asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Agricultural and Allied Workers National Trade Group to discuss the poultry industry; and if he will make a statement.

I have agreed to meet a delegation from the Agricultural and Allied Workers National Trade Group on 18 November to discuss the poultry industry.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we are looking forward to the meeting with the delegation next month? Since we asked for the meeting, poultry and other agricultural workers in tied cottages have been hit by a bombshell from the hon. Gentleman's counterpart in the Department of the Environment in respect of the proposals for the private housing sector. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that assured agricultural occupancies, which the Department of the Environment intends to phase in as an alternative to the security offered by the Rent (Agriculture) Act, will mean that the farm worker will have less security, that he will be subject to market rents and that his family will have no statutory right to remain in their cottage? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this scandalous proposal is wanted by neither the National Farmers Union nor the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers? Will the hon. Gentleman use his powers as an Agriculture Minister to resist that proposal?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has taken the unions under his wing. I discussed this matter when I met members of the union in Yorkshire. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has told me will be expanded upon on 18 November when his colleagues see me.

I hope that great caution will be exercised in dealing with the poultry industry storm damage claims which are likely to reach my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister. Surely responsible farmers will have been adequately insured. Farmers were not the only ones to have suffered from the storm. Surely they should not receive preferential treatment.

I am sure that my hon. Friend's points will be echoed repeatedly this afternoon and in the weeks to come. I agree with the gist of his comments.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is poultry farming in my constituency? I want to know what is going on in his Department. Apparently it has been stated that finance for research establishments will be cut. There is one such establishment in Nottinghamshire which helps the poultry industry in my constituency. I want to know what is happening in respect of the reduction in employment in poultry farming in my constituency and others.

I detect a note of concern in the hon. Gentleman's question. I should be delighted if he would talk to me in the Ministry, when we can discuss the whole aspect.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy industry.

I hold frequent meetings with the president of the National Farmers Union, when a wide range of subjects is discussed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been shortages of milk for processing this summer? With further cuts in output due in the months ahead, is he satisfied that the supply of fresh milk and milk for processing will be adequate in the future?

Yes. I am aware that there were some problems during the seasonal trough in August and September this year in meeting some processors' requirements, but I do not think that that relates to the level of quotas as a whole. As my hon. Friend knows—I am sure that he would agree—it was necessary to scale down the quotas in December to bring supply and demand more into balance. The problem does not relate to the quotas as such. However, there is a problem in milk marketing, and I am discussing it with the milk marketing boards.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the controversy that surrounds the use of hormones in milk and meat production. Is he aware that while our farmers are implementing the EEC regulations on this matter, farmers across the Channel are not? Therefore, when my right hon. Friend next goes to Brussels, will he put the control of the use of hormones on the agenda to try to ensure that our continental colleagues play the game?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that I raised this very matter at the Agriculture Council earlier this week, when we were informed by the Commissioner that the Commission would be having further talks with third countries to try to solve the problems that face us on this matter. Indeed, the specific point raised by my hon. Friend was the very point that I put to the Commissioner. I asked him to give me an assurance that, whatever happens on 1 January, the introduction of the ban on implants would apply evenly across all member states, and he gave me that assurance. One other Minister in particular—from the country to which I think my hon. Friend refers—indicated that he would be in a position to do that, too. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on this point.

Is the Minister aware that many food manufacturers are suffering from a shortage of milk products in their processes and that, as a result, they are suffering redundancies and factory closures. Does the Minister intend to take any action on this matter?

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is confusing two points. There is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox) raised, which I have touched upon, which caused temporary difficulties a short while ago. Let me go more widely. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind the possible closures of creameries and so on because of the reduction in supply, I am sure he will recognise that the reduction in quotas is bringing supply and demand more into balance, as would happen anyway in a free market system. We do not take special compensatory measures to assist processing industries in other products and other parts of the economy where supply and demand are being brought into balance and where the necessary adjustment needs to take place. That is what is happening in this case.

I appreciate the details that the Minister has given on this issue. However, will he accept that in parts of Scotland where self-sufficiency exists in the milk industry the further reduction in the milk quota will not only close down creameries and cheese-making plants but will have an adverse effect on farming in general, given that farmers in some parts of Scotland have little alternative? Will he examine the possibility of a more flexible approach to areas that have achieved such a level of self-sufficiency?

