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

I have regular contacts with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss various issues affecting the dairy industry.

When the Minister last met the chairman, did he discuss the matter raised this week by Malcolm Stewart, one of the members of the board who said that treating cows with bovine somatotrophin was a disaster in marketing terms? Does the Minister agree that the British consumer has the right to know whether the milk that he or she buys comes from cows which have been treated with that artificial hormone? Does he further agree that the consumer has a right to expect that any milk which comes from BST-treated cows will be labelled to make that fact plain?

We did not discuss that issue at our last meeting. As the hon. Gentleman knows, ministerial responsibilities on test certificates—the stage that we are at—are guided by the Medicines Act 1968. Under that legislation, we receive advice from the veterinary products committee, which gives clearance on safety and all the other criteria laid down by the Act before a product can go ahead for field tests.

In his dealings with the Milk Marketing Board and other parties interested in the dairy sector, has my right hon. Friend encountered the same general confidence and buoyancy as is found among the majority of milk farmers in Hampshire?

There is a good deal of confidence in the dairy sector at present. There is no doubt that dairy incomes have been rising and that that sector of agriculture is in good heart.

Does the Minister deny that at its meetings in June and July 1988 the veterinary products committee considered and rejected an application by Monsanto for a product licence for BST on grounds of safety and that that fact is confirmed in its minutes of September 1988? Will the Minister now call a halt to the experiment with BST?

When the veterinary products committee considers a product licence, it has to consider many factors. It may have to engage in prolonged discussions with a company before it makes any recommendations and before anything comes before Ministers. Moreover, the same product also has to be scrutinised at European Community level. I repeat that nothing has yet come before Ministers in terms of applications for product licences. There would be a lengthy process of scrutiny before any recommendation was made to Ministers as to whether a product should be approved.

As a libertarian who would obviously set his face like flint against a nanny state, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will not prevent free-born Englishmen from drinking unpasteurised milk if they wish to do so?

I acknowledge that there are some difficult issues. I am very much on the side of wishing to give absolute freedom of choice wherever possible. We came to the conclusion that we should propose a ban for unpasteurised milk but not for products made from unpasteurised milk on two grounds. We did so, first, on advice from the chief medical officer and on medical advice generally that there was no way of making the product safe for consumers except through pasteurisation and, secondly, on the experience in Scotland, where the product is already banned. There has been a big reduction in the number of food poisoning cases there compared with England and Wales. It was not an easy decision and it is one where there must be a balance of considerations.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about his proposals to change the legislation relating to food.

Work on the review of food legislation that we announced in October 1987 is well advanced and I hope to come forward with proposals for new legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

As the Government consider that cook-chill catering is safe if the 1980 guidelines are followed, what action are the Government taking against those supermarkets which are plainly breaching those guidelines in selling cook-chill food?

We are doing a great deal of research in that area. We are working with retailers and manufacturers to ensure that the processing is sufficient to kill listeria and that subsequent handling is at temperatures that will prevent reinfection. In addition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health is preparing to consult shortly, as required by the Food Act 1984 on the draft regulations and he is proposing to apply temperature controls at all stages in the distribution chain, including retail shops.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principles underlying his new legislation should be the maximum consumer information through labelling and the minimum statutory interference and control, which must be only on essential food safety grounds?

The principle of maximum labelling and information to the consumer is one that we already follow in operating all our many food safety procedures under existing legislation. There are, however, gaps in the existing legislation—not least because of the advances in food technology, processes and products. That is why we took the view that it was necessary to carry out a review of existing food legislation and to consider what further steps would be required to ensure that we have all the necessary mechanisms to protect the consumer throughout the food chain.

We have not heard a great deal recently from the Minister about his 17-point plan to deal with salmonella in eggs. Will he confirm that many of the items in that programme require parliamentary legislation, which has not been brought before the House, so the programme is not being implemented? Will he explain his Department's tardiness in preparing the orders and tell us when we can expect to see them in the House?

If the hon. Gentleman has not heard a great deal, it is because he has not noticed that legislation is being produced and in many cases is before the House. We are proceeding rapidly with the 17 measures. Some still require quite complex statutory regulations, which is being prepared, and in some cases there has had to be consultation. Quite a number of the regulations, however, have already gone through or are currently going through the House, and the rest will be before the House shortly.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; and what matters were discussed.

