To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the secretary general of the General Synod of the Church of England on his policy on the use of agricultural land.

None, Sir, and nor has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales received any such representations from the Church in Wales.

Has not the debate in the Synod on the use of agricultural land been crowded out by the Minister's obsessive attacks on the bishops and archbishops? Is it not about time that he decided whether he wants to be a churchman or a politician?

It is a new doctrine of constitution that one cannot be both a churchman and a politician. As an elected member of the Synod of the Church of England, I say no to the hon. Gentleman, and as a Minister I say that that is not an agriculture question.

Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the General Synod to continue the policy of privatising glebe land, which has been entirely successful in the dioceses that have adopted it? Will he also mention to the General Synod that it would greatly help the social fabric of this country if the dioceses in possession of agricultural land that is surplus to requirements could make it available below the market price for housing projects?

I shall certainly take that opportunity. The Church of England has a good reputation in its handling of both tenants and glebe land.

Is it not the case that the Synod has not made representations because its members have completely lost confidence in the Minister because of his savage attacks on the clergy and his bishop-bashing? Does the Minister understand that tens of thousands of churchgoing people all over the country are tired of the way that he persists in meddling in the affairs of the Church and tries to impose his will—

Order. This question is about agriculture.

—and the will of the Government on an independent Church? Keep out.

As an elected member of the Church of England I have more right to comment on those views than has the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The hon. Gentleman demands the right to be robust in his views. Why does he stop other people from being roboust in theirs?

rose—

Order. I remind the House that although there are a number of questions on this general topic, questions must be linked with agriculture.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to assist island communities that lack an abattoir.

The provision of abattoirs is a matter for the commercial judgment of the businesses concerned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this country's experience in animal welfare is second to none in the EEC? Will he urgently consider the provision for casualties in constituencies such as mine, especially given the very tight margins that the pig industry faces?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's problems in his constituency. There is a plan afoot with the National Farmers Union and others for just such a project—in fact a more ambitious project than my hon. Friend asks for—at about £60,000. Planning permission for the abattoir has not yet been applied for, and I advise my hon. Friend to urge those in his constituency forward in that plan.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the potential of the United Kingdom pig industry to absorb surplus cereal crops.

The potential for compounders and home mixers to increase their usage of cereals in pig rations is strongly influenced by the movements in price and availability of competing materials and therefore cannot be assessed easily.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. In the light of it, will he seek to restrict the importation into Europe of cereal substitutes, which are undercutting the price of cereals?

There is a GATT arrangement to import cereal substitutes into Europe. For instance, the spot price of manioc for the delivery of a handy load at the farm gate today is £83, compared with feed wheat at £100, or feed barley at about £104. I believe that it would be impossible to re-rig the GATT arrangement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that pig producers do not want privileged access to surplus grain, but rather the removal of the unfair disadvantage of an overvalued green pound? Does my hon. Friend agree that pig producers are among the most entrepreneurial and least subsidised of all farmers and that their request for an urgent devaluation of the green pound is entirely reasonable?

As a man who kept a considerable number of pigs, I agree with all that my hon. Friend says about pig producers being entrepreneurial, intelligent and able. I fully understand their request for the removal of MCAs. We have had a promise from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for action on that matter, and that promise was echoed on 16 February by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

During the last pig industry disaster in the 1980s one of my constituents, a pig farmer, lost about £25,000. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that that constituent—he is still a pig farmer and did not go bankrupt—does not face similar problems now?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents in Durham and the importance of the pig industry to Durham and the east side of the country. We have already introduced private storage aid into Europe and increased export refunds from 13 to 67 per cent. This year we have reduced MCAs from a minus quantity of 27 to about a minus quantity of 11. The other Friday morning I met 200 pig producers from the north of England. I am well aware of their difficulties and we are treating the matter with great seriousness and urgency.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the volume and value of United Kingdom production of chocolate-coated and non-chocolate-coated biscuits for the most recent period for which statistics are available; and if he will make a statement.

The Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance publishes estimates on home sales and exports based on members' returns. The approximate figures for 1986 are 132,000 tonnes out of 449,000 tonnes, which is £227 million out of £565 million.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those figures. Does he agree that they are a little disappointing and are even down on the number of chocolate-coated biscuits sold in this country in 1973–74, the last year when such products were rated at the same level as other foods? Is it not time that we considered re-rating those biscuits? Even at this late hour, will my hon. Friend have discussions with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell him about the increases that took place in 1973 and how much more employment there would be in this important industry if there were such a re-rating?

My persistent hon. Friend again does an extremely good job for his constituency of York. He has drawn to my attention—

He has a very small majority.

So did the hon. Gentleman at one time. I have seen a copy of the submission from the Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance sent to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As my hon. Friend has underlined, this is a matter for the Chancellor, but I am sure that his spies will be here today to draw his attention to this question.

Has my hon. Friend made any representations to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the distortion in trade caused by the imposition of VAT on chocolate biscuits? This is a very serious matter for the biscuit eaters of this country. As my hon. Friend is the Minister with responsibility for food consumption, I hope that he will have something to say about the matter.

I am aware of the MCAs on chocolate and chocolate biscuits. I recently visited an exhibition of the biscuit and sweet industry in Cologne. Our exporters were in good heart and were jumping the MCA barrier very well. In many cases, they were improving their exports to Europe and the rest of the world. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware of the distortion.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the impact of the recent provisional agreement on agriculture stabilisers on the level of intervention stocks and the cost of the common agricultural policy.

The agreements on CAP reform reached at the recent European Council should restrain production, which should in turn reduce the pressure for sales to be made to intervention, and hence contribute to greater budgetary discipline in the CAP.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that solid and remarkable achievement. Will he use the authority that that has given to press for a satisfactory realignment of green currencies and, on a wider compass, to press internationally for a measure of multilateral agricultural disarmament of subsidies through GATT?

Questions appear later on the Order Paper with regard to my hon. Friend's first point. As to his second point, I shall be going to the United States soon to discuss this matter with my opposite number there. I hope that as the European Community has taken some fairly tough decisions on agricultural spending and introduced substantial new restraints, that will help us in reaching agreement in the Uruguay round between now and 1990—which is the timetable set for the round—along the lines that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Will the Minister clarify whether the agreement on sheep stabilisers is provisional or is legally binding on sheep producers? If it is binding, will he give an assurance that the present sheepmeat regime will remain intact for years to come?

The Agriculture Council is meeting next week to discuss the detailed regulations that will follow the European Council agreement. After that, sheep stabilisers will be in place and will form a binding agreement. We shall turn our attention to the review of the sheepmeat regime shortly afterwards. I am not sure exactly when that will be, but it will certainly be later in the year. I imagine that that will be a protracted negotiation.

Will my hon. Friend, in pursuing reform of the CAP, which the agreement that has been referred to set in train, do everything that he can to ensure that British farmers are not at a disadvantage with regard to the implementation of the programme across the rest of the Community?

A number of measures in the original proposals discriminated much more against the British farmer than do those in the final outcome. That was a successful outcome to the negotiation for the United Kingdom. In particular, heavy emphasis was placed on the use of the co-responsibility levy as part of the cereal stabiliser mechanism. It remains in place because that is what the Commission and every other member state wanted, but it is very much reduced compared with other pressures we were under. I can assure my hon. Friend that, although one never wins 100 per cent. of the cases that one is aiming to win, most of the discrimination in the outcome of the summit was reduced for the United Kingdom, and many other member states had to accept decisions that were quite a long way away from their original starting positions.

Does the Minister recognise that many small hard-working farmers, who are working the most difficult land in the country, believe that, despite all the reforms, the common agricultural policy is putting them out of business? Will he accept that that policy is a financial disaster for Britain? Is it not about time that we saw an end to the common agricultural policy?

