Service? It is preposterous to continue to give the impression that we are infiltrated by moles. We are not, and the right hon. Lady ought to make that clear here and now in the case of Lord Rothschild.

I have nothing furter to add to what I have already said about Lord Rothschild. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he said about security matters. When he was asked about them, when he was a Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he said:

"It is the long-established practice of this House that the Government do not comment on matters of this kind."—[Official Report, 28 July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 626.]

I understand that the DROPS contract will shortly be awarded. Has my right hon. Friend been made aware that the procurement process in this case has been a continuing scandal, not only on the part of the Ministry of Defence, but on the part of one of the competitors? Will my right hon. Friend insist on the Ministry of Defence setting up an immediate independent inquiry into this very murky affair?

I have heard what my right hon. Friend says, and I will, of course, consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.

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

Will the Prime Minister tell us when she first became aware that Sir Robert Armstrong's evidence was incorrect, and when she instructed him to correct it?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, and as the Attorney-General repeated on Monday, the Government are plaintiffs in this case and we are not able to comment upon matters before the court.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us share her view that we must build one nation? Will she square that with what happened yesterday, when Birmingham lost £31 million of its grant? Bearing in mind the deprivations in Birmingham and the prosperity in the south, how does that help to build one nation?

My hon. Friend speaks about the rates details published yesterday. As he is aware, a new consultation paper has been published. I am aware that it will be greeted with approval in some parts of the House and with disapproval in other parts. I am afraid that that is inevitable in view of the way in which the formula works. That is one reason why we shall have to change the whole way in which that formula works. I understand my hon. Friend's feelings.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.

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

In the court in Sydney Sir Robert Armstrong said that a Committee of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, decided not to ban the Chapman Pincher book. When did that book come into the possession of the right hon. Lady?

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the answer given by the Attorney-General on Monday, when he said:

"So far as the proceedings in Sydney are concerned, I must remind the House that I am the plaintiff and therefore cannot comment on anything which is in issue before the court. Although, under the rules of the House, judicial proceedings abroad are not subject to the sub judice rule, I have to be careful to avoid the risk of prejudicing the case or at the worst being in contempt of court in Sydney. It inevitably follows the Government are handicapped in respect of some of the allegations being bandied about."—[Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol 106, c.415.]

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the extra-parliamentary pressure that is being applied to certain Members of Parliament? Is she aware that Arthur Scargill has demanded the expulsion from the Labour party of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon)? Will she refer that matter to the Lord Privy Seal as a possible breach of parliamentary privilege? [Interruption.]

Order. Hon. Members should listen to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He asked the Prime Minister whether she would refer the matter to the Lord Privy Seal.

My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal will have heard what my hon. Friend said and will have taken note of it. I believe that it is a matter purely for the House, not for me.

As the Prime Minister missed out last year on her annual pre-Christmas visit to Northern Ireland, and as she has not been to Northern Ireland since her rather strange visit to Hillsborough on 15 November 1985, does she propose to resume her pre-Christmas visits by going to Northern Ireland this year?

The right hon. Gentleman may be wise to ask that question; it would be most unwise for me to answer it.

Will my right hon. Friend consider later today the excellent news that the Labour party has decided to sell shares in one of its loss-making publications and that the National Union of Mineworkers has decided to contract out cleaning at its Sheffield headquarters? Does that not prove that it is never too late to learn?

I join my hon. Friend in welcoming those latest converts to the efficiency which comes from competition.

Did the Prime Minister know that arms sales to Iran were being arranged through London? If she did know, was that not contrary to the publicly declared policy of the Government; and, if she did not know, was not her friend, President Reagan, not keeping her in the dark?

The Government have not received evidence of illegal exports of defence equipment from Britain. If the right hon. Gentleman has such evidence, he should make it available. The United States Government did not inform us about their arms consignments to Iran. British policy on arms sales to Iran and Iraq is one of the strictest in Europe and is rigidly enforced, at substantial cost to British industry. That policy has been maintained scrupulously and consistently.

Is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure that she is—that Lord Rothschild is an eminent constituent of mine, that he is a distinguished public servant, and that his letter requires immediate and urgent attention?

I cannot add to what I have said. I had hoped that the House would understand that. I cannot add to it at this stage.

asked the Prime Minister if she will separate the position of Cabinet Secretary from that of Head of the Civil Service; and if she will make a statement.

No, Sir.

Six years before Sydney, was Sir Robert Armstrong acting in his capacity as Head of the Civil Service, or in his capacity as Cabinet Secretary, when he participated in the decision to withhold from the Attorney-General knowledge of how Chapman Pincher's book was obtained or purloined?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Attorney-General's answer on Monday 1 December when he said:

"So far as the proceedings in Sydney are concerned, I must remind the House that I am the plaintiff and therefore cannot comment on anything which is in issue before the court."

"I have to be careful to avoid the risk of prejudicing the case or at the worst being in contempt of court in Sydney."—[Official Report, 1 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 415.]

Has not Sir Robert Armstrong, acting in either of his official capacities, been trying to assert the essential doctrine that former British security personnel have an overriding duty to keep their mouths shut?

I cannot add anything to what I have already said.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us on this side would be glad if she would suspend forthwith her contacts with the Leader of the Opposition on matters of security, because none of us believes a word that she says about that or anything else?

As far as this side of the House is concerned, the normal courtesies will continue to be observed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 4 December.

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

In view of the benefits that polytechnics bring to local industry, will my right hon. Friend, during her busy day, find time to consider the case for an additional polytechnic in the north-west and the additional jobs that would bring?

I am aware that the National Advisory Board is meeting today, and I will pass on my hon. Friend's comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This arises out of Question Time this afternoon.

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot be responsible for the answers that are given. It is not a matter for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter for you arising out of Question Time and the events in Australia.

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot know what letters are sent to me anyway, but I must tell him that the Leader of the Opposition certainly did not write to me about that matter. He asked if he could issue his letter to me as a press release. I dealt with this the other day. I replied that it was entirely in order for him to issue that letter as a press release.

Further to the earlier point of order Mr. Speaker. As you will know more than most, the conduct of this House is based on precedent, and you are the guardian of that behaviour. Would it not be advisable for you to make some utterance on whether the Prime Minister is, at will, entitled to slough off these earlier practices?

A moment ago I said that these are not matters for me. Order in this House is essential. We have freedom of speech here, and we should conduct ourselves with discretion in a parliamentary fashion.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been hearing a lot from across the Atlantic about the fifth amendment. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to keep refusing to answer questions on the ground that they are likely to incriminate her?

I am not Tip O'Neill.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that you have just remarked that the business of the House depends on good order, on hon. Members being able to hear what other hon. Members are saying and that that causes you some difficulties, and as recently there have been recurring instances of the Prime Minister refusing to answer questions, will you look into the possibility of allowing Ministers, such as the Prime Minister, to plead the fifth amendment? That would save a lot of time.