I think that we have to distinguish between individual difficulties that arise from time to time in different parts of the United Kingdom—I can assure the hon. Lady that the problems arise in regions of England as well as in Scotland—and the overall position on the level of quotas and supply and demand generally. Perhaps the hon. Lady has in mind the first aspect in particular. As I have said, I am discussing the problem with the milk marketing boards. We are faced with very complex issues in trying to make the system operate properly, but I agree that it is desirable to try to ensure that where supplies are available they ought to be able to go to processors. However, this is a complicated matter.

asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about the level of dairy farmers' incomes in relation to previous years.

Average dairy farm incomes in England and Wales increased significantly in real terms in each of the last two production years. Provisional information for 1987 will be published in the annual review White Paper early next year.

It is good but modest news to hear of the increases, as my right hon. will surely agree. Will he also agree that the modest increases have been swept away, not only by last week's hurricane, but by the persistently bad weather throughout the year? Therefore, will he undertake, as a matter of extreme urgency, to identify, with the National Farmers Union, those who, without financial aid, will face bankruptcy?

With regard to my hon. Friend's introductory remarks, the increases in the past two years, on average and taken across the board, have been quite significant. I am, of course, very sympathetic in relation to the losses to farmers and others as a result of storm damage, and so on. The long-standing position, however, is that farmers normally bear the cost of bad weather. The vast majority of them insure against such costs and I see no reason to depart from the principle that the Government do not compensate in situations of this kind. Nevertheless, in my hon. Friend's part of the world some farmers have lost a very large number of trees and the environmental impact has been considerable. In those cases, the Forestry Commission is giving advice to farmers and forestry grants are available. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment stated yesterday, I am discussing with the commission whether any additional grant can be made available in the circumstances.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that although dairy incomes may have increased on average, those of smaller dairy farmers have plummeted drastically? Is he aware that one such farmer on a county smallholding in my constituency has been able to keep the wolf from the door only as a result of family income supplement and child benefit? Will my right hon. Friend consider the position of smaller dairy farmers, especially in relation to quotas? Is he aware that no further reductions in quota can be tolerated if we are to retain the smaller farmers of this country, particularly in the north-west of England?

As my hon. Friend knows, when quotas were introduced special arrangements were made to assist smaller producers both in terms of the quota and in other ways. I am anxious that there should be as much flexibility as possible within a quota system. That is why I fought hard to bring back the quota leasing system—not the transfer or purchase of quota—which has been successfully achieved for this year and is once again available to producers. I hope that this will assist small producers who are particularly pressed.

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

I regularly receive comments and inquiries from many sources on a wide range of labelling matters. Most recent representations have been on various aspects of the EC proposals for the amendments to the food labelling directive, and of our guidelines for a voluntary system of nutritional labelling.

When will the Minister be able to announce the Government's view on the irradiation of food? If the Government decide in favour of allowing irradiation, will he give an assurance that labelling instructions will make it clear to the consumer whether a product has been irradiated?

I have had much correspondence on the lines of the hon. Gentleman's question. We are currently considering all kinds of representations as well as the advice of the advisory committee on the wholesomeness of irradiated foods. We are also considering a method of detecting irradiation, as without such a system, even with labelling, it will be difficult to prove whether a product has been irradiated.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing concern in the British bee-keeping community about the inadequacy of the 1976 honey regulations to cope with imports, which are not in the interests of consumers or producers?

I was made aware at lunch time by my hon. Friend of the concern of British bee keepers. I fully understand my hon. Friend's difficulties, but I believe that this long-running and complicated saga can best be progressed by correspondence.

I have already been in correspondence with the Minister about this. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that people who are allergic to flavouring in foodstuffs require additional labelling to warn them of the dangers? The Ministry has persistently refused to require this. Partly, through inertia and partly, it seems, through fear that the Common Market will say that it is fobidden. Will the Minister assure us of his determination to help people who need protection in this respect, and will he ensure that there is proper and adequate labelling of foodstuffs?

We have helped the hon. Gentleman's constituent — I think that he received the last letter yesterday—by, this year alone, spending £300,000 on a scheme to find out exactly what people are allergic to. It was an extensive scheme.

