To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current totals of intervention stocks held in store in the United Kingdom, broken down by commodity.

A note setting out the volume of intervention stocks in the United Kingdom on the latest available dates, broken down by commodities, is deposited in the Library of the House and is updated monthly.

I have acquainted myself with the up-to-date position. Does the Minister agree that it is an outright indictment of CAP policy that food to this extent can be hoarded when in the Third world about 40,000 children die every day from starvation and related diseases? Why do the Government appear to be sabotaging the only good that has Bowed from that policy — the distribution of food in Britain to the poor and needy—by intervening to stop that plan?

My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) has made great efforts to ensure that European food is distributed in the Third world, but the inability of Third-world Governments to accept Oxfam or other organisations and the habit of Third-world revolutionaries of shooting at food convoys does not help the smooth distribution of that food. [Interruption.] That may sound absurd to Labour Members, but it is true. Intervention stocks of butter in Britain have decreased by 25 per cent. and of wheat by 50 per cent. over the past year. We are not trying to sabotage any deals on food for the poor. In collaboration with other people, we are trying to make those schemes more efficient and more effective.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Third world needs help in developing self-sufficiency and that to use developing countries as a dustbin for European surpluses is against their interests?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The examples of India and China demonstrate what happens when countries begin to produce their own food. Oxfam says that it is not food that is needed, but education for people in the Third world on how to become as efficient in agricultural production as we are in Europe.

We deprecate the Minister's facile comments about the Third world. Does he understand that this winter there will be a sense of outrage if these large stocks of beef and dairy products lie unused in intervention as a result of the Government's deliberate torpedoing of the scheme that is currently being discussed in Brussels? Will he undertake to reconsider his position and go to Brussels and argue for the distribution of the surpluses to the needy in Britain and the Third world? Will he further undertake that, if such a scheme is eventually agreed in Brussels, he and the Government will not block its introduction in Britain?

The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically fudging two quite distinct issues. In the context of butter and food, we are doing as the hon. Gentleman asks, because we are trying to get the best possible scheme for this system to work efficiently. The distribution of food surpluses to the Third world is of paramount importance, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should do all that we can to ensure that it is distributed properly. I wish that some of the recipient countries were as open, free and able to receive it.

The House recognises that the surpluses are caused by over-production. Will my hon. Friend comment on what happened last night when the French and German Ministers of Agriculture walked out of a meeting designed to bring about a European 20 per cent.

I do not wish to pre-empt the answer to be given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on that detailed and important question.

I appeal to the House for briefer questions, please.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will recommend a date for the termination of burning waste at sea, ocean incineration, as agreed by delegates at the sixth meeting of the Oslo Commission in 1981.

This is one of the questions which will be discussed at next week's ministerial conference on the North sea in London, and one to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment and I will be giving careful attention.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is it not true that the British Government have already blocked a proposal by the Nordic countries to end incineration at sea by 1991? As the Government are a signatory to the Oslo agreement, surely they have a commitment to set a date for termination prior to 1990.

The Oslo agreement demands that there should be a date for termination. We will listen to the arguments carefully. The United Kingdom is responsible for only about 3 per cent. of the waste incinerated on the North sea, but we are concerned to ensure that the destruction of waste is done in the most ecological way. A difficulty facing the hon. Lady is that the scientific evidence shows that in many cases incineration is the best way of dealing with waste. We have to face that problem.

I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the initiative taken in holding the North sea conference on this matter, which is of great international anxiety. I congratulate also those concerned with the production of a consensus document agreed between the scientists of the countries concerned. Does my right hon. Friend agree that international co-operation, which involves give and take on our part as well as that of others, is the route to solving all these problems?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about that. It is a matter to which the countries concerned must together find an answer. I think that my hon. Friend will also agree that any answer that we find should be based firmly on the scientific evidence and not derived from ulterior and exterior emotional answers.

Why is the Minister so hesitant about joining all our North sea neighbours in calling a halt to incineration at sea, which is partly responsible for 30 per cent. of the fish caught in the German Bight being diseased? Is the Minister aware that the Government's hazardous waste inspectorate's report for 1986 says that ocean incineration should not be regarded as a long-term solution?

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. That is not the reason for the diseased fish. The United Kingdom Government want to find the best possible answer to this problem and we wish to go ahead on the basis of the best possible scientific information. We are holding the conference in order to come to a decision together. There is not much point in pre-empting the decisions of the conference.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact on the dairy industry he expects as a result of capital gains tax from the sale of milk quotas being given roll-over relief.