My right hon. Friend the Minister and I met the chairman of the RSPB council on 17 November, when we discussed the RSPB's consultation paper on the reform of the common agricultural policy.

When the Minister next has the chance to discuss matters of mutual interest with the RSPB, will he stress the beneficial effects of Government policy such as the farm woodland scheme and the new capital grant scheme? Will he also explain to the RSPB the Government's views on the European Commission's draft directive on habitats, which would mean that much of the rest of Europe would be forced to follow our excellent example in habitat protection?

The latest issue of the RSPB publication, Birds, congratulates the Government on the farm woodland scheme and the farm and conservation grant scheme to which my hon. Friend referred. As my hon. Friend may know, this Government together with all Governments in the European Economic Community unanimously rejected the habitat directive when it was discussed by the Council recently. However, there is wide support for a British idea and we hope that our European partners will support us. We have much to teach them on the subject and I believe that that is recognised by the RSPB.

I do not wish to be critical, as I know that there are difficulties, but will the Minister investigate the conditions under which birds are imported from Amazonia and West Africa? Will he also look into the increasing theft of rare parrots, which is quite improper? It may be difficult to do anything about this, but does he agree that it is at least worthy of ministerial attention?

It is indeed worthy of ministerial attention and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall look into the matter.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Council for the Protection of Rural England; and what matters were discussed.

I met the chairman and other leading figures in the Council for the Protection of Rural England on 7 November. We discussed several countryside issues at what was a very helpful and constructive meeting. Subsequently, Fiona Reynolds, assistant director of the CPRE, kindly addressed a meeting of my constituents in Norfolk on 27 January.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the CPRE's concern about rural housing? Does he believe that our right hon. Friend the Chancellor's recent Budget Statement about land for the development of low-cost housing being free of capital gains tax will receive a warm welcome, and what does he estimate will be the take-up in the coming year?

I hope that the whole House will welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to which my hon. Friend refers. I am due to meet the CPRE again soon and I shall be surprised indeed if it does not express wholehearted support for that measure.

Did the Minister discuss with the CPRE the possibility of water authorities in England demanding a percentage of the environmentally sensitive area payments from their tenants? Is he aware that that is what the Welsh water authority is doing in Wales, and does he agree that it is deplorable? Has the Minister received any representations about that?

I have not discussed that matter with the CPRE, but I will raise it at our next meeting.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that in any discussions that he has with any organisation about the countryside and the rural economy he will place great emphasis on the decisions recently taken by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment to give positive encouragement to the provision of low-cost housing for local people in rural areas?

My hon. Friend has highlighted two important decisions taken by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment. I should be surprised if anyone living in a rural area did not fully support those announcements.

Has the Minister given any explanation to the CPRE for the Government's merciless hostility towards people who live and work in rural Britain? How are people living and working on farms supposed to keep their heads above the cost of privatised water, let alone get involved in popular capitalism, when their incomes are not even keeping pace with the Chancellor's 8 per cent. rate of inflation? In particular, how does the Minister suppose that the 552 people working on farms in the vale of Glamorgan will cope with the Government's viciously anti-rural poll tax when it is introduced next year?

The people living in the constituency to which the hon. Gentleman refers will return the Conservative candidate at the by-election. Indeed, if the level of debate in that campaign is comparable with that of the hon. Gentleman's question the Conservative majority will undoubtedly be increased.

Does my hon. Friend intend stressing at his next meeting with the CPRE that everyone should have the utmost sympathy for planning applications made by hard-pressed farmers seeking to diversify their activities?

My hon. Friend may be aware of the new planning guide for farmers that the Department issued in January. I shall be happy to make copies available to my hon. Friend's constituents. We have received a large number of requests for the guide, which is proving a great success throughout the country.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having in the European Community with regard to the labelling of food.

A "common position" has been reached on proposed amendments to the food labelling directive. Those are now with the European Parliament before returning to the Council for final adoption. Proposals on nutrition labelling are also being discussed in Brussels.

Has the hon. Gentleman discussed with his fellow EEC Ministers the practice of labelling eggs for sale as being "salmonella-free"? Is he aware that that practice continues in this country and many consumers are being misled because no scientific test for salmonella can be carried out without destroying the egg itself? What does he intend to do to stop the practice?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Without breaking the egg, there can be no guarantee that it is salmonella-free. In a European context, the matter is being discussed by European vets, who decided to put it on the agenda for their meetings at the beginning of December.

