asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on British sheep producers of a two-tier pricing policy.

I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is in the USSR, where tomorrow he hopes to sign an agreement with the Russians.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the average United Kingdom flock is four times greater than that in the EEC? Does he agree that the comments of the alliance leader in support of the two-tier structure would, as the president of the National Farmers Union has said, annihilate the British sheep industry?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right and that the two-tier pricing system would do nothing but harm to Britain. The two-tier pricing system suggested by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) could mean that cereal farmers would transfer to sheep production. That would damage not only the cereal farmers but all who produce sheep in the United Kingdom.

What negotiations will the Minister enter into this year to ensure that the sheepmeat regime continues successfully in the United Kingdom? Is he aware that the commissioner, Mr. Andriessen has stated that there will be a review this summer? I am glad that he has acknowledged that the alliance has no plans for a two-tier pricing system for the sheep industry.

We shall seek a prudent pricing policy for all major commodities. We must continue to fight for the key beneficial elements of the sheepmeat regime and resist discriminatory cuts. The right hon. Member for Devonport did suggest that he accepted the possibility of two-tier pricing for sheepmeat.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many members of the Dorset National Farmers Union believe that the arrangements for lamb and other products from New Zealand are a considerable disadvantage to them? Can he state whether that agreement will remain indefinitely?

We believe that we owe a particular debt to New Zealand. We sought to negotiate permanent arrangements for the access of New Zealand products into the Community when we joined it, and we stand by our promise.

I apologise for the temporary absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), who is not in Russia. I presume that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has gone to the Soviet Union to learn something about public relations.

We are used to the doom and gloom of the Labour party. Opposition Members complain if something is in surplus, but they also complain if there is no surplus. However, sheepmeat is not in surplus. We produce an extremely good product and I have no doubt that we shall continue to dominate the market.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had regarding the improvement of fishing opportunities for British fishermen around the Falklands.

I have had occasion to discuss with a number of British companies their plans for fishing around the Falklands. Through joint venture arrangements, British companies have interests in more than 70 vessels licensed for the 1987 squid fishery, in addition to having taken up three licences for British flag vessels. That is a considerable improvement upon last year.

Is the Minister aware of reports in the media that British fishing is being disserviced by this licensing system? The Spanish have already been granted 36 licences, compared with the three that the hon. Gentleman mentioned for British ships. What steps will he take to ensure that the British deep water fleet will have an opportuniy to fish in these valuable waters?

I have fought continuously to encourage the British fleet to seize any opportunity available to it and I shall continue to do so. It is my intention that the British fishing fleet should take its proper part in the world fisheries, and I shall continue to press that.

Has my right hon. Friend considered the suggestion by a leading member of the deep sea industry, who lives in my constituency, that the Government should negotiate with foreign countries to allow their fishing boats to have fishing opportunities in the Falklands waters in return for our industry being given fishing opportunities in their waters?

I have seen that report. No doubt it will be considered not only by me but by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, within whose ministerial responsibilities a good deal of this matter falls.

On the assumption that such fishing activities in Falkland waters will be undertaken by, say, vessels of more than 50m overall length, will such trawlers be allowed to fish in United Kingdom waters when not fishing in the south Atlantic?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that the system that we use to restrain the ability to fish in order to be in line with the availability of fish in British waters and in European waters as a whole could not be destroyed by the situation in the Falklands. We would have to keep the rules as we have them. One could not give special permission or special opportunities to those who happen to fish in the Falklands waters.[Interruption.] Those Opposition Members who know nothing about the fisheries regime — such as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who, as usual, shouts from a seated position—will know that the hon. Gentleman who asked the question knows what the answer means.

How much revenue will the Falkland Islands Government gain from the licences issued so far?

I cannot tell my hon. Friend the answer to that question. It is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

will the Minister encourage the Falkland Islands Government to give far greater priority to issuing licences to British companies involved in joint ventures? At the moment it is cheaper for countries such as Poland to get a licence, which in fact is a foreign flag licence rather than a joint venture licence.

I am satisfied that British interests were more than fairly accommodated in the allocation of licences, but I will look at the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the implications of adopting a policy in the European Economic Community of two-tier pricing.