Why does the hon. Gentleman not help my constituent in Bradford, South?

Many of us are allergic to the hon. Gentleman.

Is my hon. Friend aware of any restriction or problem with European Community law which prevents the Government from putting forward the finalised nutritional guidelines for fats and other nutrients? If he is not presently aware of any such problem, will he tell the House when he proposes to be so'?

Discussions are still going on in Europe on the fats issue and fats regulations. We have recently published our guidelines on nutritional labelling, which will knit into forthcoming European directives. We hope that, by being first in the field, we can again lead Europe.

I press the Minister on the matter of irradiation. Is it the Government's view that labelling will have to be introduced but that, to make such labelling effective, there will have to be a system of tests to allow for independent analysis of products which might or might not have been irradiated? If that is the case, will the Minister give an assurance that before the Government allow any irradiated products to be distributed such tests will be available, and that, unless they are available, approval for irradiation will not be given?

The hon. Gentleman has summed up all the difficulties that we presently have with regard to irradiation and people's fears of it. As he said, if we are to label products, there must be some way of testing whether irradiation has occurred. When we have considered all the representations that we have had, I am sure that we shall be able to consult even further and come up with a scheme that is acceptable to the House.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to seek to reform the common agricultural policy.

The Council of Ministers is currently considering a wide range of Commission proposals for the further reform of the CAP.

Will the Minister confirm that the figures that his Department has supplied show that the direct costs of the CAP to the taxpayer are about £2·5 billion this year, which is £44 for every man, woman and child in the country? Does he agree that it is just the tip of the iceberg? The figures do not include administrative costs or the hugely inflated food crop costs that result from intervention. When will the Minister stop mouthing about reforming the CAP and take the burden of costs off our backs?

The hon. Gentleman is quoting—the figure is not as high as he suggests—the figures in the public expenditure White Paper for the cost of the CAP. If one takes the matter more broadly, the costs across the Community and to the taxpayer are much higher than that. One of the problems that we face, and one of the matters that I constantly point out, is that we are spending £250 million a week across the Community as a whole simply for the storage and disposal of surpluses. I do not need any pressing from the hon. Gentleman to get on with reforms of the CAP. That is precisely what we have been doing. The United Kingdom Government have been much in the forefront.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern at what is so far known of the stabiliser proposals being formulated in Brussels? Will he tell the House the position that he has adopted? Is he aware that many people think that the proposals will neither curb production nor cut expenditure on agriculture?

The proposals will help us to cut expenditure, particularly expenditure that is directed at the wrong areas. I have always taken the view that it is in farmers' own interests that spiralling costs are controlled. They may then have some stability for the future. It is as much in farmers' interests as in the interests of taxpayers and everyone else that we get on top of the matter.

Will the Minister inform the House of the latest developments on the EEC sheepmeat proposals?

Yes. We had a discussion on Tuesday about the stabiliser aspect of the sheepmeat proposals. I stated that I am critical of them as they stand at the moment because they discriminate against the United Kingdom. We have not yet discussed the wider proposals of the future of the sheepmeat regime, which I expect to discuss at the next Council meeting or shortly after.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the widespread hostility towards milk quotas, and the fact that they have created a situation in which young dairy farmers find it impossible to get into dairy farming? As we address the question of the reform of the CAP, will my right hon. Friend confirm that no more quotas will be introduced?

On dairy quotas, if we could have tackled the problem of spiralling costs in another way I should have liked to do so. However, the plain fact was that we could not and the quotas have big disadvantages, one of which my hon. Friend has mentioned. The vast majority of British dairy farmers now believe that the quota system has given them a stability that they could not have achieved in any other way. We have made it clear that we believe that the quota system should be continued after 1989, and that has the support of the majority of British farmers.

Does the Minister agree that the proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy, to which he has referred, will have a serious impact on regions that are heavily dependent on agriculture, and that those regions already have high unemployment, such as Northern Ireland and the highlands and islands? What has he brought forward to cushion the impact of those proposals?

I beg the hon. Gentleman to understand that if the costs of the CAP continue to rise as they are doing even more drastic measures will have to be taken, which will certainly not be in the interests of our farmers. Therefore, it is necessary to reform the CAP.