I am delighted that roll-over relief on capital gains tax on the sale of milk quota has been accepted as from 29 October. It will now be more attractive for farmers to develop their businesses, since the tax on the proceeds of the sale of milk quota will be deferred when these are used to acquire a new asset. I know that this has been warmly welcomed by the farming community.

Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the decision has, indeed, been warmly welcomed in dairying areas, such as the south-west of England? However, is he aware that many farmers who sold their farms with milk quota prior to that date have suffered hardship? Is there any chance that they might benefit retrospectively from the announcement?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I should like to express my gratitude to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury for making the announcement and agreeing the decision. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a general principle, which I believe is supported on both sides of the House, that one cannot have retrospective legislation in tax matters and that there is always a cut-off point. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it is helpful that the announcement has been made by means of a written answer in the House well in advance of next year's Budget so that all those concerned will benefit from 29 October through to next year's Finance Bill.

Is the Minister aware of the great concern in many dairy areas about the effect of the sale of milk quotas outside those areas? It is feared that that will lead to less milk being available in creameries and to a shut-down of creameries, as is being proposed in Gwynedd and Dyfed. What does the Minister intend to do about that?

There is not a great deal of evidence to suggest that the introduction and transferability of quotas has led to big regional variations in the supply of milk. I do not think that that is so, but it is certainly something that I watch. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is quite a gulf between examining the evidence and agreeing proposals for policy changes which might in themselves be disadvantageous.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to have discussions about the dairy sector with the president of the National Farmers Union.

My right hon. Friend meets the president of the National Farmers Union regularly, but has no immediate plans to have specific discussions about the dairy sector.

Does my hon. Friend intend to seek an extension of the quota period beyond 1991 so that dairy farmers can plan ahead properly?

As my hon. Friend says, uncertainty is the greatest concern in the farming community at present. I know that my right hon. Friend is pressing the Commission—and will be pressed by the president of the National Farmers Union — on this very point. However, conclusions have not yet been drawn.

We all know and understand that the Minister and his officials meet representatives of the National Farmers Union regularly. However, will the Minister ensure in future that he follows the precedent set by his distinguished predecessor, John Silkin, and takes a little more notice of what consumers of dairy products require and a little less notice of what producers require?

Consumers want an ample and ready supply of clean, wholesome food at a reasonable price. We see the consumers from time to time on various matters. The hon. Gentleman may also like to know that yesterday I saw representatives of farm workers on various points related to agriculture.

Does my hon. Friend agree that something has gone wrong with the distribution of milk in the United Kingdom? In some areas butter is being manufactured for intervention while elsewhere creameries are short of milk to manufacture into cheese for early sale.

My hon. Friend is being delicate when he refers to Scotland as "some areas". There is a trade in liquid milk between England and Scotland. My right hon. Friend and I have met Scottish Ministers to discuss this matter, and ways of resolving the difficulties are being pursued urgently.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he does not have to go to Scotland to find difficulties of distribution, as they are found in England, too? Will he discuss with the European Community whether the quotas are right, as we now seem to be passing from ridiculous surpluses to possible shortage?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am fully aware of the difficulties that some cheese producers in the United Kingdom have had this year. I have already discussed this complex question with the Milk Marketing Board, and my right hon. Friend is doing the same. We hope that the situation in England will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction by next year.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is currently sponsoring into North sea pollution.

This Department maintains an extensive monitoring and research programme in the North sea, which includes studies of fish and shellfish quality, water quality, conditions at sea disposal sites, and examination of the effects of a wide range of contaminants.

I am sure that the Minister will share my concern about reports of the declining population of cetaceans in the North sea and of sickness among other species. What does he propose to do about the matter?

I am always concerned when I hear reports of environmental damage or damage to particular species. We are spending about £1·5 million on work in the North sea alone and about £5·4 million in all on marine pollution. I look carefully at anything that suggests that we should be spending more or taking immediate action.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the appreciation that is felt for his long-term work on incineration at sea? However, many fishermen in Scarborough fear pollution, because they claim that the processes presently adopted by boats, such as the Vulcanus,are not being properly carried out?

I perfectly well realise the concerns of fishermen in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere. As he knows, the area to which he referred is in Dutch waters. We are anxious that the rules should be carefully kept, even though we carry out only a small amount of incineration. My hon. Friend underlines the point that decisions about the North sea should be made together by all the countries concerned, and that is why we are taking so active a part in the North sea conference.