We have received such representations, many of which point to the likely discrimination against the United Kingdom, of the two-tier pricing system and remark that the leader of the SDP's two-tier pricing policy would mean that only 30 per cent. of British grain would gain Community support, as against as much as 80 per cent. of continental production.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that these proposals have been totally dismissed by the NFU and by its president, Simon Gourlay, as they woud mean that farmers in Britain would miss out tremendously compared with the rest of the European Community? Furthermore, will he give serious consideration to an overall set-aside system to reduce surpluses?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have been pressing the set-aside system in the European Community, and we shall continue to do so. It is now part of the proposals on the socio-economic scheme. I agree with my hon. Friend that the proposals put forward in the Bledisloe lecture were serious for Britain and would have meant that British farmers would have suffered losses and continental farmers would have gained.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the two-tier principle that is wrong and that once this alliance-backed policy is accepted—it would cut out most British farmers—the argument would no longer be one of principle but only one of degree?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. It is clearly wrong to discourage the most economic producers of cereals. That is not a sensible way to ensure that farming develops properly. The way to deal with the problem of surpluses is to reduce the land area used for growing cereals by enabling people to do something else on marginal land.

Whatever else may be said about the two-tier pricing system, it is at least a policy, which is more than can be said for what is coming from the Government. If the shambolic performance last week was actually supposed to be the launch of a policy, does the Minister seriously expect a diversification package worth £25 million to have a significant impact on a surplus problem which is costing the country £1,600 million? I commend to the Government the positive and comprehensive ideas put forward by the Labour party in its Green Paper on agriculture.

It is a little difficult for the hon. Gentleman to commend to us a Labour party Green Paper which was published at the personal expense of the Labour spokesman on agriculture because the party would not pay for it. It is extremely difficult to take that document seriously because, as I understand it, it runs counter to Labour party policy and does not mention the Labour party's proposal to rate agricultural land.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in condemning the foolish two-tier pricing policy of the SDP the president of the National Farmers Union said in effect that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) did not have the faintest idea what he was talking about? Would the right hon. Gentleman not be better informed and make less foolish remarks if he took the trouble to turn up at Question Time when agricultural matters are dealt with?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that, but I find it even more surprising that at the NFU meeting last week—at which I was present—the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who is the alliance spokesman on this subject, told the farmers that the 140-tonne proposal had never been put forward, even though it was in the Bledisloe lecture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on the net income of the average dairy farmer in the United Kingdom if rates were imposed on farm buildings and land.

No assessment can be made of the impact of rating on specific sectors, but the value to the agriculture industry as a whole of the current derating policy is of the order of £430 million a year. Any departure from this policy would clearly have a devastating effect on the profitability of the industry in general and of the dairy sector in particular.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Conservative party, unlike all the Opposition parties and factions, has no intention of introducing the rating of agricultural land? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would significantly raise farmers' costs and would be likely to destroy a very large number of vital jobs in the countryside?

It would also increase the price of food. That is the policy of the official Opposition, but I cannot help my hon. Friend on alliance policy. The Liberals announced their intention to tax all land in the document "These are Liberal Policies", which was published in 1986, but I understand that in a Standing Committee yesterday the Liberal spokesman on the countryside said that he no longer believed in it, so I do not know where the Liberals stand.

Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotton that it was from the Conservative Benches that on 21 May 1985 the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) introduced a Bill to rate agricultural land and that he and his Minister had to follow Liberal Members into the Lobby to defeat that attempt to rate agricultural land? Will he take it from me that the Liberal party is not, was not and will not be—any more than the rest of the alliance—in favour of rating agricultural land? Will he stop trying to spread falsehoods and concentrate on the crisis facing the agriculture industry?

The hon. Gentleman now tells us that the Liberals were against rating agricultural land in 1985, in favour of the taxation of agricultural land in 1986 and are now against it in 1987. Perhaps they thought that there would be an election in 1985 and that is why they have changed their ideas again this year.

Can my right hon. Friend tell me how long it would take to rate agricultural land, and the likely cost of doing so?

I cannot give details, and I do not believe that the Labour party has worked out that part of the programme. The cost would, of course, be additional to the large sums that the Labour party is proposing should be spent out of taxation. That may be why the Liberal party turned to a straight taxation system rather than a rating system.

As local authority services in rural areas contribute to the prosperity of agriculture and those who work in it, what would be the impact if those services were not available?

