To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation he had with the Game Conservancy Council prior to making his announcement concerning the set-aside of agricultural land; and if he will make a statement.

The Game Conservancy Council gave us detailed views in response to the consultation documents that we issued last December and we took those into account, together with views from a wide range of other bodies, in reaching the conclusions that my right hon. Friend announced in the House on 14 June.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the Game Conservancy Council believes that, to provide the most effective environmental benefit, set-aside strips should be accompanied by conservation headlands? Now that the Government have introduced the former as part of their set-aside proposals, do they intend to provide the latter as part of their extensification proposals?

I have a great deal of sympathy for such arguments. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that fact, as I took some part in the experiment that we are conducting in the Brecklands, which I hope will be a success. Although conservation headlands are admirable in providing benefits to wildlife, they do not conform to the requirements of the set-aside scheme and that is why they are not part of it. We shall consider such headlands and other possibilities when we try to find a good way of carrying out extensification, which is not easy.

Is my right: hon. Friend aware that the consultations are regarded by the House as important and significant? Has his Department considered introducing a regime of low-input, low-output farming?

I assure my hon. Friend that we have considered that. From the discussions that we have had in committees on which we have served he will know that it is a matter of great importance to us. There are problems about creating such a regime and about policing it. If there were not such problems it would all be much easier. I do not have any answers yet, and if my hon. Friend has some further points to put to me I should be happy to listen, because I sympathise with his aims.

Will the Minister confirm that there has been a cool response from farmers to the set-aside scheme? Will he accept that the sums of money involved do not make it an attractive proposal to farmers who grow the bulk of cereal crops, and that the scheme is more likely to attract the more marginal producer? Therefore, if we are spending public money to try to reduce surpluses, has he considered whether that money should be targeted to introduce much more environmentally advantageous farming, whether through low-input farming or other schemes, such as farm woodland projects?

We have already produced our farm woodland project and we are to introduce an extensification scheme. We are also achieving a great deal through the environmentally sensitive areas. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can accuse us of not taking on board the issues that he has put forward. The set-aside scheme is specifically designed to decrease the production of cereals. We have found that the scheme is attractive to the people to whom it is supposed to be attractive—the marginal producers of cereal. I believe that we would be criticised by the Opposition Front Bench if we were in the business of doling out public money in excess of that which is necessary. I have heard all sorts of words from Opposition spokesmen, and they would be even tougher if I had done other than ensure that we have a system that takes out those who are only marginal producers.

Is the Minister aware of the efforts made by farmers in East Anglia to plant spinneys, replant hedgerows and leave headlands to encourage conservation and country sports? That has done a great deal to enhance the beauty of the environment. Will he tell the League Against Cruel Sports and some of their supporters among the Opposition that if they had their way all this good work would come to an end overnight?

I consider that country sports are one of the most important elements in the conservation of the countryside. I am glad of the support that we have had from bodies that support such sports.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which species of animals are currently farmed for their fur in Britain.

Mink, white, red and cross fox and fitch are farmed for fur in Britain.

Is the Minister aware that, like a woman, these little furry friends of ours are beautiful? Will he seriously consider the issuing of licences for this sort of farming? Will he also seriously consider the complete elimination of licences for this sort of farming over the next 10 years?

The mink farmers are licensed and almost insist that they are. There are few other fur farmers. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about abolishing fur farms here, but the number of fur farms in Europe is increasing and I would have to think carefully before putting British farmers at any disadvantage.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss agricultural pollution.

I have discussed this with various members of the National Farmers Union, including the president. Farming unions are already well aware that the Government regard last year's number of pollution incidents as unacceptably high.