Will the Minister therefore give an assurance that he will introduce the best up-to-date technology to prevent discharges into the North sea from Sellafield around the top part of the country?

I am obviously anxious to ensure that Sellafield has the highest standards, and we have recently imposed further restrictions on how that waste should be discharged. I take my responsibilities in that area particularly seriously because of my own constituency interest in nuclear power.

Will my right hon. Friend note the proposal before the Teesside development corporation to build a barrage across the River Tees because the present washing of effluent up and down the Tees, which is dumped in the lower Tees by several Teesside manufacturers, would mean that the lower part of that river would become polluted to the extent that it would be almost dead and that the pollution would inevitably be washed into the North sea? Will my right hon. Friend take note of that so that his Department will be able to establish some monitoring techniques before the proposal is put fully before the development corporation?

I shall look most carefully at that. We are anxious to continue our policy of improving the quality of water in the North sea. Our contribution to pollution is much lower than that of many of our neighbours. We must aim at solving the major problems in front of us and at the same time prevent any new problems arising. That is why the conference that is about to open is important, and we hope to use it most effectively.

As some research shows that the dumping of industrial waste can damage fish stocks, and in the light of the relative shallowness and the near landlocked nature of the North sea, with its important fisheries, does it not make better sense, if dumping has to continue, that waste should be sent out to the far Atlantic in suitably equipped ships?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that we live alongside a sea that is widely used and has many shallow areas. For that reason, we look carefully at any dumping that goes on, upon which considerable restrictions have been placed over the years. In every case we look at the best available scientific response. If there were circumstances in which it seemed that we should change the way that we do things, I would be the first to do so because we have a real responsibility to protect not only the fish but the North sea environment.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the take-up in the first series of environmentally sensitive areas.

In the eight environmentally sensitive areas introduced so far in the United Kingdom there have been over 1,600 applications and formal inquiries. Those cover 60,000 hectares, or 150,000 acres. In England alone we have already achieved three quarters of our long-term target for the first series of areas.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the success of the environmentally sensitive areas policy is in large part because it depends on co-operation and voluntary effort rather than on compulsion and coercion, and that many regard it as one of the most encouraging initiatives in the conservation of the environment for many years?

My hon. Friend is right. I recently attended a conference of environmentalists from all over the world at which it was widely said that our ESA proposals were the most encouraging concepts for the protection of the environment in the past 20 years. The reason is that it is a voluntary system, because it brings farmers in not as antagonists but as the operators of the protection of the environment. That is extremely helpful, and that is why we intend that the second series will spread the ESA attitudes to an ever-wider area of Britain.

The ESA concept is commendable, but is the Minister aware that there is continued destruction of habitat in those areas and elsewhere, not least through the continuing destruction of large lengths of hedgerow, and that throughout that period of serious destruction the Government have maintained a most obstructive view to any attempt to secure protection'? Is that obstruction to continue?

I find that an odd question when, in the environmentally sensitive areas, we are encouraging farmers to look after the land in the most environmentally satisfactory way. One thing that we are doing is protecting the hedgerows. We now give grants to people to look after their hedgerows. To suggest that the Government are in some way obstructing that runs totally contrary to what the Government have done. We have moved from a position that obtained some years ago when people were given money to pull hedgerows up to one where we are now giving money to people to keep hedgerows. That is an entire change and cannot be called obstructive.

If farmers on that part of the Sussex downs designated as an ESA are encouraged to convert arable land to grassland for sheep grazing, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the question of access to the downs and the possible danger of dogs worrying sheep?

My hon. Friend is right to point out that there is a real, and increasing, problem in which various perfectly proper desires come into conflict one with another. It is not just a question, on the one hand, of farmers trying to look after the land properly and, on the other, of those who wish access wanting to get on to that land. Environmentalists are concerned to retain the sort of environment that is natural to particular parts of the country. With the local authorities, we will have to work out ways in the ESAs of ensuring that we do not get the sheep worrying that we might otherwise have.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings he has had with other EEC Agriculture Ministers regarding the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

The Agriculture Council met on Monday of this week with the objective of completing discussions on proposals on agricultural stabilisers in preparation for the European Council. It adjourned yesterday and reconvenes next Monday morning, 23 November. Some progress was made, but I greatly regret that it has not been possible to meet again earlier than Monday as it is now urgent that decisions are taken to ensure greater budgetary discipline in the CAP.