I am not sure that that is what farmers in the hon. Gentleman's constituency would want. It is worth mentioning that some of the policies that the Labour party would pursue would disadvantage farmers much more. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for restraint on spending in the CAP, which is what we have been successfully achieving after working very hard to obtain.

Will the Minister explain how the sheep stabiliser, coupled with the set-aside in agricultural arable land, will not result in sheep moving out of the upland areas to the lowlands, resulting in bankruptcy for many upland hill farmers?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not against sheepmeat stabilisers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will answer the question. If he is against the sheepmeat stabiliser, I hope he will take into account, bearing in mind what he has often said about expenditure on the CAP, that the costs of the sheepmeat regime were rising very fast, to well over 1 billion ecu this year.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the imposition of a separate stabiliser for sheepmeat for United Kingdom farmers is deplorable? Is it not a fact that it is most important at the price fixing next week to negotiate the maintenance of the variable premium and to resist the imposition of headage limits on upland farms and lowland areas?

We do not know yet, because we have not seen the Commission's proposals, whether the future of the sheepmeat regime will feature in the price review proposals or later in the year. We have yet to see more details on sheepmeat; they are very scanty in many regards. When we see those details, we shall make up our mind. I am determined to avoid discriminatory action against the United Kingdom and to ensure that whatever is done enables the United Kingdom to use its natural advantage in sheep farming. The proposal on ceilings and headage payments for ewes to which my hon. Friend refers was one of the items that we negotiated out of the recent package. We shall be opposing that again if it arises.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning the devaluation of the green pound; and if he will make a statement.

I have received many representations on this subject.

The Minister will be aware that there was quite a substantial decrease in farming incomes in real terms in 1987. There has been a substantial setback for farmers as a result of the disparity in the green pound at present, which is making what is otherwise a very efficient industry uncompetitive in relation to other EC countries. Does the Minister realise that an immediate 9 per cent. devaluation of the green pound is both necessary and would be realistic bearing in mind that it would add only 0.5 per cent. to the RPI?

It is not true that there was a decrease in incomes across the board last year. In a number of sectors, including dairy farming, income increased in real terms. One of the areas most affected was the arable sector, partly because of the weather. Having made that clear, we have yet to see what the Commission will propose for further adjustment in green currencies in the price fixing. I am aware of the strong feelings of farmers, which I have heard at many meetings, and I shall take them into account when considering any devaluation of the green pound.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many small and medium-sized farmers are now beyond breaking point? May I express the hope that he will soon conclude his deliberations and provide for a remarkable and notable devaluation of the green pound?

I am aware of the feeling about the green pound. We shall be discussing the price fixing in the Council of Agriculture Ministers towards the end of this month. I cannot say at this stage whether we will complete deliberations then. Obviously, I am anxious to get agreement on that as soon as possible, so that farmers know exactly where they stand.

Is the Minister aware that his cautious replies to this question will be a matter of some concern to the agriculture industry? Before he returns to Brussels for discussions on agricultural price fixing, will he make it clear that the grotesque misuse of resources implicit in the CAP will not be resolved by the selective destruction of jobs and livelihoods in British agriculture, which is what the green pound is doing?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in the past nine months we have put an enormous amount of effort into putting right what he refers to as the "grotesque" distortions in the CAP. We shall be completing that next week and then we shall be looking to the price review. In that context, I shall, as I said, be taking into account representations that I have had on the green pound.

May I add my voice to those who are calling for a devaluation of the green pound, which, as my right hon. Friend knows, is doing such grave damage to Britain's pig industry, particularly in counties like my own of Suffolk? I know that my right hon. Friend is aware of the problems and I am sure that he will do all that he possibly can, because he, too, has many pig producers in his county. Is he aware that many people are now asking about fairness in Europe and, unless we get that aspect right in all that we do in Europe, the implications, not just for agriculture but for our membership of the EEC, will be grave?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 16 February, and as I have also made clear on a number of occasions in the House, I shall be pressing hard to secure the best possible improvements for our pig producers. This is one of the most hotly contested areas in the CAP, so it will not be easy to obtain a majority agreement, but I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware of the problems and am determined to press as hard as I possibly can.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the competitive position of the pig industry.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that United Kingdom pig producers are competing on fair terms with their Community counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