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Those services help the agricultural community, and that is why we do not believe that it would be sensible for the cost of those services to be placed on the cost of food. Indeed, the Labour party supported us in our decision not to put VAT on the cost of food.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Gloucestershire county council, under alliance control, has passed a resolution to rate agricultural land and buildings and that the decision was welcomed with relish by David Halford, the alliance leader of that council?

My hon. Friend confuses me still further. Last year the alliance was in favour of rating or at least taxing agricultural land, but now it is against it. In Gloucestershire, however, the alliance is in favour of it, which makes it very difficult for voters to decide what are the true policies of the alliance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assessment of the effect of the poll tax on farmers and their families?

The community charge that is proposed for Scotland, and which we intend to introduce throughout Britain, will place a reasonable burden on people throughout the community, at exactly the same level, but it will not be levied on agricultural land. Therefore, it is uniquely different from the policy of the Opposition. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he told the NFU that he hoped to persuade his party to change its policy on rating before the election, and I can understand why.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve the real level of farm incomes.

After a drop last year farm incomes this year have shown an increase of 21 per cent. The best way to improve on that improvement is to bring supply and demand into better balance.

I thank my hon. Friend for the first part of the answer. May I remind him that in the last year for which figures are available the incomes of lowland beef farmers in the south-west went down by 31 per cent. and that those of the upland beef farmers went down by more than 40 per cent.? Will he take corrective measures in regard to the suckler cow premium and a major revaluation of the green pound?

For suckler cows the maximum possible rate of payment in 1987 will be around £33·40. The current rate is £24·74. The level of the green pound is kept under continuous review, and the recent hard-won devaluation shows that we are prepared to act when necessary.

Will the Minister return to the question of the present value of the green pound? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the beef sector in this country is protected against the present rate of the green pound?

As I mentioned, the maximum rate for the suckler cow premium is going up.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best improvement in regard to farm incomes is that they should be realistic? The Government are seeking to achieve stability in the market and they should be thanked for that instead of being knocked about by the NFU.

The Scottish NFU is on the right track and I am sure that the rest of the NFU will quickly follow. I agree with my hon. Friend that the best way to improve farm incomes is to stop spending money on intervention and start spending it on farmers and farming.

rose—

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) to ask his question, I must point out that there is a misprint on the Order Paper. The word "international" should read "interested". I believe that the Minister knows that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it the policy of his Department to hold regular meetings with international bodies on conservation issues affecting agriculture.

It is already the policy of my Department, in close co-operation with the Department of the Environment, to participate fully with interested or international bodies, according to their timetables, in discussions on conservation issues affecting agriculture.

Now that the Minister and his Department have had time to reflect on the fiasco of last week's statement on the future of agricultural land, is he aware of the damage that he is doing to the future of our agriculture by refusing to give proper consideration to questions, of environmental protection and conservation? Will he acknowledge that there can be no secure future for agriculture until his Department gives proper consideration to those questions, and does he accept that the best way to secure that input into his Department's thinking is to arrange to meet on a regular basis public bodies which have conservation as their prime concern?

The best protection of the rural economy and the environment is a properly informed agricultural Department, such as MAFF. Yesterday the hon. Gentleman attended the debate on environmentaly sensitive areas and he knows that MAFF and the Countryside Commission have a venture in the Broads to encourage the conservation of the grazing marshes. The farm and countryside initiative is useful for the environment, the code of good agricultural practice avoids water pollution, and there are guidelines on housed livestock, all of which help conservation. I could continue at length if you, Mr. Speaker, would allow me.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to ensure conservation is to use the voluntary method practised by those with the greatest expertise at conserving the countryside, namely, the farming community?

Any basis for a beautiful countryside, which is what most people regard as environmentally acceptable, must be the farming community. They must form the basis of any such policy.

Is the Minister aware that last week, at the annual general meeting of the NFU, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), said that he believed that decisions on the countryside should be taken by those who live there, not by weekenders? How does the Minister square that with the decision announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment that MAFF will no longer be consulted on planning matters in the countryside?

The first and second parts of the hon. Gentleman's question do not screw together properly, which is perhaps an alliance failing. Weekenders go to the country to live in their caravans at weekends. The beauty of the countryside should be determined by people who spend all week working in and about the country and rural areas.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet reached any conclusions on the 17th report of the steering group on food surveillance entitled "Survey of Mercury in Food".