Is it not a fact that, under this Government, agriculture is the most highly subsidised industry in Britain, costing every family of four approximately £11·50 per week? If the Common Market were a coal mine, the Prime Minister would close it. Is the Minister aware that £20 million of the massive subsidy is due to swindling, and that not one bureaucrat, unlike councillors, has been surcharged? Instead of whingeing about stabilisers, waving goodbye to the Germans, and the rest, why do the Government not do the decent thing and get out of this unmitigated disaster?

As usual, the hon. Gentleman just does not understand. The whole point about the discussion on agricultural stabilisers is to get greater budgetary discipline into the CAP. We are as concerned as anyone about the level of subsidy that is going into the disposal and storage of stocks that cannot be got rid of, except at subsidised prices. The Government are playing a full part in that. However, it is also a fact that the British agriculture industry is one of the most competitive and efficient in Europe and is one of the most competitive in the United Kingdom. It responds well to technological innovation, and it has enabled us to produce 80 per cent. of all the food that we can grow here, compared to a much lower level before. It is also a fact that agricultural incomes have been under pressure and that food prices have been rising less than the RPI.

May I ask my right hon. Friend totally to ignore any advice that he receives from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and to accept that the common agricultural policy has been a great success? Does he agree that food is cheap in the EEC and that in Britain we are spending 25 per cent. less of our disposable income than we were nine years ago? Does he realise that milk is cheaper than the water that can be bought in bottles?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have yet to hear any advice from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I have found at all helpful. Obviously, I agree with my hon. Friend's complimentary remarks about British agriculture and its contribution to our nation. On the other hand, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the present level of subsidies for unwanted surpluses is unsustainable and must be tackled.

Is it not ridiculous that there is food in Common Market food storage depots in Liverpool when people in the Third world are suffering and starving and people in Liverpool are struggling to make ends meet? Is it not time that the Government stopped messing about with the agricultural policy and fought to change it entirely, or got out of the Common Market?

Getting out of the Common Market would do no one any good. The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard the exchanges earlier during Question Time, when the issue of food aid was addressed. I shall not repeat all that. However, he must realise that one purpose of the discussions on stabilisers is to reduce the amount of stocks in intervention. It is a fact that, as a result of the recent decisions that were taken by the Council, the United Kingdom's butter stocks are down by 20 per cent. compared with a year ago, wheat and barley stocks are down by over 50 per cent. and skimmed milk powder stocks are down by 85 per cent. Therefore, we are succeeding in reducing those stocks in intervention.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that output from British farms is falling and that the real problem lies with the surpluses and in the cost of storing the surpluses that are currently in store, many of which are, sadly, unusable? Will he further confirm that he will not introduce quotas on any other agricultural produce, other than those that are currently in position?

I agree entirely with the earlier part of my hon. Friend's question. I assure him that we are reducing stocks such as the amount of feed wheat that is in store, and finding markets for it. On his point about quotas, no proposals for quotas on any other commodities are before the Council at the moment.

May I assure the Minister that he has the support of Opposition Members in any genuine attempts at a major reform of the CAP that would reduce wasteful expenditure and lead to a reduction in unnecessary and unwanted surpluses? Will he assure the House that the stabilisers that he speaks about are truly effective, not only in reducing surpluses, but in cutting out unwanted production? Finally, will he give the House a categorical assurance that he will not in any way support an oil and fat tax, which would increase the price of margarine in this country by up to 60 per cent.?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first point. Regarding his second point, what we are striving to do in the current discussions is to get stabilisers that are truly effective in the direction that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. That is important for our farmers, and in other ways. I regret that we have not made enough progress on that this week, and I am determined to try to ensure that we make more progress when we resume on Monday.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress there has been on the abolition of veal crates.

My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that regulations to abolish veal crates were approved by the House yesterday and will be the subject of a debate in another place today.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the regulations will require that calves be free to turn around without difficulty, and will also make provision to ensure that they receive a balanced diet? In addition, will he give a pledge to the House that the Government will support the tabling of a calf welfare directive in Europe?

I shall give my hon. Friend all those assurances—especially the last one.

Has the Minister further considered the regulations as they apply to battery hens and cage sizes? Do the Government have any plans to amend the law and lay down recommendations for increased sizes or battery hen cages?