We are in close and continuing touch with the National Farmers Union and the National Pig Breeders Association about the problems in the pig sector. The action which has been taken to strengthen the market seems to be having some effect as market prices have risen a little from the low point they were reaching at the beginning of February. Cereal prices are now showing a distinct downward trend. We shall be pressing hard in Brussels to secure the best possible improvement in pigmeat MCAs.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the French Government have recently introduced cheap loans for their pig farmers? What representations has he made to remove that unfair practice and any other unfair practices of our EEC competitors?

We are always looking at that matter. The balance between state aids to the farming industry is difficult to strike. Our farming industry receives the equivalent of over £400 million a year because it does not pay rates. I am sure that some continentals would complain about that. Such state aids have been notified to the Commission, which is considering their legality. We are always prepared to refer any evidence of illegal state aids in other member states, and we are determined that United Kingdom producers will not suffer from them.

Would it not help to produce a fairer regime for British pig producers if sterling became fully part of the European monetary system?

First, I apologise to my hon. Friend for not informing him quickly enough about the linking of his question. I can assure him that we were only trying to help and we intend to do better in future.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the letters MCA stand not for "Ministers' criticism of archbishops" but for "monetary compensatory amounts"? Is he further aware that the Archbishop of Canterbury for one, among many other pig producers and pig owners, is a great deal more interested in the pigmeat connotation of MCAs? Will my hon. Friend, in the interests of agricultural, ministerial and ecclesiastical harmony, do everything that he can to reduce the MCAs for pigmeat?

If my right hon. Friend were to set that to music it would be chanted in every church in the country next week.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet representatives of the Church of England to discuss the implications for rural areas of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will meet representatives of the Church of England to discuss implications for rural areas of Her Majesty's Government's agricultural policy.

No such meeting has been requested.

I accept that the Church of England has a genuine interest in agricultural and rural matters, but does the Minister realise that many of its members are refusing point blank to treat with him because of his savage and malevolent attacks on the clergy—including the bishops? In view of the Minister's attitude, are not the Government inhibited in their relations with the Church of England when dealing with these matters?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to our agricultural debates and our discussions of ecclesiastical matters. What he said is entirely untrue and wholly contrary to what the majority of people in Britain think.

Do not Church of England representatives find it difficult to talk to the Minister because of his numerous attacks on them? He has attacked them whenever they have been in any way critical of Government policy. He attacked them for their report, "Faith in the City", and would presumably attack them if they produced a similar report entitled, "Faith in the Rural Areas". Is there not little faith in the Minister now?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that it is an essential and central part of Judeo-Christian civilisation that Ministers in parliamentary organizations and Governments should be concerned with religion. There has never been a division between the two areas in his Church or mine.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will listen much more carefully to the views of the Church of England on agricultural issues than to any rant from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) or other hon. Members on his private opinions about doctrine?

I shall do that, but I point out to my hon. Friend that, to judge from the letters I have received and the general reaction in the country, my remarks have had a ready echo among the majority of people.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any suggestions he might receive from the Church about an easy or quick solution to the problems of the pig industry might appear to be rather a Gadarene reaction to a problem that could perhaps be better dealt with in a condominium of interests?

My hon. Friend is right. I am pleased to tell him that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Prior has agreed to take the chair of a Church of England investigation into the way in which the Church can develop in rural areas. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be happy to help in that discussion in any way.

Has the Minister, either in his ministerial or his ecclesiastical capacity, read the booklet, "The People, the Land and the Church", published by the diocese of Hereford, which shows that the result of nine years of Conservative Government is increasing poverty in rural areas, with the result that 25 per cent. of rural dwellers now live on the margin of poverty? What will he do about that?