Is that good enough, given that illegal farm discharges of slurry and silage in Yorkshire and Humberside last year were up by 38 per cent.? Is the Minister aware that south Yorkshire's water supply is 25 per cent. derived from surface-derived water abstracted from the River Derwent outside York, which itself is a catchment area of intensive agriculture? If so, he will understand the concern in south Yorkshire. I am being asked whether the time has not arrived for the Minister to consider a more vigorous prosecution policy.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we take this matter seriously. I know that the National Farmers Union is now doing so. We have fully backed water authorities in stepping up prosecutions. Through ADAS we have offered general free advice and we are carrying out a great programme in this area to assist. We are carrying out research into improved construction and management of waste-handling facilities. Capital grants for this sort of purpose, for dealing with waste storage and handling equipment, are available at the highest rates. We take this matter seriously. Clearly, we cannot have this sort of increase in farm pollution incidents.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the farming community ways of encouraging modern crop spraying methods, such as the electrically charged droplets system, which uses much less water and therefore causes much less drift spray pollution in the countryside?

I have seen a considerable amount of that sort of thing at various shows and other exhibitions, where the attractions of such equipment have been drawn to the attention of farmers. I know that agricultural machinery companies are constantly trying to improve these sorts of facilities, and I agree that they are one way of helping to deal with the problem.

Is the loss of the common minnow in the Cumbrian lakes in any way linked to this agricultural pollution?

I shall look into that and write to the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding a mid-year adjustment to the North sea cod total allowable catch for 1988; and if he will make a statement.

I am aware of concern by fishermen about the allocation of the United Kingdom sea cod quota, but I have had no recent representations about a mid-year adjustment to the total allowable catch for 1988. No change to it was recommended in the most recent biannual scientific assessment at the end of May.

Does the Minister agree that the industry cannot be run viably when the quotas of species such as cod fluctuate so wildly? Will he listen to the fishermen as well as the scientists?

If one listened to the fishermen one would hear all sorts of different voices, including the voices of those who always want an increase in the number of fish that can be caught. We must listen to the scientists. If we do not, there will be no fish for fishermen to catch—not only next year, but when their children go fishing. I am in the business of conserving our fish stocks so that I can conserve the fishing industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that British fishermen are demanding not more fish than last year, but a fair share of the quota? Does he accept that the quota for the Yorkshire and Anglian fish producers' organisation has been cut by significantly more than the reduction in the United Kingdom quota? If something is not done, that will result in the collapse of the producers' organisation.

I do not accept that. My hon. Friend must agree that the quota given to the Yorkshire and Anglian fish producers' organisation is a fair share of our national quota. It has been cut, but, of course, some boats have left that producers' organisation. If I gave his producers' organisation more of the cod, I would have to take it from other producers' organisations, and they would rightly say that that was unfair. The system is operated fairly between different parts of the country, and I can see no other way of doing it.

North sea cod fishermen have a legitimate worry. May I offer my compliments to the Minister on obtaining at the recent Council meeting a reduction in the minimum landing size of nephrops? However, the disappointment about west coast mackerel is considerable. These achievements and failures fall within the framework of the common fisheries policy. Will the Minister assure the House that with the advent of the European single market we will not see the demise of the common fisheries policy, especially in relation to access agreements and historic fishing rights?

The Government are wholly committed to the basis of the common fisheries policy. It gives our fishermen a very fair share of the fish that are available in the European Community. Any renegotiation of that would be bound to give our fishermen a smaller share. That is the reality. We are determined to see that the situation remains as it is and that the policy is applied to new resources in exactly the same way as it is applied to old resources. I give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the farming unions; and what matters were discussed.

I meet representatives of the farming unions frequently to discuss agricultural matters.

During his discussions with the farming unions, does the Minister discuss the implications of the recent House of Lords ruling that income levy raised by the Meat and Livestock Commission is not VAT-recoverable? Is he aware that that represents a loss of about £2·5 million a year to the agriculture industry, and that to some people it is seen as the thin end of the wedge for the introduction of VAT on food? Does he intend to discuss the matter with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to introducing regulations to amend that ruling?

As I think the hon. Gentleman has recognised, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues. I am obviously aware of the concerns that have been expressed as a result of the House of Lords ruling. However, it has absolutely nothing to do with any question of VAT on food, on which the Government's position is entirely clear. There is no question of this being the thin end of the wedge.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the farming unions the question of livestock in respect of the set-aside proposals contained in the latest agreement? Does he agree that it is particularly important to the west of the country that the livestock sector should be kept strong, and that there should be no temptation to move the livestock centre of gravity towards the east into land that might otherwise have been used for grain production? Does he further agree that it is vital for this matter to be understood so that the full confidence of the livestock sector in the west of the country may be maintained?