Has my right hon. Friend made any progress in persuading the other EEC Ministers that the only way to limit an otherwise open-ended budget and to ensure that the money goes to the producers rather than to the storers of the food is to have quotas across the entire spectrum of agricultural output? Otherwise, there will be a knock-on from one aspect of production to another when the squeeze comes on.

I know how much my hon. Friend studies these matters. However, there are grave difficulties in going down the quota route in other sectors, for example, cereals, in which they would be almost impossible to administer, quite apart from other difficulties.

In the efforts to reform the CAP, which has the support of Labour Members, will the Minister assure the House that he will not bargain away the sheep variable premium and that he will not close his mind to the direct income support, which would be a great help to the smaller and poorer farmers in Britain?

If, by direct income support, the hon. Gentleman means the direct income aids which are currently being discussed in the Community — we discussed that on Tuesday—I must advise him that, for a variety of reasons, most member states were opposed to the present proposals, which, in their present shape, do not make sense, not least because there is nothing in them to prevent increased production arising as a result of the direct income support. That would run contrary to the major aims of reform. I do not think that the proposals in their present form are acceptable, or will be of much benefit, to the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how often the European Council of Fisheries Ministers has met since 24 July; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the meetings.

The Fisheries Council met once—on 29 September. I issued a press notice on the outcome of the Council's meeting, of which I have placed copies in the Library of the House.

Will the Minister confirm that one of the issues giving rise to concern among EEC Fisheries Ministers is flag registration? Will he make it clear that that is of considerable concern to the industry because it appears to undermine much of the fabric of the common fisheries policy? What steps do the Government intend to take to counteract this growing trend, and when do they propose to take action?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is of great concern to ourselves and to other Governments. We have already taken what interim measures we have been able to take, as he knows, and we have had long discussions with the industry to discover how best we can proceed. He will be pleased to see in the Transport Bill measures which we hope will ensure that ships which are registered as British are indeed British. The Commission has known about the difficulties and we have asked it to do something about them for some time. The fact that it has not been able to do so is of considerable concern to us, because this should have been able to be done on a Community level as it undermines the whole basis of the division of quotas, which is the foundation of the common fisheries policy.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Fisheries Ministers, will they look at the question of the precautionary TACs, which are not always based on scientific evidence, and which result in such madness as we saw this summer of a complete stop on cod fishing by certain boats, although there were masses of cod in the English Channel?

I believe that our first priority in the fisheries industry is to protect the stock for future generations. That sometimes means that we take measures which, in the event, turn out to be more draconian than was necessary. I would prefer to be harshly judged because I was too concerned about conservation than to be blamed for the destruction of whole species. As we have seen with herring, we can fish out whole species. Therefore, if more fish are around, we want more for Britain, but if the choice is between conservation for the future and destruction for present gains, I would always vote for conservation.

I believe that the Ministers agreed to a research and development programme budget for the next few years, and that will be greatly welcome to all in the fishing industry. Given that the programme will deal, among other things, with the management of stocks, will the Minister seriously consider the possibility of creating a multi-disciplinary research and development team to examine the extension of TACs from one year to three or four years?

I am sure that the House will want me to welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what success he has had in obtaining an increase in sugar beet quotas in the European Economic Community.

The European Commission has proposed continuing existing quotas unchanged for the next three marketing years. In view of the large structural surplus, which has to be sold on world markets at low prices, there could be no justification for increasing the Community's sugar beet quotas.

Is not the position of the British sugar industry increasingly unsatisfactory? Is it not faced, on the one hand, with no increased quotas, despite proven need, and, on the other hand, with increased levies to assist countries that are already in surplus production? Is this not grossly unfair, and what can my right hon. Friend do about it?

I well understand what my hon. Friend is pressing, and I very much understand his local interest, but he also has to look at it from the overall Community point of view. We are exporting to world markets substantial quantities of sugar which go to third countries at subsidised prices, the subsidy being paid through the levy, so I do not think that it will be possible to argue for an increase in quotas overall. I have to tell my hon. Friend that, realistically, a change in the distribution of A and B quotas between member states would not be satisfactory. Under the levy proposals of the Commission, which are being attacked by many other member states, about which we will have a battle, we pay 6 per cent. of the cost of the levy, whereas we have 9 per cent. of the quotas. So, it is not an unfavourable situation. It is a fair one, and I am determined that it should continue.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the only circumstances in which the United Kingdom would have an increased quota would be if there were a general increase in EEC quotas, and that such an increase in quotas would be disastrous both for the EEC budget and for Third world developing countries that depend upon the world market for their sugar?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is a fair and realistic summary of the situation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with tenant farmers; and what subjects were discussed.