Did my hon. Friend receive any representations from our EEC partners about the British practice of labelling green-top milk? Will he confirm that, with the possible exception of Denmark, no other EEC country bans the sale of unpasteurised milk?

As my hon. Friend is aware, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Wales published a consultation document on that issue. We look to organisations representing the industry and consumers to respond as soon as possible before a final decision is taken.

Will the Minister discuss with our European partners the labelling of food used in airline meals following the serious report submitted to his Department by the three environmental health authorities at Heathrow which reveals that a quarter of all the airline meals sampled were contaminated with potentially dangerous bacteria and at least four were contaminated with salmonella? Given the international implications of carrying meals on airlines, does the Minister agree that meals should be labelled correctly and that the methods of cook-chilling and re-heating meals on aircraft should be standardised?

I agree with the hon. Lady that every effort must be made by authorities, organisations, firms and airlines to ensure that the food served to airline customers is safe. I will certainly do my best to look into the matter.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action his Department is taking to protect hedgerows and to encourage the planting of new hedges.

The new farm and conservation grant scheme makes generous provision for the planting, replacement or improvement of hedges. That work may include hedgerow trees and any necessary protective fencing. Through the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, we also offer advice on trimming and maintenance of hedges, and on the time of year when cutting and trimming is best carried out for the benefit of wildlife.

I am sure that the Minister accepts that the presence of hedgerows is important in protecting wildlife and providing refuge, as well as in preventing soil erosion by wind or water. It is therefore important to increase the number of miles of hedgerows in this country, not decrease them. Will the Minister bring in statutory controls so that hedgerows cannot be removed without special permission? Does he agree that it is necessary to increase the upland hedgerow grant, which has been cut? Will he also agree to give sufficient training to farmworkers, as well as money for that training, so that the skills lost by the removal of so many hedgerows can be replaced? Does he acknowledge that hedgerows are a vital part of the countryside and of our ecosystem that we all need and enjoy?

Legislation may have its attractions to some people, but controls of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman would be wholly impractical and unworkable. We have increased grants for the planting of hedgerows in lowland areas, because it is in those areas of Britain—notably East Anglia and the east midlands—that most hedgerows have been lost in the past 40 years. That is why hedgerow grants for lowland areas have been increased to 40 per cent., and why there has already been considerable uptake of the new grant scheme.

Will my hon. Friend give a word of praise to those farmers in East Anglia who have spent a great deal of money and effort in replacing trees and hedgerows and who are just as concerned about the environment in which they live as are the town folk of Islington and elsewhere?

As an East Anglian I am only too happy to respond positively to my hon. Friend. There are many parts of East Anglia where, throughout the course of the past 10 years, enlightened farmers have planted trees all over the place. The grants which we have made available—the 40 per cent. to which I have referred—should be taken up by more farmers in East Anglia because more trees should be planted there.

Does the Minister accept that, ecologically, the existence and protection of hedgerows is of considerable importance and has been neglected? Does he accept the Prime Minister's estimate that 120,000 miles of hedgerow have been destroyed and, in view of that assessment, does he share my regret at the Prime Minister's insistence that my Hedgerows Bill should continue to be blocked?

The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member of the council of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and I should be grateful if he would pass on the congratulations of the House to the RSPB in its centenary year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question".] With regard to the hon. Gentleman's Bill, as I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), it would be wholly impractical and unworkable to enforce legislation on the lines that he set out. That is why the Government are not prepared to support the Bill. I have seen a copy of the letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to the hon. Gentleman earlier this week. The arguments set out in that letter represent the arguments of the entire Government.

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

Contacts with major packers indicate considerable variations in sales but overall these may be about 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of levels experienced in November. Packing station throughput has fallen by about 13 per cent. The balance is going for export and into egg products. Total returns to producers, including bonuses, are about 34p per dozen—still considerably below production costs, which are currently rather more than 40p per dozen.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the slaughter policy for salmonella-infected chickens, which was advocated by me and by many of my hon. Friends, has been warmly welcomed by the industry?