The hon. Gentleman missed the pleasure of our debate with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) yesterday, when we went into a great deal of detail about battery hens and cage sizes. The minimum size—and width— for a cage has been laid down for Europe, but minimum sizes above and beyond that are laid down in this country for cages holding one, two or three birds.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to ensure that there are no further outbreaks of rhizomania in the United Kingdom.

We have taken strong and positive action to prevent the spread of the disease. The outbreak of rhizomania in Suffolk has been contained by stringent controls to stop infected plants and soil being moved from the farm. Since the outbreak in August we have surveyed over 12,000 hectares of beet crops and have found no other infection.

My right hon. Friend has given a most helpful reply. Does he recollect that the sugar beet industry has for some time been asking for stricter controls on soil disposal, and that the Ministry has declined those in favour of a voluntary code? As rhizomania is spread by a virus in soil imported from abroad, it is almost certain that the recent outbreak came from imported vegetables, so our present controls were clearly inadequate.

I have to tell my hon. Friend that I examined the proposals that I have mentioned to him today during the summer — before the outbreak of rhizomania — with a view to taking action. I am as determined as anyone to ensure that the disease does not spread, so we have been—and are — moving to the precise point to which my hon. Friend wants us to move.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that many Norfolk beet growers will be pleased with the constructive and positive response that he has given today. Is he aware that many of those beet growers want to diversify out of arable land into woodland? What progress is being made on a farm woodland scheme?

The Bill dealing with the farm woodland scheme has now had its Second Reading in another place. It is progressing, and I hope that it will come to the House with due speed before too long so that we can get the scheme into operation.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present state of the beef sector.

The market for beef cattle is reasonably firm, with prices generally above the level of last year. With the prospect of less beef from the dairy herd it is encouraging to note that the specialist beef herd had risen by 2·4 per cent. at the June census.

I am grateful to the Minister for that information, but will he accept that there is real concern that there could be a serious beef shortage in the coming years, given the cuts resulting from the dairy quotas? Given that that is so, will the Minister press hard in the next round of negotiations to ensure that there is a substantial increase in the suckler cow premium? That premium is the best way to ensure that we get the quality beef we need, raised in the environmentally acceptable circumstances that most people want. That is what the beef farmers in the quality area that I represent are looking for.

The premium is at 35 per cent. this year. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's question, because a great proportion of the suckler herd is in the less-favoured areas and we need quality beef from those areas. We shall do all that we can to ensure that England and Scotland continue to provide premium beef of the highest quality.

Does my hon. Friend accept that, unless help is given to the small dairy farmers who suffered grievously from the hurricane, there will be an even more serious knock-on effect for the beef sector, as many farmers will have to go out of business?

The dairy and beef herd run together and one depends on the other. We have looked at all sorts of ways to help those people damaged by the hurricane and we shall further consider any specific proposals that my hon. Friend may bring forward.

Is the Minister aware that in my constituency we produce beautiful, delicious English beef? —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear".] So as not to upset my Scottish colleagues, they also produce beautiful beef. When will the Minister do something about the importation of the rubbish from abroad?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman's constituency continues to provide high quality beef, as it continues to provide all sorts of other high quality goods. The limitations on imported beef are very strict. We allow a small amount of high quality Hilton beef from the United States. We import some quota beef to help Third world countries — Opposition Members were demanding that when we discussed Question 1 today. Generally, we produce and eat a great deal, if not most, of our own beef.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest progress being made within the European Community to reduce agricultural surpluses.

As I said earlier, the Council of Agriculture Ministers is currently considering Commission proposals directed at tackling surpluses and their associated budgetary costs and bringing the common agricultural policy within a framework of greater budgetary discipline.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to continue to insist on a legal framework of binding rules to ensure budgetary discipline for agricultural spending if the future of the European Community is not to be imperilled? Such controls must ensure strict production controls on every major product area.

I certainly agree about the importance of providing a budgetary framework that really works to keep the CAP within the budget allocated to it. At the present time—this is one of the problems—the proposed Commission expenditure on agriculture for next year is £3,000 million above the guidelines calculated under the current rules. That is why it is important that we get effective stabilisers next week, and that means having clear figures and a mechanism that obviously works. I would not go along with my hon. Friend in saying that there must be production quotas for every sector. I believe that, in many sectors, price restraints and the kinds of proposals that we have before us at the moment, represent a much more effective way of tackling the problem.