I agree with my hon. Friend. In the decisions that I took on set-aside, and especially the decision not to take up the grazed fallow option, I had very much in mind the interests of the livestock sector, not only on the western side of England but in Wales and Scotland, and especially in the hill areas. Therefore, I understand the point of his question about the possibilities that might have arisen if we had gone for the grazed fallow option.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is difficult for members of the farmers union, for his Department and for our friends in the EC to introduce a sensible policy that will be acceptable to the farmers of this country, will cut production and will ensure that they have a reasonable livelihood in the years to come. Does he further agree that, if 10 per cent. of the land in this country is taken out of production, the farmers will be able to produce even more, if that is their wish? Does he agree, therefore, that it is essential that we consult for a long period before we make a decision that may be wrong for the rural dweller, the farmer and the consumer in this country?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I consult and am in discussion all the time before taking decisions on matters that affect the agricultural community.

Has my right hon. Friend had recent discussions on the problems and anxieties of pig producers, and is he able to give any further reassurances?

I am very much aware of the problems. We have done all that it is possible for the Government to do within the context of the CAP, both earlier in securing for a proper period—not too long—a private storage aid, and as a result of the decisions taken in the Community in the price negotiations on the further reduction of negative MCAs. That means that, shortly, the negative MCAs in the pigmeat sector will have dwindled to almost nothing, provided we obtain final agreement on price negotiations. However, one of the problems currently facing the pig sector is the possible increase in feed costs, as a result of the drought in the United States.

When the Minister met the agricultural leaders, did he discuss with them the proposals to dump in Britain the domestic rubbish from New York and elsewhere? Did they tell him that the farmers and the British people are not prepared to become the garbage tip of the world, with the accompanying health and disease risks? Will he give the House an assurance that he will continue to refuse a licence for such applications?

We have not yet had discussions with the farming unions on this matter—nor have they raised it with us—but we have already been considering it carefully. In so far as it is our responsibility, particularly in relation to animal health, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are considering it carefully.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department is giving to organic farming.

My Department is giving full support to the board of the United Kingdom register of organic food standards in the task of setting standards for organic production which are essential if organic farming is to achieve its potential. In addition, those farming organically benefit from the various agricultural support measures in the same way as other farmers, while the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service is equipping itself to respond to demands for specialised advice.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that, under the set-aside proposals, farmers will merely try to produce more food from their remaining acres. In view of what he said, therefore, will he consider giving financial incentives to those who practise extensive farming methods, which would not only reduce farm surpluses, but would ensure that the food that we produce was much better for us and would cut our imports of organic food, which at present constitute 60 per cent. of the total consumption of the United Kingdom?

I do not think that there will be in this country the increase in production on land that is not set aside within a farm as one sees in, for example, the United States, because, on the whole, United Kingdom farmers are already farming to maximum efficiency and productivity. I do not think, therefore, that that particular point arises, but my hon. Friend will know that organic farming was not a feature of the set-aside scheme because it was not a part of the thinking behind it, although those who take up the fallowing aspect of set-aside may find that that has some implications for organic farming.

I welcome the opportunities for informed consumer choice and what my right hon. Friend has said about the encouragement of organic farming, but does he agree that British food produced by conventional methods is equally good and wholesome?

Yes, it is important to keep stressing that. I agree with my hon. Friend. There is among some consumers a growing demand for organically grown food which I should like to see our farmers meeting. That is the reason for setting up the register, which enables us to establish nationally recognised production standards for consumers who want organic food. However, my hon. Friend's point is entirely right and relevant.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board; and what was discussed.

I met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board on 9 June, when we discussed various issues affecting the dairy industry.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, will he stress the importance of giving all possible help and encouragement to our quality milk producers in seeking to find export markets for their goods? Does he agree that the liberalisation of the European milk regime is liable to widen those markets and that milk producers should take all the opportunities presented to them?