The report recommends that monitoring of foods for mercury and intakes of mercury by special groups of consumers be undertaken. Arrangements for this monitoring are currently being made by my Department.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, particularly his commitment fully to monitor mercury intakes. Will he confirm that the mercury level in food and drink in the United Kingdom is less than one tenth of the safety level recommended by the World Health Organisation?

My hon. Friend is correct. Over the past 15 years we have had substantial reductions in mercury discharges, and food and drink is safe from any mercury contamination.

With regard to the report, will the Minister confirm that shellfish and white fish stocks in the north Atlantic are utterly and completely free from mercury contamination?

I should not like to confirm that shellfish and white fish stocks are utterly free from mercury contamination. I said that food sold in Britain is fit to eat and safe. Most of the mercury contamination that flows into the North sea flows in from continental rivers, over which we have little control.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest amounts of (a) butter and (b) meat distributed in the United Kingdom under the European Economic Community food aid scheme.

Releases authorised so far from intervention stores in the United Kingdom represent 15 million packs of butter and 3·15 million portions of beef.

Has the Minister had any report of local difficulties in the uptake of the scheme? There have been reports of all sorts of problems in the distribution of this food. That is not the fault of the charities involved, because they were given little notice, no information and no resources to carry out the organisation of the scheme. If those reports are true, will the Minister ensure that those for whom the food is meant receive it?

Charities have welcomed what we have done. The release of stocks was indeed done rapidly, but the cold weather occurred and we wanted to do it as quickly as possible. If we had done it at length, I am sure that the Opposition would have complained had the butter gone out in June. We tried to send the food off as quickly as possible. There are places in which distribution has been better than in others because some charities have been better organised in some places than others. We are trying to help in every way possible. It is a remarkable fact that Britain got off the ground first. We have distributed more than any other country in Europe and have done it more efficiently. Our charities are better run.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments about the charities involved. Will he spare a moment to thank the charities for the excellent work that they have done in distributing the food? If it becomes clear that we have not been able to distribute as much as we would like, will my right hon. Friend, in company with his colleagues in Europe, consider extending the deadline so that more of the stock can be distributed to those who need it?

I cannot give agreement to that at this stage. We are monitoring the position extremely carefully because we want to see how efficient it is. I am impressed by the charities. I commend particularly the Salvation Army and the Womens Royal Voluntary Service for their work. I am also pleased to see the support that the butchery trade has given to the charities to help with the cutting up of the meat.

I recognise that the Department is monitoring the scheme, but what steps have the right hon. Gentleman or the Secretary of State for Scotland taken to put Members of Parliament in the picture about what quantity of food can be expected in any geographical area, if not in any constituency? Has the right hon. Gentleman given guidelines to the voluntary bodies on that?

I distributed a note to all Members of Parliament saying which charities were working in this matter and how the system would work. I advised all Members of Parliament to get in touch with me if there were any particular problems. If the note has not reached them, it is because it has not come from their Whips' office. The note was provided, and if there were any particular problems, I asked for hon. Members to get in touch with my office. My office has dealt with any Member of Parliament who wanted help, and I am happy to speak on any detail about which an hon. Member is concerned. The charities have been given general guidelines. I have left it to them to do what they do best, which is to go to the people whom they know in the way that they find most effective.

Will my right hon. Friend add Age Concern to the list of charities to be congratulated, because, along with the WRVS, it has done a lot of work in my area? Will he also have words at an early date with his friends in the Department of Health and Social Security? I feel that greater liaison between his Ministry and the DHSS is important if we are to get over to people in need the message as to who qualifies for this food. Currently, there is a slight breakdown in communications.

I commended those two charities because the others which have helped us so much centrally, as well as other smaller charities, have relied on them to a great extent. I add the Red Cross to the list of charities which have done a lot of work for other charities. I am not underestimating the work done by the other charities which have been co-operating.

Is the Minister aware that until about a week or 10 days ago not a single slice of beef and very little butter had been distributed in Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to ensure that if extra assistance to the charities involved in the scheme in Birmingham and the west midlands is needed his Ministry will provide it?