Will the Minister confirm that some of the stockpiled food is now unfit for human consumption?

Obviously that is so, since quite a lot of the stockpile is in feed wheat, which never goes for human consumption. We regularly monitor stocks, for example, of beef and other products. In our case, I do not believe there is any evidence that we are causing those stocks to deteriorate to the extent that they are unusable.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to bring forward detailed proposals for the set aside of agricultural land.

The European Community extensification scheme already offers an opportunity to introduce incentives to farmers to set aside land used for cereals production. At this week's meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, the Commission has proposed that this scheme should be strengthened and extended to cover all arable land. Discussion is proceeding on this.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a voluntary set aside policy is an expensive way of achieving not much, since producers throughout the Community will find ways of maximising the apparent acreage taken out and minimising the subsequent drop in production? Does my right hon. Friend think that the problem could be better tackled nationally, with each country separately committed to a reduction of expenditure on surplus production, and finding the mechanisms to do that?

I must disagree with my hon. Friend. A voluntary system can be made to work efficiently, because it polices only those in the voluntary system. It can be made to work properly without the cheating to which he refers. We are enthusiastic about it, and the rest of the Community is beginning to come round to the idea. That shows that the United Kingdom is once again taking the lead in the European Economic Community.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I later visited the scene of last night's terrible fire at King's Cross, where I met representatives of the emergency services. I also visited some of the injured at University College hospital, as well as members of the hospital staff. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the letter in The Independent from members of the St. Mary's hospital action group, who are concerned about the £3 million deficit at the Paddington and North Kensington health authority? Is she aware that health authorities all over the country are facing similar situations? In my constituency the Tayside health board is facing a substantial cut in finance this year because of an alleged overprovision under a SHARE formula of earlier years. Does she realise that deficits in spending faced by health boards are borne by patients, through ward closures and reductions in services, and that such deficits damage the morale of people in the Health Service who have to support them?

Spending on the Health Service provided by the taxpayer has gone up from £8 billion to £20·5 billion during the past eight years. That has gone up as the taxation has gone up from £11 per week per family to £29 per week per family. With regard to London, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the resource allocation working party reviewed the distribution of resources and concluded that there should be a move towards national equality of access to health care. That meant that all four Thames regions, which were substantially over their targets in 1979, should receive a reduced share of the total resources. May I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, on the subject of total resources in the health services, the report of Sir Alec Merrison in 1979 said:

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

As hundreds of my constituents use the Piccadilly and Northern lines to King's Cross each day, may I welcome the sympathy and concern that my right hon. Friend has shown towards the victims and the tribute that she paid to the marvellous emergency services? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that any inquiry that will inevitably ensue encompasses not only the immediate causes of the accident, but safety throughout Greater London's underground system, in view of the deep concern that now exists among the travelling public?

I thank my hon. Friend. I know that everyone wishes to thank all the emergency and hospital services. They were the first to thank members of the public for coming forward so readily and so quickly. Indeed, I think that there was unanimity of praise for almost everyone. Later today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be announcing the setting up of a public inquiry—[Interruption.] I thought that it was necessary to say that. [Interruption.]

Order. These are very serious matters.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With regard to safety, investment in the Underground has been steadily rising since 1984. In 1985–86 it was £135 million, the following year it was £171 million and the next year £199 million, and £5 million per annum is spent on specific health and safety measures over and above the safety measures incorporated in other investments. Of course safety will be dealt with in the several inquiries that will take place.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

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

When will the Prime Minister recognise that the figures that she comes out with about health spending take no account of the increased costs in the Health Service, which are greater than in other fields, of the increased number of elderly people in the community or of increased technology? That is why, in my health board area, the Health Service has to cut spending this year on the hospital service by £7 million. That cut is against the background of a greater number of people needing patient care and poorer staffing ratios per patient. When will the Prime Minister recognise that, instead of encouraging the private service, she should be giving adequate resources to the Health Service?

When the hon. Gentleman's Government were in power the average family paid £11 per week to finance the Health Service. It is not Governments who pay to finance any service. This year the average family will pay £29 a week to finance the Health Service. Clearly, the Opposition wish to put up taxation on average families in order to provide more. Every service will have to live within a budget and, because of our rate of growth, we have been able to make increasing provision for the Health Service. As we have a record rate of growth this year—much bigger than growth in the rest of the European Community — there will be increased provision for the Health Service next year of about £800 million. That was previously announced by my right hon. Friend.