My right hon. Friend the Minister and I meet tenant farmers regularly and discuss a very wide range of subjects of mutual interest.

If a landlord gets planning permission, encouraged by the Government, for building or tree planting on his land, what will the Minister do if the tenant loses his security of tenure? Surely there is not much "alluring" for the tenant farmer in the Government's package?

I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that that, as a summation of the effect of ALURE on the tenant farmer, is a rather narrow and prejudiced point of view. We are looking at this with the industry at the moment, which is discussing closely what should be done and how the division between the various responsibilities should be seen in the light of diversification and other changes. From the reports that I have, it seems that the industry is coming to an understanding on this matter, and I am looking forward to hearing from it. If we can get an industry-agreed solution to those problems, we shall be very pleased.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tenant farmers whose land is blighted by coal mining subsidence suffer considerable consequential losses? What does he propose to do, and will he take steps to persuade his ministerial colleagues to implement the recommendations of the Waddilove report?

Obviously the recommendations of the Waddilove report are a responsibility of other Ministries. I understand that they are looking at those recommendations carefully at the moment, and I have certainly made clear to them the particular damage of which my hon. Friend speaks. It is not limited to tenant farmers. There is no doubt that the whole question of subsidence is one that has now been thrown into great prominence and that farmers need to be properly protected.

Is it not true that the Minister has received repeated representations from tenant farmers in Scotland, Wales, Cumbria and Yorkshire about contaminated lamb and the blighting of land in those areas following Chernobyl? To talk in the European Communities of raising the becquerel limit from 1,000 to 5,000. and thereby derestricting those areas, is just cheating one's way around the problem. What will he do to resolve the problem of blighted land in those areas?

I am not sure whether those are not two parts of a totally different question. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has no doubt received such representations, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I have received representations from farmers in Cumbria. The hon. Gentleman may like to throw around words such as "cheat" and the rest of it, but some of us are trying to face the difficulties. After the Chernobyl incident scientists recommend a figure, and they are now recommending a different one. Politicians have to try to decide what is right between these figures, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am trying to make the decision on scientific grounds and on no other. He can say "cheat" as often as he likes, but if he does so he tells untruths.

Order. I ask the House to listen to answers, or to carry on conservations outside the Chamber.

Porter asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications for the British fishing industry on his announcement about freezer trawlers.

The choice between the many deserving applicants for the new licences for their freezer trawlers which I announced in January was not an easy one, but the Fisheries Ministers concluded that it would best serve the United Kingdom interest, including that of the fishing industry, to allocate licences in respect of one vessel each to Boyd Line Management Services, Associated Fisheries and Lunar Fishing.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Given the increasing prosperity of the Scottish fishing industry, would it not have been more appropriate to grant a greater proportion of the licences to the English fishing industry, which needs all the support that it can get?

That was not the view that I received when I went to Peterhead and Aberdeen recently. On that occasion it was suggested to me that we had got things the wrong way round. [Interruption.] If any Opposition Member thinks that it is a junket to go to Peterhead or Aberdeen, it is clear that he has not been to either place at 7 o'clock in the morning.

Is the Minister confident that the granting of these freezer trawler licences does not disrupt the growing reconciliation between fishing effort and available stocks?

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this matter. We have granted the licences because we are concerned that in some areas we do not fully fish the quota that is provided for us. Unless we are able to provide the means to do that, other countries will be able to refer to our quotas in some areas and say, "As you have not fished them, perhaps you should relinquish them." As the common fisheries policy is of great help to us, as a part of the Community, and individually as the United Kingdom, I am concerned that there should be no opening for that sort of assertion. It is for that reason that these proposals were put forward. They are designed to make us more able to match fishing effort to fishing opportunity. They are based upon the principle that if in future we find that the gap widens, we shall be able to make further allocations of licences if that seems appropriate.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to exempt farmers who grow oats from paying the co-responsibilty levy.