The hon. Gentleman may be a little behind the times. I was in the west midlands yesterclay, where I helped to distribute the butter which was part of the 5 tonnes of butter going to Wolverhampton alone. The hon. Gentleman has probably got it wrong. If there is a difficulty, I shall certainly look into it for him.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, commendable as the scheme is, the amount of food involved is very small? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not today negotiating away large surplus amounts to the Russians at knock-down prices.

I think that 15 million packs of butter is quite a lot of butter—we should not be curmudgeonly about the amount of food that is going out in this way — but the scheme will not solve the problems that we have had with stocks. We have sought to stop the stocks from growing. A decision to that effect was the successful outcome of our negotiations in December. We still have to get rid of a very large quantity of butter, some of which is not comparatively new butter—such as the butter to which we are referring—but has been there for some time. I certainly do not rule out the opportunities to sell that butter in other markets.

As, by common consent, the right hon. Gentleman and all of us are grateful to the charities for their work, will he set their minds at rest by clarifying at whose cost the meat and butter are to be distributed? The Government are paying for the cost of inward distribution, but will the charities have to bear the fuel costs of their distribution of the butchered or packaged foods?

We discussed in great detail with the charities what the Commission allows in terms of costs. We have gone back to the Commission to suggest that some improvements can be made. I hope that we shall be able to make them. We have a fixed amount for the distribution costs of butter and beef. We are, of course, paying for the cost of buying the milk and cheese at the most suitable market for the charities. We are trying to meet the costs as much as possible. We are discussing with the charities whether they can give any other help. Considerable public funds have been made available for this project, and I think that that is a very satisfactory answer.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, on the whole, the distribution of surplus food is working well? However, some of the charities and some of the people working for them are a little nervous about the fact that they might be acting in breach of the regulations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in marginal situations it is better that the charities should err on the side of generosity rather than on the side of bureaucracy?

The Commission made it very clear in launching what was, by its nature, a rapid scheme that it would look with that attitude in mind at the way in which the scheme was carried out. That is a sensible approach. Of course, I am willing and happy to discuss the scheme with any charity which is concerned about how to interpret the guidelines and the Commission's proposals.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the continued existence of sheep and lambs contaminated by radiation emanating from the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

Radiocaesium levels in the majority of sheep within the restricted areas in Cumbria, Wales and Scotland are stable or declining slowly. Extensive live monitoring of sheep which have left the areas has demonstrated that levels fall rapidly when the sheep graze uncontaminated pasture. Some 42,000 of these sheep have been tested to date and fewer than 0·1 per cent. have failed.

How many farms and sheep are still in the controlled areas? How soon does the hon. Gentleman expect that the controls will be lifted? Does he recognise that some of those farmers are angry about the delay in receiving compensation payments and their inadequacy? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that this problem shows the great dangers that exist as a result of radiation and nuclear power?

To answer the four questions as they were asked, there are 466 holdings, 315 in Wales, 150 in Cumbria and only one in Scotland. We have been and are monitoring blue-marked sheep in anticipation that, in the near future, we can make relaxations in the restrictions. I can well understand that farmers are anxious about the future and about the compensation. The compensation has been made in three tranches. We are still talking with farmers. At present we have compensated to the tune of £4 million. We are anxious to remove farmers' anxieties.

The Minister referred to contaminated pastures. Does that mean that he accepts that there is contaminated silage? What monitoring is going on of the contaminated silage to ensure that it does not, at any stage, enter into the food chain?

On the basis of testing and experimental work we can advise farmers that silage and hay can be safely fed to animals without special precautions. Foodstuffs derived from animals fed on silage and hay are being tested to ensure that the position remains satisfactory and that there is no danger whatsover to public health.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the size of the beef herd at the latest available date.

1,300,000 head in June 1986.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware of the economic strain that beef finishers are under today? Will he assure the House that he and his Department recognise the value of the work that the traditional beef finisher is putting in in producing beef cattle in this country off grass in the traditional way, and that that is a skill that is still needed in Britain today?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments. That is why we fought so hard to ensure that we had a non-discriminatory policy in the Community, that we kept the beef variable premium scheme, that we increased the suckler cow premium and that we ensured that, with the reduction in intervention, the British farmer suffered less than any other farmer in the whole of Europe. That is a proper response to my hon. Friend's point.