I confirm my hon. Friend's first point and I am grateful to the industry for welcoming the slaughter policy. On the second point, my hon. Friend will know that under the Animal Health Act 1981 the Government are required to pay compensation whenever compulsory slaughter is imposed. We propose that compensation will normally be assessed by reference to a scale of values which takes into account the fact that the birds are from a flock known to be infested with salmonella. I do not wish to raise any expectations on the part of my hon. Friend, but I shall be happy for him to write to me on the point about which he is concerned.

Will the Minister give a clear, unequivocal guarantee that it is okay to eat Cadbury's Easter eggs this year without having to boil them first?

Yes, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that eggs remain a very valuable source of protein at a modest price?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I can assure him that my family and I—like the large number of families that I have met in recent weeks—continue to eat eggs in the way that we always have done, taking into account the chief medical officer's advice about raw eggs.

Does the Minister agree that when setting up the working party to examine all aspects of egg production and hygiene it was a mistake not to include someone from the Department of Agriculture of the North of Ireland? Does he agree that it would make sense to learn from the experience of Northern Ireland, where egg production has been kept salmonella-free and has left us able to say that we in Northern Ireland are the good eggs?

The working party was considering what further information and research on salmonella was required. As that related to the position in England, Scotland and Wales particularly, it was right to draw the working party's members from each of those areas. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I think that I have done on other occasions, that we try to learn what we can from the experience of Northern Ireland, which, as he says, is salmonella-free.

Will the Minister confirm that the egg and poultry industry has failed to provide funds for the continuation of research into reducing salmonella at the Institute of Food Research at Bristol? Does he not agree that it is a scandal that the three members of staff working on the competitive exclusion project at Bristol will be made redundant as from tomorrow?

We have made it clear many times that the decisions about that project were made before the recent concern about salmonella, and were based on the view that the fundamental research work had been completed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, some companies are using that research to develop projects in the market place, and I hope that others will continue to look at it. That is the present requirement.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the European Council of Ministers concerning fraud within the European Community.

I have regularly raised in the Agriculture Council the problem of fraud within the European Community, most recently in the November 1988 and February 1989 Councils.

Did the Minister tell the people in charge of the corruption department in the Common Market that the British taxpayer is fed up to the back teeth with having to dole out something approaching £6 billion last year for the Mafia to make money out of olive trees that do not even exist? Is it not a scandal that, when every family in Britain is paying £16 a week into the common agricultural policy, £5 a week of that is going on fraud? The money should go into the pockets of the farmworkers, who have just been offered a miserly 7 per cent.

By definition, we do not know the exact scale of money involved in fraud in the European Community, although various estimates have been made. This is, however, a historic occasion: for once I can agree with part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I think that it is the first time that that has ever happened.

Can I have that in writing?

It will be in writing. I entirely agree that wherever fraud exists in the Community—and it almost certainly exists on too large a scale in the CAP—it is important for us to take all possible steps to eradicate it. The British Government have taken the lead in arguing for that, and in putting forward action programmes to deal with the problem.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to the belief of the Opposition parties—who would have us think that more inspectors and auditors would prevent fraud—the answer is to reform the system? That is what we are now doing. The reduction of beef intervention to 200,000 tonnes is a step in the right direction, although the complete answer is the obviation of beef intervention altogether.

I certainly agree that changes in various policies and schemes in the CAP will go a considerable way towards reducing opportunities for fraud. As well as the proposal that my hon. Friend has mentioned, we are strongly urging the elimination of monetary compensation amounts by 1992, which would also be very helpful.

While welcoming the Minister's view of fraud in other member states, may I ask him to comment on the situation in this country, where a person involved in grain storage confessed in a Central Television programme to the most outrageous practices? Many people expected a prosecution to follow and still cannot understand why confessions in such public conditions should not have resulted in a prosecution.

I shall have to look into that case. I have not seen the television programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I assure him that we follow up all cases of suspected fraud. Successful action was taken between 1984 and 1988 in 41 cases of fraud under the CAP; 19 were prosecuted and the others were settled out of court. Of the 19, there were nine prison sentences and fines of up to £40,000. I also assure the hon. Gentleman that the question of identifying checks on CAP products, particularly with a view to tracing fraud, is now a high priority in the current Customs and Excise management planning programme. We are anxious to ensure that we carry out the proper checks and follow them up in this country.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of potato producers and distributors; what was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend met the National Farmers Union and the Scottish National Farmers Union on 1 March 1989 and the Potato Marketing Board and the Potato Processors Association on 8 March 1989, to discuss their responses to the Government's consultation paper on future potato market policy. All responses are now being considered and a decision will not be delayed unduly.