To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time during her busy day to take note of the fact that the figure for those out of work in my constituency of Norwich, North has fallen by over 15 per cent. during the last 12 months? Bearing in mind that in Norwich and the surrounding area there is still a shortage of skilled manpower, will my right hon. Friend and her colleagues press on with programmes that give more emphasis to training and to incentives to work, such as those announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for Employment in his excellent statement?

I am sure that most hon. Members are delighted with the reduction in the unemployment figure, which has fallen by 445,000 over the last year. That is very welcome. I agree with my hon. Friend that the new training programme announced by the Secretary of State for Employment is excellent and will help many more people to get jobs as more and more people in our work force will require an increasing number of skills.

Clearly, everybody is glad about any fall in unemployment. We have only 2 million more to go and we shall be back where the Prime Minister started in 1979. Up to 45 per cent. of Jaguar, 20 per cent. of Rolls-Royce and 15 per cent. of British Areospace have been bought by foreign interests. Now that 10 per cent. of BP has been bought by the Kuwaiti Government, will the Prime Minister tell us whether this is what she meant when she talked about encouraging wider share ownership?

As our own overseas assets, including portfolio investments, are very considerable and contribute enormous sums to our balance of payments, I would hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman would want to do without them. Moreover, as British Petroleum owns many assets and oilfields overseas, it is not surprising that there should be some international investment in BP.

The claims that the right hon. Lady makes for returns on overseas investments constitute less than half the deficit that she has run up on manufacturing trade. She should put the matter in perspective. If the idea of Kuwaiti Government involvement in British Petroleum is so good, will she tell us why she has not taken 10 per cent. of the shares, or must we rely on the Kuwaitis to nationalise BP again in order to give it proper security?

The right hon. Gentleman's questions are absurd. BP has great international assets, thank goodness. It is not surprising, therefore, that there should be a considerable number of overseas investors in BP. That is good. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman forgets that this is a global economy and that there is global trade. He wants to treat this country as some sort of Albania.

The Prime Minister knows a great deal more about the Albanian form of government than I do. I am glad that she is delighted about the strength of BP. Does it strike her as ironic that it used to be British strength in BP, and that now it belongs to everybody else? When will she stop re-flagging Britain?

It is because I am aware of the kind of government and attitude in Albania that I accuse the right hon. Gentleman of it.

During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to study the Central Electricity Generating Board's statement recommending that, when privatisation takes place, electricity generation should be kept together as a whole and controlled by the board? Does she further agree that when privatisation takes place there should be competition in generation and that, whatever it might cost to break up generation, the savings would be far greater than any costs?

I am aware that there will be many representations before the Bill on electricity privatisation is presented to the House in the next Session. I think that it would be best to wait and see what that Bill contains, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is very interested in the representations that are being made.

Will the Prime Minister say — [Interruption]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has not yet asked a question.

Will the Prime Minister say what contingency plans she has to protect the economy in the event of the United States authorities failing to agree measures to deal with their deficit problem? In particular, will she say how much she proposes to rely on a fiscal and how much on a monetary boost?

As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, if the United States Congress and President do not agree, Gramm-Rudman takes effect on Friday. During that time a number of alternative policies can be put forward, but, in any event, there must be a reduction in the budget. It is not for us to have contingency plans, but there must be some cuts in the United States' budget.

Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to go to Wandsworth to study the benefits to the nation of the sale of 10,000 council houses by competitive tendering, thus reducing costs by 25 per cent., so that it has the lowest rates in the Metropolis?

I do not think that I can go down today, but I congratulate Wandsworth, under Conservative local government, on the excellent results that it has achieved, both in the sale of council houses, and in holding down rates.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 November.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that last winter there was very severe weather, which caused enormous problems for the elderly and disabled in being able to keep warm and to pay their electricity bills? As we again approach winter, can the Prime Minister tell the House what realistic thinking she is giving to the introduction of a proper cold weather payment that will bring benefit to people in need so that we do not have the utter confusion of the scheme earlier this year, which benefited absolutely no one? Can she tell us what thinking she is giving to that?

The hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that considerable changes were made to the scheme last winter to meet requests from all parts of the House. The changes mean that the scheme is triggered at a higher temperature than previously. Also, considerable administrative changes were made so that people who have made claims will automatically get the claim again without having to apply, should severe weather happen again. It is an excellent scheme, far better than any previous scheme, and reasonably generous.