Is the Minister aware that I have some farming in my constituency? Is he also aware that those farms in my constituency that produce beef produce beautiful, delicious beef? Is he aware that the message that he brings back from Europe is not good enough? We want more and more beef produced in this country—English beef for English people. We do not want that rubbish from across Europe.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to know that we are 96 per cent. self-sufficient. I agree that the beef industry has major difficulties. I hope that he will tell his beef farmers why the Labour party intends to rate agricultural land, and see what they think about that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that both he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be congratulated on what they have achieved for the beef industry? Nevertheless, will he bear in mind that the very substantial stress in the industry caused by the green pound differential and adverse monetary compensatory amounts does not lead to confidence in either the short or the long term and that that problem must be addressed? Will he bring all the pressure that he can to bear on the Treasury and on the Commission to get that problem resolved?

My hon. Friend knows that we shall be discussing the green pound in the price negotiations that are about to begin. I am glad that he supports what the Government have done in this sector. Obviously we are determined to support the sort of policies which mean, for example, the retention of the BVPS for two years so that there is some degree of continuity and confidence as a result.

Is the Minister aware that the failure to operate the hill livestock compensatory allowance was one of the many factors that led the National Farmers Union to pass a vote of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week? Has he had time to consider the terms of that resolution, calling on the right hon. Gentleman to get his act together or to get out? Which will it be?

The hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that the policies put forward by his party are so disastrous that they are not taken at all seriously by the farming community. Indeed, they are not taken seriously by his own party, because he and his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) had to pay for their own policy document because the party was not even prepared to fund it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the value of the horticultural output from commercial holdings in 1985 and 1986.

The value of horticultural output from commercial holdings in the United Kingdom for 1985 was estimated at £1,171 million and is forecast at £1,234 million for 1986.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the horticulture industry makes a major contribution to the national economy and will he ensure that the extra help for marketing announced in his ALURE package will be available to horticulture?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Marketing is indeed a most important aspect of horticultural production, and all other production. We shall give any help we can, through our various agencies, to help marketing in horticulture.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.

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 visiting Yorkshire later today.

Are there any circumstances in which the right hon. Lady's Government would prevent a British company falling into foreign hands?

If we were to say that we would automatically prevent a British company from falling into foreign hands, we would prevent a great deal of inward investment that is welcome in this country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend consider the anomaly over television licence fees for the elderly? Is she aware that if one is in warden-controlled sheltered accommodation which is council-owned one pays 5p per set per year, but if one is in private residential care or any other form of housing one pays the full fee regardless of age or income? Would it riot be fairer if all people of pensionable age had the opportunity to pay the same fee based upon means to pay, not just upon age?

I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, as he will be aware, the House debated that matter recently. I do not believe that it is fair, as a general rule, to exempt particular groups from the licence fee. My hon. Friend's proposal would cost some £80 million, which would add considerably to the cost of the licence fee for others, including many pensioners, who would still be required to pay it.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Defence said in Washington yesterday that if any part of the strategic initiative programme

"we are involved in went, in our view, outside the treaty"—

"we wouldn't want to be involved."?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman would do well first to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to see exactly what he did say. He will find that it did not resemble exactly what he said. The position is as I have outlined it previously. First, we have no locus in interpreting the ABM treaty. Secondly, deployment is clearly a matter for negotiation, as we have agreed. Thirdly, we have received satisfactory assurances from the United States that there will be consultation about any significant change of policy in relation to SDI research. Fourthly, the Government fully support the SDI research programme, which is permitted by the ABM treaty. It is vital to our defence that the West should always be at the forefront of new technology.

I think that the Prime Minister should consult her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, since clarity is all-important in this issue, both for the American President and, more importantly, for the British people. Is the Prime Minister aware that, when asked yesterday what he would do if the United States said that it wanted to test SDI technology in space, the Secretary of State for Defence said:

"The outcome might be that we agreed with what was proposed or might not agree."

The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that I should consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is precisely what I did do this morning and that is why I gave the reply that I did.

In relation to the north-south divide, has my right hon. Friend noted the remarks of Mr. Kenneth Livingstone, that far too many northern Labour MPs know nothing of life in London and all they do know about are the brothels and wine bars of Westminster.?

Order. Is all this part of the Prime Minister's responsibilities?

Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning this disgraceful slur on the north of England and on the hard-working northern Members of Parliament on both sides of the House?