I have read the book, and it does not show what the hon. Gentleman claims. I was happy to take part in a symposium in the diocese of Worcester, which discussed the nature of the book, and in which we were able to come to conclusions wholly different from those of the Labour party, which would reduce the income of farmers, because Labour Members based their arguments on an understanding of out-of-date Australian figures.

In view of the obvious desire of Opposition Members that the Church of England should be better informed about agriculture policy, will my right hon. Friend explain to his friends in the Synod his progress on the farm woodland scheme?

I hope that the Church of England, like other organisations that own farmland, will be helped by the farm woodland scheme, which will enable us to provide farmers—tenants and landowners—with an opportunity to use woodlands as a crop, thereby decreasing Britain's dependence on exterior supplies of timber.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implications of recent European Commission decisions for United Kingdom farmers in marginal and hill areas.

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the outcome of the recent European Council.

Does the Minister not accept that any reduction in the variable premium would have a particularly difficult impact on the store market, which is so important for hill farmers in rural areas? Is he aware that many hill farmers are still suffering from the effect of the Chernobyl events which was a severe shock to their incomes? Has he had an opportunity to read this week's Farmers Weekly, in which an article and the editorial are a devastating attack on the way in which all the Government Departments responsible for agriculture—his Department, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office — handled that issue? Is it not time that the Government held a full inquiry into the real effects of the Chernobyl disaster on the incomes of hill farmers?

I do not agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made about the post-Chernobyl situation. In fact, to date, nearly £5.3 million has been paid out under the scheme, which was introduced quickly as a practical method of getting the money quickly to the farmers, and which has been operated flexibly since. There is one tiny point in relation to a small number of producers where we have been unable to see a way ahead. However, it is important to remember that we introduced the scheme very quickly—faster than any other country—to help our farmers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decisions arrived at recently in Europe are just the beginning, and the basis of the beginning, whereas when we review the CAP and the MCAs—matters that affect the hill farmers, the sheepmeat regime and the variable premiums—those areas will matter? I remind my right hon. Friend that the highland clearances began in my constituency and that people were replaced with sheep. We now want the sheep to remain there.

As I have said on many occasions, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the sheep sector in the upland areas. I am very conscious of its position and will bear it strongly in mind when we come to the negotiations on the sheepmeat regime.

The Minister will find few people to share his complacency about the future of the uplands. Can he explain why, with one hand, the Government give capital and revenue grants to farmers in the uplands to help them to diversify, but will take the money back with the other hand when they introduce the uniform business rate and apply it to farm businesses?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has got it quite right. First, I have no complacency whatsover about the problems in the uplands areas and I do not think that I can be accused of that. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows that farmland and farm buildings will continue to be exempt from the unified business rate. However, when farmers move into a business that has nothing to do with farming, it is right that they should have to pay rates on such premises because often in the same village there may be a comparable business that already pays rates. The most important point — it is real humbug for the hon.

With regard to the effect of Chernobyl on sheep farming in upland areas, is my right hon. Friend aware that the Agriculture Select Committee has chosen that as its next subject for an inquiry, and that the outcome of the Committee's findings may be of great help to him in his future deliberations on the subject?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I have said, I think that the scheme came in with great speed and that it was of great help to the farmers who were affected. The most important thing was to recognise that we needed to get the money to them quickly. Therefore, there were bound to be some elements of rough justice, which were fully agreed with the industry from the outset. I hope that that is a point that the Committee will take on board.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with environmental organisations about tree planting.

I have had a number of meetings recently with environmental organisations at which various aspects of forestry, including the proposed farm woodland scheme, were discussed.

Will the Minister make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reform the tax incentive system which allows rich people, such as Lady Porter, the Tory leader of Westminster council, and the Law Lord Baron Ackner, and media personalities, such as Terry Wogan, to benefit from investment in large-scale, environmentally damaging coniferous afforestation? It is a downright scandal and should be stopped.

Although tax matters are not for me or my right hon. Friend, many of the statements made by the hon. Gentleman in his question were tendentious rather than true.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that an adequate amount of guidance is being given in the tree-planting schemes towards planting broadleaved woodland, which is the most naturally congenial environment for the wildlife in this country?