In the last financial year the Milk Marketing Board spent nearly £24 million in support of market development, and that effort must be encouraged. I agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's remarks that sometimes we in Britain have concentrated too much in a rather defensive way on the dangers of imports of milk products and not sufficiently on the prospects for exports of our dairy products. I hope that as we move towards the single market we shall increasingly take opportunities to exploit those markets.

At a recent meeting with the head of the Milk Marketing Board we were told that there was no longer a milk surplus in the United Kingdom and there is a shortage of milk in Scotland. Is it not a fact that the surpluses in Europe are being created by EEC countries that have not met the quota? What will the Minister do to protect British farmers?

That is not the case. There is still overall a milk surplus within the Community. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I encourage the two Milk Marketing Boards to sort out problems that arise as a result of seasonal troughs and certain shortages, for example, milk for cheese production—a problem which arose particularly in Scotland. I am glad to say that as a result of the talks some arrangements have now been made to transfer milk from England to Scotland.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, will he discuss with him the remarkable turnaround in the European dairy industry? Will he note that there is now virtually no skimmed milk powder to be had, that the butter mountain has been more than halved and that the incorporation premium has been reduced? If he studies the Milk Marketing Board's annual report, he will also note that since it ceased to put large amounts of butter into cold store its financial situation has improved because it is not tying up its money so much.

My hon. Friend is right. There has been a considerable change as a result of the decisions taken by the Council of Ministers on the dairy sector, in particular the introduction of quotas and the tightening of quotas in 1986, so that we are achieving a better balance between supply and demand. My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the considerable reductions in the amount of butter in intervention and to the fact that the amount of skimmed milk powder in intervention has come down to practically nil. On the other hand, we still have sizeable subsidy support programmes to dispose of some of the surpluses, including skimmed milk powder. We are still paying a good deal of money to encourage its disposal. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is correct to say that substantial progress has been made.

Will the Minister also discuss bovine somatotropin with the board, and in particular, the view of a group of scientists employed by the Monsanto chemical company who think that if BST is licensed it should be made available on prescription only? Is that not a reasonable policy to follow?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have permitted under the Medicines Act 1971 the BST trials that are taking place because we were satisfied, from all the advice and evidence that we were given, that within the terms and criteria set by that Act it was right to do so. We have not yet received advice on the application for licences, and we shall have to take various matters into account when making those decisions.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps is he taking to ensure that the health of the United Kingdom poultry flock will continue to be safeguarded after 1992; and if he will make a statement.

While the Government fully support the single European market, we believe that animal health should be achieved by working towards uniformly high standards throughout the Community. In the meantime, we shall press for eradication of serious diseases and the maintenance of necessary controls. The European Commission has yet to make any detailed proposals.

I note my hon. Friend's comments, but will he confirm that the current quarantine regulations will remain in force after 1992? Is he aware that this is a matter of the utmost concern to both poultry breeders and farmers?

I am aware of that concern and have answered a great deal of correspondence from my hon. Friend and others on the subject of the quarantine regulations, which we are determined will remain in place for as long as they are necessary.

Has my hon. Friend yet made any assessment of the danger to the United Kingdom poultry stock from the importation of millions of tonnes of American domestic waste into this country?

My right hon. Friend touched on that matter in a previous answer. I am doing all that I can to ensure that if any American waste is imported it contains no animal matter or any matter injurious to animal or plant health in this country. Perhaps we may have to invoke the well-tried rule that the polluter pays.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will take to prevent the killing of dolphins.

The United. Kingdom Government are opposed to the needless killing of dolphins and will continue to press for further measures to protect dolphins and small cetaceans, through the International Whaling Commission and other relevant international fora.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that almost everyone loves dolphins, which are graceful and beautiful animals, and that there is much appreciation of the Government's work and the concern that they have expressed? However, can my right hon. Friend say what the Government are doing in response to recent reports that the Faroese are continuing to kill dolphins?