Will my hon. Friend assure consumers that whatever his decision on the Potato Marketing Board, there will continue to be a plentiful supply of first-class potatoes at a price everyone can afford?

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that firm, unyielding commitment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the west midlands, in my part of the world, both the large-scale professional potato growers and the small-scale growers are of like mind that the third option of his consultative paper would be the right way to go in that it would remove the public money dimension? Would it not be advisable to give the industry the solution that it would prefer?

My hon. Friend is tempting me to comment on each of the three options before a decision is taken. Alas, I cannot do that, but I assure him that a decision will be taken soon and that the views of hon. Members will be taken into account.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the sale of those organs from all cows and sheep that are known to carry the viral agent which causes bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

On the advice of the Southwood working party, the carcases of cattle suspected of having BSE are destroyed as a precautionary measure. In addition, from 18 July 1988 the Government introduced a ban on the use of ruminant-based protein in feed rations for ruminants, since this is the most likely cause of the disease. Scrapie has been present in this country for at least 200 years without any evidence of a risk to humans. Neither has research identified such a risk. In the circumstances, the ban which has been suggested would not, therefore, be appropriate.

The Southwood committee, to which the Minister referred, recognised that there was a danger to human health from the consumption of infected organs. The Minister said that scrapie had been endemic in this country for 200 years. But is he aware that there have been incidents of BSE only since 1987? Given the fact that the agent responsible both for scrapie and BSE has demonstrated its capacity to cross the species barrier, does the hon. Gentleman agree that his Department is being complacent in not banning the sale for human consumption of all those organs which have the potential for holding the reservoir of this infection?

The hon. Gentleman does well to take this mater as seriously as the Government take it. We shall not accept any charge of complacency on the issue. Indeed, the Southwod report congratulated the Government on the speed with which we acted, and I congratulate Opposition Members on the responsible way in which they have acted in relation to that report. The Southwood report concluded that it was most unlikely that BSE would have any implications for human health, and the measures that we are taking are precautionary only. We have now set up the Tyrrell committee, which will advise us on further measures that should be taken. We shall act as quickly on those measures as we have on those contained in the Southwood report.

My hon. Friend's reply shows why there is a growing need for fully trained vets in the United Kingdom. Is he aware that the United Kingdom is importing one vet per day? Will he take this opportunity to turn down the recommendations of the Riley report suggesting that we close the vets colleges at Cambridge and Glasgow?

I have listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. I have answered questions which have given him the information which he has just recycled. However, the Riley committee is a matter for the Department of Education and Science, not for us.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce the contamination of food.

In implementing our food safety policy my Department and the Department of Health will continue to ensure that we get the facts, that we have the best scientific assessment of them and that action is taken wherever changes are shown to be necessary.

In view of the relevance of the statement by the Minister and the continuing increase in radioactivity in the sheep flocks in Cumberland, is it not time that we had a survey? Since the Chernobyl accident happened three years ago, why do we not have a national survey of radioactivity taken from the aerial surveys of the whole country?

The area concerned is being surveyed and monitored all the time by Ministry officials.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency D. B. Marshall, which is a large chicken processing plant employing over 1,000 people, is deeply concerned at the dramatic reduction in sales that has occurred following the hysteria over chickens? There has been a drop of 20 percent. in sales of fresh chickens and of 30 per cent. in sales of frozen chickens. This puts at risk many jobs. A total of £5 million has been spent on this plant in recent years to make it the most modern and up-to-date in Europe. Consequently, we now want some sanity on this matter and some clear evidence that processors are producing chickens of the quality required.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. That is why sales of eggs are gradually recovering and sales of poultry are increasing and have been during the past few years.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with the farm woodland scheme.

There has been a very encouraging level of interest shown by farmers in the farm woodland scheme. In the first five months of the scheme over 750 farmers have applied to plant 5,300 hectares of trees throughout the United Kingdom. A high proportion of the planting will be with broadleaved trees.