I hope so. That is the intention. We have a different scale of support for broadleaved schemes and, as my hon. Friend will know, we have been particularly careful to help with broadleaved trees, such as the oak, which takes so much longer to mature. I hope, therefore, that by a judicious mixture—in many cases coniferous trees are a good part of such a scheme—we shall be able to enhance the environment, improve opportunities for wildlife and give farmers a further diversified crop.

Is the Minister aware that we have an abundance of beautiful oak trees in the county of Nottinghamshire and that the chairman of Nottinghamshire county council, Miss Florence Price, is promoting those trees for transplantation to the rest of the country and the world? Will he have a word with her to see whether he can help Nottinghamshire county council in the wonderful efforts that it is making?

I am proud that the county of Nottinghamshire does so much for the oak tree. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will see what he can do to help the county council, but it is my view that the changes that we have made in the woodland scheme from the original plans put forward will help people to plant oaks, which are more difficult and take longer to grow, which is exactly what the chairman of Nottinghamshire county council would like us to do.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a fund of goodwill for tree planting and that the purpose and objective of his Department, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, should be to secure suitable sites for tree planting and to encourage voluntary contributions? To that end, does he agree that it is in the long-term national interest, economically as well as environmentally, to encourage much more deciduous tree planting on suitable lowland sites?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and his record in promoting tree planting is the envy of all of us. However, I hope that, in its own way, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is now beginning to help considerably and I trust that in a few years' time there will be a great deal more deciduous planting in Britain as a result of the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill which is now before Parliament.

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

Following the changes that were introduced at the beginning of the current quota year, and the agreement by the European Council to extend the quota system for a further three years, the dairy sector can look forward with more confidence now that measures are in place to bring about a better balance between supply and demand. Average dairy farm income in the United Kingdom increased in each of the last two years and is expected to increase further during the current year.

Will the Minister tell us what steps his Ministry is taking to monitor the operation of quota schemes in other EEC countries, particularly Italy and France? Will he give an assurance to the House that the British dairy industry is not being put at any competitive disadvantage compared with its European colleagues?

Yes, I have raised that subject and consider it quite frequently. I have had discussions with my opposite numbers in those two countries and I can give an assurance that that is what we are always endeavouring to do.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with the innovative record of the United Kingdom dairy industry, in view of the large quantity of imported dairy products on our supermarket shelves? Is he aware that, in my constituency and in four other constituencies, creamery closures have recently been announced?

On the first point, that is primarily a matter for the commercial organisations concerned, but I would never be satisfied that we had done everything that we should. However, in recent years, great strides have been taken, both by dairy farmers and dairy organisations, to improve marketing and to increase our exports, as well as to increase our sales in this country.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends meeting representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss the operation of the Economic Community set-aside scheme in the United Kingdom.

I met representatives of the National Farmers Union on 1 March, and that was one of the topics I discussed with them.

Did the Minister manage to persuade the National Farmers Union that the view of the Farmers Union of Wales that the set-aside scheme is a charter for crooks and cheats was accurate?

I do not think that is right. As in any scheme, there is obviously scope for abuse. One of my purposes is to ensure that the abuse is limited as far as possible. In any scheme, there will inevitably be some abuses. The hon. Gentleman should look on the positive side and see that it is important for environmental reasons. It is important in assisting the transitional process in the countryside and the rural communities, which he is always going on about. The scheme is important as we have to face the fact that more agricultural land has to come out of production.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the Leader of the House agree that the report in The Times today of a switch from student grants to loans is totally unacceptable? Does he realise that under the American system a quarter of the civil servants on Capitol Hill had not repaid their loans within 20 years? Does he not think that it would be far better to increase student grants by 20 per cent in order to keep pace with inflation?