Immediately we received that information about the Faroese we asked for an immediate investigation. What happened is clearly contrary to the law of the Faroes and we are determined to do all that we can to defend dolphins and small whales, as well as larger whales. I am pleased to report that we have received commendation for our action not only from Greenpeace locally but from that organisation's headquarters, and from Sir Peter Scott.

Does the Minister accept that one of the problems is sheer lack of knowledge about dolphin numbers and the tendency of the dolphin population to decline? Will he undertake to fund research into the dolphin population, to discover the causes of its declining numbers?

The question of inshore dolphins, relating to our country, is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I shall certainly talk to him about it. We are committed to the view that the depredations of those animals and of whales in general are wholly unacceptable, and we shall do all that we can to ensure that mankind does not destroy that important part of its heritage.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he intends to take consequent upon lessons learnt in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident.

My Department has participated fully in the interdepartmental review leading to the setting up by the Department of the Environment of a national response plan for dealing with any future nuclear emergency overseas, and we shall continue to review and update our emergency arrangements in the light of the experience afforded by the Chernobyl accident.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, in particular as it applies to the co-ordination and dissemination of information following such an incident. What credibility does my right hon. Friend give to suggestions from Opposition Members that contaminated lamb has got into the food chain despite the restrictions on movements that were applied by his Department?

I give no credence whatever to that. I do not believe that anyone in this country, in any circumstances or on any occasion, was in any way endangered as a result of eating lamb after the Chernobyl incident. What saddens me is the way in which the Opposition have sought to make party political propaganda out of frightening people, when there has been no reason for it.

With respect, the Minister has not answered his hon. Friend's question. Did any sheep that were checked as having high radioactivity levels and which should have been remonitored go for slaughter without such remonitoring? The question is not how safe it was to eat meat, but how many sheep entered the food chain.

All sheep remonitored on request were found to be below the action level. A third were monitored: there is no reason whatever to monitor every sheep. If Opposition Members do not understand that, they are once again trying to do what they ought not to—do down the British farmer—and frighten the British consumer in circumstances that make that entirely unnecessary. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his officials were significantly better prepared to deal with the Chernobyl disaster than were the officials of other member states of the European Community?

I should not like to do down officials in any other country, but I believe that our officials behaved extremely well and were very well prepared. I am sometimes sorry that they are not given the kind of support that they ought to receive from the whole House. The fact is that because of their prompt, continued and energetic action no one in this country was endangered by eating food after the Chernobyl accident, and that is a very remarkable thing to be able to say.

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

The latest available figures, to be published next month, show an increase of 11 per cent. in the value of horticultural produce, rising from £1,219 million in 1986 to £1,349 million in 1987. Despite the setback caused by the great storm last October, the industry is buoyant and there is a feeling of increased optimism among growers.

Is the Minister aware that the Government's recent announcement of the unexpected and far worse than anticipated news that there is to be a cutback of up to 65 per cent. in their horticultural research spending has dealt a devastating blow to the morale that the Minister has just mentioned? Will he reconsider that decision? Is he aware of the particular concern in my part of the country over the future of the Rosewarne experimental station?

I am fully aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about Rosewarne. There is no need to reconsider the decisions involved, as they have not yet been fully considered. Consideration is continuing.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the grave concern of both horticulturists and sugar beet growers following the recent importation of rhizomania on the root balls of Acers from Holland. What action is being taken to deal immediately with this urgent problem? In the light of the forthcoming plans for 1992, is my hon. Friend satisfied that other EEC countries have plant hygiene standards equal to ours?

My hon. Friend will realise that the Dutch are as anxious as we are to ensure that such an incident does not happen again, because a huge Dutch export industry relies on the highest possible quality of plant and tree being introduced into this country. Our officials are at present in Holland discussing the matter with the growers and their officials, and we hope that it will be sensibly and satisfactorily resolved in the near future.

Will the Minister confirm that the horticulture industry has been shattered-to use Simon Gourlay's word—by his announcement of a reduction of 65 per cent. in research and development spending? Will he also confirm that these massive cuts are part and parcel of proposed cuts of £60 million in spending on research and development in agriculture and food? Does he not accept that this is a stupid and short-sighted policy?