This is welcome news indeed. Can I ask my hon. Friend whether MAFF is co-operating with the Department of the Environment in its review of tree preservation orders, as this will offer an opportunity to increase protection of our broadleaved forest and expand its acreage?

Indeed, I have had a meeting with my ministerial colleagues in the Department of the Environment to discuss this matter and their review will be taking into account for TPOs not only trees on roadsides and so forth but trees in hedgerows.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many days' supply of grain he estimates will be in store at the end of July 1989 (a) in Britain and (b) in the world.

The International Wheat Council currently forecasts closing world stocks for cereals for the 1988–89 crop year at 229 million tonnes. or around 60 days' supply. Intervention stocks of cereals in the United Kingdom currently stand at 1·1 million tonnes, or around 22 days' supply. The total quantity of cereals in store at the end of July 1989 will depend principally on the level of exports over the rest of the present marketing year and the level of commercial stocks being carried over to the next harvest.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he think these stock levels are adequate or does he agree with FAO that they are likely to be dangerously low?

I do not think that my hon. Friend should be lulled into the belief that there is not a surplus in Europe at the moment. The Government are getting to grips with that surplus through stabilisers and other means of reforming the CAP, which I know he supports.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any representations from farmers who took advantage of the milk outgoers scheme who now wish to return to production following the Mulder case.

My Department has been approached by more than 400 farmers, most of whom took part in the 1977 non-marketing of milk and dairy herd conversion schemes, following the judgment of the European Court.

I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to listen carefully to those farmers who wish to return to production, because there is some pressure in our constituencies for that to be granted.

We shall examine every case as carefully as possible as 600,000 tonnes of new quota is to be created, but it would be wrong for anyone to think that they can put one across with the tribunals and be included in the allocation.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 March 1989.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the Hungarian Foreign Minister. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

When the Prime Minister met the Foreign Minister of the Republic of South Africa yesterday, did she receive a satisfactory reply when she urged the immediate release of the long-suffering Nelson Mandela and the abolition of the obnoxious Separate Amenities Act? Given Moscow's new approach to violence and the African National Congress, did she emphasise that now is the time for South Africa to reach a rapprochement with people inside and outside the republic?

As the hon. Gentleman said, I repeated once again that we wish that the South African Government would release Nelson Mandela, as then the atmosphere would change completely and it would be possible to start negotiations between the Government of South Africa, the black South Africans and other coloured people in South Africa. A number of people in very high places in South Africa take the same view, but they have not yet been able to achieve that. However, I remain optimistic that before long they will be able to do so because it is vital that voluntary negotiations get started.

Can the Prime Minister tell us how increases in water charges of between 10 and 43 per cent. help Britain to proceed towards zero inflation?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we shall need increases in water charges, not for privatisation, as he will say, but to provide the capital to spend on the required increased quality. We have already spent far more than any previous Government and we have got rid of much of the previous backlog of things that needed to be done. It is totally unrealistic to suggest that we can have higher quality without extra expenditure.

It is right to want higher quality and it is obvious that that will have to be paid for—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Order.

How is that desirable objective to be assisted by the creation of private monopolies?

Because the private sector will have far greater access to investment and carries out far more research and development. It has been proved in France on many occasions that a privatised water supply is very much more efficient than a public organisation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that only yesterday he was complaining that prices of certain commodities were not going up.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the initiative of the South African Government to bring peace to Mozambique? Added to the agreements on Namibia and on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angora, does that not show a constructive approach to solving the problems in southern Africa?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The agreement on the United Nations resolution and the proposal to implement it and to have elections in Namibia in November, is very good news. It could not have been achieved without the overwhelming co-operation of South Africa; nor could the Cuban troop withdrawal have come about in Angola without that co-operation.

Why is the Prime Minister's first reaction always to shoot the messenger rather than listen to the message?—[Interruption.]

Order. Interruptions take up a lot of time.

Why is the right hon. Lady's first reaction always to shoot the messenger rather than listen to the message? When will she realise that it is not so much her eight Environment Ministers but the privatisation of water that is balderdash and bunkum?