No, Sir. Our manifesto last year was perfectly clear. We said that we were reviewing student grants and considering a way of supplementing grants with loans. We shall publish our proposals when the review is complete. I understand that that will be about the middle of the year.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to note reports that Derbyshire county council has forced Chesterfield school to alter its 400-year-old Latin motto to something considered more relevant? Does he intend to persuade the Royal Air Force to update its motto, per ardua ad astra, or to approach the College of Heralds over such outdatted mottos as "Ich dien" or "honi soit qui mal y pense" and replace them with what is considered more appropriate, namely, "Derbyshire supports nuclear-free zones"? Will my right hon. Friend try to stop that sort of cultural vandalism?

I certainly appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns about such reports. Sadly, he will know that we have reached the point where nothing done by Derbyshire county council can cause us much surprise. I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that our proposals for the reform of local government finance and the introduction of the community charge will help. Indeed, they have already had an effect. A recent issue of the New Statesman said:

"The shameful point for municipal socialists is that it has taken Tory legislation to force them into examining their councils' record as a service provider".

In view of the fact that the Government have passed a series of pieces of legislation to try to stop local authorities from using their taxpayers' money to put out what is considered to be political propaganda, what possible justification can there be for the Scottish Office spending £2.5 million on sending out a misleading political pamphlet concerning the poll tax to every household in Scotland? The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the legislation in England and Wales is not complete and, therefore, the Scottish legislation may be changed, and that the rebate scheme has not yet been published.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland acted totally within the rules in publishing information regarding an Act of Parliament in Scotland. It would be better if the hon. Gentleman read that document and understood it rather than made misleading remarks such as those that he has just made.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that Tuesday's announcement about British Aerospace and the Rover Group has gone down well in the west midlands, not least with some of the striking Land Rover workers? Does that not represent a first-class opportunity for their shop stewards to re-ballot them about going back to work and being the second best paid car workers in the country?

My hon. Friend makes his point very well, but it is not for me to add anything to what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend in his statement on Tuesday.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Does the Leader of the House accept that, whatever claims the Government might have for the benefits in England of its policy of privatising cleaning and catering operations in the Health Service, those are singularly inappropriate policies to foist upon island health boards? What advice would he give to the health boards in my constituency if they were faced with an attractive and artifically low tender from an outside company, yet feared that by breaking up a loyal and efficient in-house team they might be held over a financial barrel the next time tenders arose?

The hon. Gentleman does not make his case at all well. The purpose of using private contractors and going out to tender is to see whether there is a more efficient way of doing the job. Sometimes it will be proved that private enterprise can do it better, and sometimes the job can be done better in-house. In England and Wales the Health Service has saved about £100 million a year, which has gone into further patient care, and that could be emulated in Scotland.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the extent of public concern about the number of bogus public officials who are gaining access to private property and depriving elderly people of their life savings and other possessions? Will he invite the Prime Minister to initiate an inquiry into the matter with a view to adopting a common identity card for all public officials, representatives of Government bodies, local authorities, and public utilities?

I understand my hon Friend's concern about the risks that old people face when they let others into their homes. I share his view that pensioners and others should ask to see proper identity cards when officials try to enter their homes. I am not sure what advantages standardisation would offer, but I shall certainly refer the point to my right hand Friend the Home Secretary.

In view of the justifiable concern of the Leader of the House, perhaps he will see that a special provision is built into the Local Government Finance Bill, which is now going through the House, to require identification for the poll tax snoopers who will come in. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the changes that come into effect next month in social security entitlements, 700,000 pensioner households in Britain will lose housing benefit to which they are currently entitled? Can he tell us what justification he can offer for punishing the prudent in such a way?

The right hon. Gentleman should present his case in a much more balanced way. There are 70,000 families caught in a trap, which means that for every pound they earn they are worse off, because they lose more money in benefit forgone and in tax paid. The new benefit structures will put a stop to that. The vast majority of those receiving income-related benefits, that is about 88 per cent., will see an improvement in cash terms this April, or no change in their position. Under the new scheme, working families with a low income will receive £200 million in net extra resources as a result of the change. That view is more balanced than that of the right hon. Gentleman.