I am not going to get involved in that one.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister not worried about the reported links between cancer and nuclear installations?

The report to which the hon. Gentleman is referring has been, or will be, placed in the Library of the House when it is available. In fact, its production has been accelerated so that it can be available before the debate on Sizewell. I understand that many people have interpreted it totally differently. Its purpose is to find out the facts and it is for others to make the assessment.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Agriculture Council, under the United Kingdom presidency, took a major and historic step last December when it tackled the mounting problem of food surpluses? Will she acknowledge that the total change of direction that the whole of the agriculture industry is now having to face will be both painful and difficult? What will the Government be able to do to assist the industry in this process of adaptation, bearing in mind the calls for a five-year transition period and the devaluation of the green pound?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Agriculture Council last December made a great effort officially and in a very practical way to tackle the problem of food surpluses in the Community. I know full well that the adaptation will be painful for farmers, but, as my hon. Friend is aware, we already give considerable national help to farmers in addition to that which they get from the CAP, for example, in capital grants and in support for special areas. Support for special areas totals £141 million.

Does the Prime Minister agree that lack of adequate housing is a major impediment to labour mobility and causes great misery in many parts of the country? Will she spend some time today looking at the housebuilding record of her Administration since 1979, which will show that, after eight years, this Government have managed to get only 200,000 new houses started in the private and public sectors last year, when Mr. Harold Macmillan, in his period as Minister of Housing, after four years, was able to build 300,000 houses?

It is not only public sector housing, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. The dwelling stock has increased by 1·4 million. That is an enormous increase during the lifetime of this Government. Capital spending on the renovation of English council housing has increased from about £480 million in 1978–79 to an estimated £1,300 million in 1986–87. So there are more houses and better renovated houses.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.

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

Does my right hon. Friend share my deep concern that certain Left-wing teachers in London have banned the video which would have enabled children to be properly informed about sex attacks, simply because the police recommended that it should be shown? Does that not demonstrate that those teachers could not care less about child abuse?

I think it absolutely disgraceful that a few Left-wing teachers in ILEA should attempt to jeopardise children's safety in this way. I believe that parents will be appalled, and rightly so, that their children are put at risk because of this anti-police demonstration by Left-wing teachers.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.

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

Did the Prime Minister not make a bit of an ass of her Chief Whip last night, when she allowed Downing street to bypass him and use the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) to arrange the tabling of a motion attacking the Labour leader?

I have myself been the victim of attacks from the hon. Gentleman and many others, and I have never squealed or complained about it. But may I make it absolutely clear that I for one, regardless of the hon. Gentleman, welcome the agreement reached by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and the Chief Whip of the Labour party that we concentrate on policy matters. I have always tried to do that and shall continue so to do.

Tell that to Edwina Currie.

Order. It sounds like a rabble.

In the course of her busy day, can my right hon. Friend find time to consider the disappointing level of civilian research and development in this country compared with Germany and Japan? As a former trained scientist herself, can she look closely into the matter to see that everything possible is done to improve our position, since, in the long term, if we do not pay attention to this matter there is a danger of its damaging us in international competitiveness?

I know that there is a very important debate in another place today. May I point out that overall net Government expenditure on research and development is at a record level? United Kingdom Government-funded civilian research and development as a proportion of national output exceeds the level in Japan and the United States. My hon. Friend mentioned Germany. It is also true that for all research and development our expenditure as a proportion of national output exceeds that of Germany, so we have a much better record than many people realise.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.

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

May I bring the Prime Minister's attention back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), which was not whether the report will be placed in the Library or whether there is a different interpretation, but whether she is worried about the report, which links cancer with nuclear installations?

Unlike some hon. Gentlemen, I prefer to read a report before I pronounce upon it.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether she will have a chance today to look at the reports of the difficulties in raising finance encountered by those engaged in promoting the Channel tunnel? When she has had a look at those reports, will she assure the House that in no way will the Government put up funds should such people be unable to raise the finance?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are glad to reaffirm the Government's general support for the Channel tunnel project. As I have made clear in the past, no Government money will be provided. I think that both the French Government and our Government remain enthusiastic about the project. It is one of the most challenging of our time. It will provide many man years of work and many thousands of jobs. I hope that the finance will be forthcoming for this project and that this generation will be able to rise to this challenging adventure.