I do not accept that trying to attract more money into research and development from wherever possible is stupid or shortsighted. We are convinced that at the end of our discussions the industry and the Government will have a greater and better-organised input into research and development than ever before.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his policy towards the sale of soft drinks containing a high level of caffeine.

Draft proposals for revised soft drinks regulations issued for public consultation on 18 May include a provision to limit the caffeine content of soft drinks to 125 mg/litre. Government policy will not be finalised until all comments have been considered.

Does my hon. Friend agree that manufacturers should not encourage children to consume drinks with excessive levels of stimulants? When he decides this matter, will he treat the protection of children as a priority?

When we decide any matters of additives in food or drink, including caffeine, the protection of children is paramount.

In the light of the work done by Dr. Wurtman in America and others on the difficulties that arise from the use of aspartame, otherwise known as Canderel or Nutrasweet, in soft drinks, will the Government now review approval that they gave to Searle, the manufacturers, some four years ago?

We constantly review the approvals that we have given. At present we have no intention of reviewing that product.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with water authorities about reducing agricultural pollution of rivers and streams.

I have had discussions with the Ministry's representatives on water authorities about reducing pollution and have arranged to meet the chairmen of the Anglian water authority and the Water Authorities Association later this month.

Does the Minister accept the growing concern over pollution to rivers from agriculture? There was an increase of 60 per cent. in serious pollution incidents last year in this country. Does the Minister accept also the argument put by many people that the advice given from ADAS ought to be free, not only on the first visit, but on further visits as well, to ensure that all is being done to stop the atrocious pollution of our rivers?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will know that I condemned that considerable rise and said to the farming community that it is up to it to make the necessary changes. We already give the highest rate of grant for the changes that have to be made to farmers. As the hon. Gentleman said, we give the first visit free, but it is not unreasonable for people to pay something towards the detailed application, because they get very high rates of grant for the work that they have to carry out. What is more important, having done the work, the day-to-day management has to be excellent, and we are encouraging farmers in that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern expressed by the Welsh water authority over pollution, which has doubled in Wales in recent years? Will he consider whether the 60 per cent. grant which is available in hill areas might be extended to lowland areas?

I am always willing to look at such things, but I consider that the grant levels are right. Many people who have carried out the changes that needed to be made have not carried on with the day-to-day management. Pollution incidents arise, even when proper installations have been made. Therefore, we have to insist that farmers properly maintain those installations, and we must support water authorities and magistrates in enforcing the law.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to privatise the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans to do so.

I am sure that agriculturists will be delighted with that answer. There is no more to be said.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the light of increased river pollution from farm effluent, he will be seeking stiffer penalties on those found guilty.

The Government have drawn the attention of the Magistrates Association to the need for penalties to reflect the seriousness of water pollution offences.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if those penalties are to be effective they must be painful, and seen to be painful? There is growing public concern and a growing belief that the polluter should pay, not just the fine in a magistrates' court, but the cost of putting right the damage done by that pollution.

It is important that the fines should be sufficient. The highest penalty for a single case in 1987 was £3,000, with costs of £4,500. We are beginning to crack down very hard on this offence. Ultimately, it is up to the farming community to ensure that its enterprises and activities do not harm the water of the nation. We are determined to see that that happens.

Is the Minister aware that since this Government took office the condition of Britain's rural rivers and streams has deteriorated at an astonishing pace? It is no good calling for extra penalties if the water authorities do not bring prosecutions. In many areas there has been a sharp decline in the number of prosecutions brought, despite an enormous increase in the number of offences.

I do not think that that assessment of o waters and rivers stands up. We are determined to support water authorities when they bring prosecutions and people are found guilty. We are also supportive of the strongest implementation of the fines imposed by magistrates. The hon. Gentleman must accept that it is up to the water authorities to carry out those prosecutions. In many cases they have found that by conciliation and work with farmers they can produce a better response than by taking farmers to court.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any evidence of hidden subsidies to continental pig producers; and if he will make a statement.