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has picked out the wrong answer. I was talking about pensioner households. He might be aware that the loss to pensioner households under housing beneift changes is 85p for every extra pound that they will get in one way or another. I am interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can tell us what he would say to a pensioner couple who come into his surgery and who receive the national insurance old-age pension and, say, £10 to £15 extra from an occupational pension and have lifetime savings of around £6,000 a year — [Interruption.] Lifetime savings of £6,000. When pensioners who come to the surgeries of Conservative Members are getting pensions on the basic rate, a small occupational pension, and have lifetime savings of around £6,000, what does the Gentleman say to them when they say, "Mr. Wakeham, why am I losing my housing benefit?" What is his reassurance to them, when the Government are imposing such a fine on their thrift?

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman does when people come to his surgery. The first thing I do is to check on what they are entitled to and see that they get it. That is very important. The second thing I would do is explain to them that at present one household in three is getting housing benefit. I do not believe that the rest of the country should be paying that amount of housing benefit to one household in three. [Interruption.] Therefore, I believe that the Government are entirely right to redistribute the income so that it is more fairly spent on those in greatest need. That is what our proposals do.

Redistribution is all very well, but how does the right hon. Gentleman justify taking away from those who are near poor—indeed, not very well off in any circumstances—in order to lift those who are very poor by just a marginal amount? What kind of reassurance is that for those who in a lifetime of work have shown their prudence, have some small savings and are now being penalised?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in thinking that we are taking things away. What we are doing is dealing with taxpayers' money, taken from the taxpayers, and we are redistributing it so that those in society who are worst off get more. I am surprised that there is not more support from the Labour party for that.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will continue to seek opportunities to relocate Government offices outside London and the south-east, consistent always with costs on the one hand and efficiency on the other? I am sure he knows that London weighting costs taxpayers £147 million a year and office costs for the 93 buildings that the Government use in London cost taxpayers £287 million. That is a not inconsiderable sum of money which could be saved.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We made a commitment in 1979 to send 5,900 Civil Service posts out of London to the regions, and that objective has been largely met. Our policy is to site any new Government work in the regions as far as possible, and my hon. Friend gave some reasons for that. He may be interested to know that four out of five civil servants already work outside Greater London.

The Minister, in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), advised Opposition Members to read the booklet on the poll tax issued by the Government today. Is he aware that, although the booklet was issued to the Scottish press and the media at the press conference at 11 o'clock this morning in Edinburgh, it was only posted to hon. Members today? We have not yet received it and are unable to read it, as the Minister suggested. Does he think it right that hon. Members have not had a chance to question the content and legitimacy of the booklet before it was circulated to the Scottish press?

I suggest that the hon. Member gets together with his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who told us that he had read it.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

I have been asked to reply.

Has my right hon. Friend noted that not a one Opposition Member in the questions put to him today has made any reference to the NATO meeting that has just taken place? Will he also note that as a result of the very considerable skill of our Prime Minister and the Government, we have taken a lead in matters affecting NATO and, furthermore, that as a result of the meeting our respect in the world has been enhanced?

My right hon. Friend went to the NATO summit meeting to discuss with our allies the way to ensure continuing sound defence for the countries of the Alliance. That is the first duty of any Government: the defence of the country and the preservation of peace. I believe that it was a successful meeting. My right hon. Friend has not yet returned, and the appropriate document will be available in due course in the usual way.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 3 March.

I have been asked to reply.

The Prime Minister claims to be very happy with the NATO summit. Presumably that means air-launched cruise missiles, sea-launched cruise missiles, battlefield nuclear missiles and many more nuclear missiles based in this country. That massive rearmament programme was never put to the electorate at the last election, yet the Prime Minister must have known that that was what she was planning. Why did she not put it at the last election? Did she not have the courage?

The first duty of any Prime Minister in any Government is the defence of the country. My right hon. Friend, by her work in international negotiations, has done more for disarmament than all the ravings of the hon. Gentleman over many years.