I have very good messengers and they have a very good message. The privatisation of water is a very much better deal for the consumer. Twenty-five per cent. of it is already privatised. It is far better to have regulation and production separate. For the first time we shall have a National Rivers Authority and a Director-General of Water Services. We shall get much more investment, which will lead to much more research and technology. Of course, much depends on the latest technology when dealing with water. There will be a consumers' charter. It will be very much better for the environment. That is the message.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the manifesto commitment of the Opposition that a new Labour Government would call a national economic—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member's question must relate to the Prime Minister's responsibility.

that the Labour party would call a national economic—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Order. That is not good enough. The hon. Member must ask a question about the Prime Minister's responsibility.

How is it that my right hon. Friend has achieved the Labour party's laudable target of reducing—[Interruption.]

Order.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and the nation why a Government with a surplus of £14 billion cannot allocate the small sums of money that are necessary for the National Health Service to stop charging for eye tests, and to enable the right hon. Lady to fulfil her pledge on full pensions for pre-1973 war widows, whose husbands made the supreme sacrifice?

The Government have allocated very much greater resources to the National Health Service than ever before—[Interruption.] In the lifetime of the previous Labour Government it was £8 billion a year; now it is £24 billion a year. [Interruption.] The latest Budget has given considerable relief on national insurance contributions, of some £3 a week on average, which people will have available for other purposes. We have been able to create the prosperity that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents enjoy through Conservative policies, which have led to a higher standard of living and a higher standard of social services than we have ever known before. All poor people on income support and family credit will get free NHS eye tests. [Interruption.]

Order. I ask the House to listen to the answers to questions.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on her considerable personal achievement in exporting the principles of the market economy and the enterprise culture to Communist Russia, where independence, initiative and enterprise are now being propounded by President Gorbachev as the essential nutrients of Soviet agriculture?

Yes, I think that the Soviet Union and some of the other satellite countries are learning. One cannot have the benefits of prosperity without a freer political system, backed up by economic freedom. Moreover, it is the only system that brings dignity. I wish that our friends on the Opposition Benches would also learn that lesson, for Socialism is but a pale shadow of Communism.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with the maxim enunciated by Lord Denning:

"Be you never so high, the law is above you"?

The events in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers took place more than six years ago. They have been subject to a long, painstaking and thorough series of investigations. The decision not to prosecute was taken by the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General. It then became a matter of police disciplinary procedure and 19 officers have now been disciplined. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is a highly professional police force that is dedicated to serving equally all sections of the community, and everyone should extend to the force the unqualified support that it fully deserves.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger that many people, especially in the upland areas of the north of England, would feel if untreated green top milk were banned? Does my right hon. Friend fully appreciate than many who have drunk untreated milk throughout their lives would find it quite incomprehensible if pure, untreated milk were banned, despite the fact that they prefer it and that tobacco continues to be freely available?

I am aware of the strength of feeling on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has therefore issued a consultation document to enable all views to be aired, and I know that he will take them into account. We have to weigh those views against the 1,600 cases of food poisoning associated with untreated milk that have occurred in the past five years. My hon. Friend knows that there is a difference in treatment between England and Scotland, and we must take all factors into account after the consultation is complete.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 March.

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

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable anxiety in some parts of the country about the length of hospital waiting lists. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the restart programme's considerable success in reducing unemployment? Will she make inquiries to see whether a restart equivalent could be applied to National Health Service waiting lists?

I thank my hon. Friend. As he knows, there were special programmes to reduce the waiting lists. In one year we allocated £25 million for that specific purpose, and had the beds to try to get the number of outstanding operations down. The following year the figure was some £30 million. The modest sums that will come in from things such as eye tests and dental examinations will help us to continue to provide other programmes to cut the waiting lists.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the current level of world stocks of grain.

World stocks of grain are expected to fall over the current year because of adverse weather conditions in 1988 in a number of countries, notably the United States and Canada. However, sowings of winter cereals in the main production areas for the 1989 harvest are well up on last year and, given favourable weather conditions, world cereals production is likely to increase significantly in 1989.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for her reply, may I ask whether she is aware that the FAO thinks that world stocks of grain are dangerously low?

I think that that is just a little at variance with the report that I have just given. Our objective is to reduce the surplus of grain so that we may have a better world price, which will be helpful to all those in the Community who grow wheat. So far, the situation looks reasonably good, but we shall know better towards the end of the year.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take points of order after the business statement.

It arises out of questions, Mr. Speaker.

That may well be so, but I shall still take it afterwards.