Recent Italian and French state aids in the pig sector are the subject of Commission investigations. Rulings on their legality are awaited. We are always prepared to refer firm evidence of possible illegal aids to the Commission for action.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a failure to implement fair trade in pigmeat will not only weaken the position of the British pig industry, but seriously undermine the United Kingdom balance of payments?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He will welcome the reduction, all things being equal, of the MCA on pigmeat to—1·7 per cent. next January, and I am sure that he will be joined in his welcome of that by the NFU and the National Pig Breeders Association.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be presiding at a dinner in honour of the recently retired secretary general of NATO Lord Carrington.

The Prime Minister will be aware of the great difficulties facing young people looking for housing in areas such as Cornwall. Does she agree with the comments in Building Today of her Secretary of State for the Environment in relation to his two new papers on rural housing, when he said:

"I don't see this as making a major contribution to solving the housing problem."?

I fully support my right hon. Friend's most excellent paper, which is designed to ensure an increase in the life of rural communities by attracting more industry and light industry, and by providing more housing of a kind that will persuade these young people to stay in rural areas.

Will my right hon. Friend find time in her busy day to send a message of encouragement and thanks to our naval personnel in the Gulf on the Armilla patrol? All their families and friends and, indeed, the whole House will wish them well in the difficult job that they have been doing these past eight years.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and will certainly respond to his invitation. Our naval personnel have been doing their task extremely well, quietly and efficiently, regularly accompanying many ships up the Gulf. The whole House will wish to join my hon. Friend in his good wishes and thanks.

May I fully endorse the Prime Minister's sympathy for those who have lost loved ones and who have been injured in the horrific accident in the North sea oilfield. May I join her in commending those in the rescue services who have shown bravery and skill. Mindful of the scale of this disaster and aware of the memory of other disasters and the implications for families who have been bereaved and suffered losses or injury, may I ask the Prime Minister whether she will now give further consideration to establishing a system of no-fault compensation, which would at least provide immediate support and future financial security for people hit by horrors such as these?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, is in Aberdeen, and I spoke to him at lunchtime. There will be a full statement after questions, but my right hon. Friend wished to say that the rescue services, always good, had on this occasion absolutely excelled themselves. We should all be very grateful to them for that, although we know the enormous tragedy with which they were faced.

Has my right hon. Friend seen a report of the speech made by the President of the EEC at Strasbourg yesterday in which he estimated that, with the Single European Act in place, in 10 years' time 80 per cent. of social and economic decisions now made by national parliaments will be made in Brussels? Does she agree with that estimate of 80 per cent. and if it is some other percentage will she tell the House?

I heard the reports of what was said in Brussels and I do not agree with what was said on the occasion.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

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

Will the Prime Minister explain why her Government abolished independent provision for safety in the North sea in 1980? Does not the transfer of that function to the Department of Energy leave the Government open to accusations that huge profits are more important than safety and human lives? Will she further explain why provision for independent safety representatives has been opposed for nine years by the Government and the oil industry? Does not this tragedy show the need for working people in the North sea to have the right to statutory provision to bring safety aspects to the notice of authorities on all occasions?

As I said earlier, there will be a full statement after questions. In the meantime, it is obvious that we all wish to express our deep sympathy with the people concerned—those who have been injured and the bereaved of the very many whom we seem to have lost. My right hon. Friend will be referring in his statement to safety and to the recent inspections on the rig, and it would be best if we waited for that statement.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

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

We are all acutely conscious of the tragedy in the North sea today, but may I turn to the continuing tragedy in Northern Ireland? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our troops, to whom she has so often paid tribute, will remain in Northern Ireland as long as law and order demand? In that context, has my right hon. Friend been approached by any other party leader for advice on how to deal with a Front-Bench spokeswoman who has broken the bipartisan approach by demanding the withdrawal of troops?

Order. The question must refer to the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

May I answer my hon. Friend's main point. In thinking of other tragedies we perhaps do not remember often enough some of the daily tragedies that occur in Northern Ireland. Our troops will, of course, stay there as long as the situation requires them to do so and I hope that all hon. Members will join me in paying tribute to their courage and dedication as well as to that of the RUC.