Community rules require co-responsibility levy to be paid on oats. We shall ensure that the case for exempting oats is fully considered in the forthcoming review.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Will he tell the House whether oats are currently in surplus?

Supply and demand for oats are broadly in balance. There would seem to be scope for growing more high-quality milling oats in this country.

Does the Minister recall the advertising slogan that was used by the Scottish Co-op:

"Mrs. McCrindle gets her oats at the Co-op"?

I know that Scotsmen in the House had enough oats yesterday to keep us up until early this morning. I hope that they have fewer oats next week.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Farmers Union about bridleways across farming land.

I met the deputy president of the National Farmers Union on 13 October, when we discussed, among other things, the question of access to the countryside.

May I urge my right hon. Friend to consider setting up an inquiry into the current network of bridleways? May I suggest to him that there should be an expansion of the bridleways to meet the huge increase in riding as a leisure pursuit, so as to take riders off busy country roads and lanes and to assist farmers who find that the lines of some traditional bridleways are detrimental to good agriculture?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to stress the need to accept within the countryside the demands of access, which very often run counter to some of the demands of conservation and agriculture. The Ministry tries hard to bring those different demands together. In the meantime, we are discussing with others how best to help gain access to bridleways in the environmentally sensitive areas where we are directly responsible. My right hon. Friend the Minister is discussing with the Countryside Commission how pest to continue to try to produce better access to the countryside for the rider and the pedestrian.

Order. Before we start on Prime Minister's Question Time, may I appeal to the House for less noise at Prime Minister's Question Time. It is my asessment that noise has increased since we returned after the general election. I do not think that that is good for the reputation of the House and it is not in line with our traditions.

Mark Taylor asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 October 1987.

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.

Will my right hon. Friend take time during the course of her busy day to reflect on the fact that the vast majority of British shareholders behaved with great steadiness and maturity during the recent ups and downs in the stock market? In fact, they probably behaved with more steadiness than many of the professionals.

As my hon. Friend is aware, the problems began on Wall street and since then there have been very considerable swings in stock markets all around the world. The United Kingdom has been swept up in that and share prices have fallen, although only to levels seen earlier this year. The Financial Times 30 share index was 1,407 when I came into the Chamber. I remember a time under a Labour Administration when it fell to 147.

Following the statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday, is it not clear that before local authorities can qualify for help to defray the cost of last week's severe storm damage they must use the product of a penny rate, must claim what insurance they can and must spend any contingency funds that they have, even before winter really starts? Will the Prime Minister respond to the genuine case made for greater assistance by both Conservative and Labour-controlled councils in Wales and southern England and instruct the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that the stricken areas and families are given real help, commensurate with their very real needs?

I listened to the statements made by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales yesterday. It seems reasonable to me to expect local authorities to make contingency plans for unexpected events and reasonable that they should bear the product of a penny rate to meet those contingencies. Over and above that, they get, as they did under the previous Administration, 75 per cent. grant, and the further 25 per cent. local authority contribution does not rank for loss of grant.

What future arrangements should the local authorities make for the contingency of a hurricane in Britain?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that when disasters come they rank under the Bellwin rules for help, provided that the local authority first bears the product of a penny rate. If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned that if we get another hurricane and local authorities have already spent the product of a penny rate, I can tell him that the Bellwin penny rate for emergencies lasts for the financial year. Once the product of a penny rate has been spent on emergencies that qualified under Bellwin, any other emergencies that qualified under the rules would attract a 75 per cent. grant and the 25 per cent. local authority contribution would not cause grant loss.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, in addition to the splendid work of the local authorities and emergency services, the Dunkirk spirit was evident among many ordinary people who, tirelessly and without thought of thanks, worked to relieve the plight of their neighbours and their community? Is she aware that most of my constituents are greateful for the prompt and substantial financial assistance offered by the Government to repair much of the damage? However, will she bear in mind that many individuals who face enormous bills for the cost of tree clearance and repair are not, and cannot be, covered by personal insurance? What relief can the Government offer them?

I join my hon. Friend in thanking the emergency services and the many volunteers who acted with splendid speed when the disaster occurred. On my hon. Friend's second point, most people are insured and there is no way in which we can make equal those who are not insured with those who are. It would be irresponsible to do so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

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

Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider under what constitutional principle she regards it as appropriate to find a place in the Cabinet for the person whom she appoints as chairman of the Conservative party and to combine the job of chairman with a ministerial post in which conflicts of interest would be impossible to avoid?