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is one of the fundamental principles of our democracy that all our citizens should have equal access to the law and to proper legal advice? If she does, how does she square those sentiments with the proposals in the Legal Aid Bill, which seeks to deny citizens the right to select the lawyer or legal adviser of their choice? Is she not deeply ashamed, especially as she is a former lawyer, that hers is the first British Government in history to put justice out to competitive tender?

The fundamental principle is, I believe, that all people are equal before the law. As they come before the courts their rights are absolutely equal. Under this Government the amount spent on legal aid has made that budget one of the fastest rising budgets of all. We have spread opportunity ever more widely.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the encouraging improvement in employment in south-west Norfolk, especially in Thetford, where unemployment has fallen during the past year from 11 per cent. to less than 6 per cent.? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a great encouragement to those successful companies in Thetford, which in expanding have taken advantage of the Government's economic policies, if the Department of Transport were to increase its investment in the dualling of the A11, so that sooner rather than later Norfolk will be linked convincingly by a dualled road network to the rest of the United Kingdom?

I am delighted to hear the figures on the fall in unemployment in Thetford, which has been brought about by greater prosperity. Advantage has been taken of that prosperity by more small businesses starting up. I know my hon. Friend's views on the A11/M11. I think she will agree that when the present works are finished about 80 per cent. of the road will be dual carriageway all the way up to Norwich. I shall carefully consider my hon. Friend's comments on further improvements.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there are more people homeless and sleeping rough on the streets of our capital city than in any other capital city in Europe, with the exception of Istanbul? Is the right hon. Lady aware that for every £4 that the Government spend on the homeless £10 was spent under the last Labour Government? Is she aware that last night the city of Westminster agreed to close a hostel for the homeless to make way for studio flats for the well-to-do? We know that the Prime Minister has no compassion, but has she no shame? What will she do for the homeless?

This point came up a few weeks ago and the same allegations were made. Inquiries were carried out. According to the figures, and as far as we are aware, there has been no increase in the number of people in difficulty in the capital and some places are available in hostels which are not taken up every night. Young people can benefit from a number of our measures—[Interruption.] More than 14,700 places have been approved since April 1981 to benefit the young single homeless and others. We made it easier for council tenants to sub-let so that they can take in people who need lodgings. We are increasing the programme of grants to voluntary bodies concerned with homelessness.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the events surrounding the Cleveland child sex abuse scandal must not be allowed to happen again? Does she agree also that those who are charged with the responsibility of taking action arising out of the scandal must do so quickly and allow the people of south Cleveland to build their lives on the prosperity which has been laid down so well during the past five years?

I listened carefully to yesterday's statement in the House and to the response by many hon. Members. It will now be for the authorities to take such further action as they think fit in the light of the report. I agree with my hon. Friend. We all utterly condemn child abuse and violence against children. We must do everything we can to protect children from that, but at the same time we must make certain that false allegations are not made against parents or children who may be innocent. It is easy to draw the line; it is not always as easy for social workers, neighbours and others to see the right side. Paramount protection must go to the child.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 July.

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

Why, when representatives of the Westminster Association of Relatives went to see the Prime Minister in her surgery some 10 days ago about the scandalous sale of Westminster cemeteries, was she both insensitive and indifferent to their plight and, indeed, upset them? Why did the Prime Minister refuse point-blank to condemn Lady Porter and Westminster city council for selling, for £1, assets worth at least £5 million to £7 million? Was not that sale, which is now the subject of an investigation by the fraud squad, the unacceptable face of privatisation?

When my constituents wish to see me—and I am sure the same applies to the hon. Gentleman—I do not refuse to see them, although I sometimes have to explain that, when matters are being investigated by the fraud squad, independent auditors or by the Ombudsman, I am in a position only to listen to what they say. I am not in a position to pronounce, especially when they are asking for such things as a statutory inquiry, which my right hon. Friends have no power to give. In accordance with my custom, they came and I listened to them for a very long time. One could not possibly be unsympathetic to what they were saying—no one could be. They knew that I could not reply and it would have been totally wrong if I, in the position of Prime Minister, replied on something to which my right hon. Friend may have to pronounce.