I have made no decision about the question raised by the hon. Gentleman, which I am not quite sure is within my ministerial responsibilities. He must wait, because I have not yet made up my mind.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the deep resentment felt by the vast majority of Ulster people, in particular by legal practitioners of all religions in Northern Ireland, at the constant demand for the introduction of three-judge courts in Northern Ireland as a barter for the approval by Dublin of the extradition Bill? Will the right hon. Lady make it absolutely clear to Dublin that the judiciary in Northern Ireland is fair and impartial and ranks among the best in the Western world and that the judges, who face death daily, deserve the support of the community?

I fully agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. The future of courts in Northern Ireland is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and is not a bargaining factor.

Does the Prime Minster accept that the cancellation of the BP advertising programme means that the Government now take the view that the small investor should stay out of the BP share sale?

The hon. Gentleman must understand that there is little I can say about an issue—[Interruption.]—which is a matter of the prospectus, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Investors must decide for themselves whether to apply. The hon. Gentleman is fully aware of the legal position and knows that that is the limit of what I can say.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

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

Following the recent announcements by the Home Secretary with regard to the possession and use of knives and other weapons and the restrictions on certain types of firearms, will the Prime Minister accept that that is seen as a major contribution to law and order, which is bringing reassurance to the police and the public, both of whom would welcome other measures of similar severity?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Further measures dealing with guns and the carrying of knives have been widely welcomed across the political divide and I hope that they will pass speedily into legislation.

Will the Prime Minister request that the Attorney-General makes a statement on the withdrawal by the Director of Public Prosecutions today of the charges against the three accused in Lambeth magistrates' court of kidnapping offences against the African National Congress? As the right hon. Lady will know, there have been reporting restrictions, and around the world we have seen headlines such as

"People in high places linked to ANC kidnap trial".

The hon. Gentleman is aware that prosecutions are not a matter for me. I shall call the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but whether he responds is wholly a matter for him.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

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

With regard to education and the Government's welcome and radical election commitments, may I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the proposition that they should be introduced as quickly as possible and in their entirety, so that children may benefit from better education and the educational establishment is challenged — [Interruption.] — to provide a better service than has often been the case hitherto?

We shall do our best to introduce that Bill fairly quickly, so that it can be given its Second Reading and go into Committee, preferably before Christmas. I believe that many people are assuming that some of what we are proposing is already legislation, and are wanting to take advantage of it. We are having to point out that it will take time to go through the House.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time to consider the plight of the fishing industry in Scotland, and the lack of grant for building new boats? In particular, is she aware that the Scottish fishing industry has not been given grant approval for two boats to be built at the excellent Campbeltown shipyard in my constituency? If that does not happen, the men will be out of work.

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for letting me know of her special concern. She will know that we have made record sums available for vessel construction and improvements: £13·8 million last year and £17·5 million this year.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the firm and resolute attitude that she took at the Prime Ministers' conference in Vancouver, and in particular on resisting the wrongful call for sanctions against South Africa. Will she further recognise that the advice offered to her by the leaders of certain central African countries which have run their own economies into the ground should he—and rightly was—disregarded?

I shall be making a statement about the Commonwealth conference in a moment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Since the conference I have received a message through our ambassador from Mrs. Suzman, who asked him to say that she remains convinced that it would do enormous damage in South Africa to put large numbers of people out of work, and that she is certain that the sanctions so far imposed have tended to harden white attitudes and to make the task of people like herself, who have been fighting apartheid for years, more difficult.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 October.

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

With reference to the glittering success of our economy, which was described so eloquently by the Prime Minister at Blackpool, could she explain to the House why the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has written to me to explain that the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 cannot be implemented because of lack of funds?

We had a number of questions on this subject before the House rose for the summer recess, and I told the right hon. Gentleman that we were anxious to implement the Act, if we could agree with the local authorities on something that was of a reasonable cost. I am afraid that it will not be implemented yet, but, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, our record with regard to help for the disabled is quite outstanding. Spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has risen by 75 per cent. in real terms over the last eight years.