To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress on the negotiations on the future of the sheepmeat regime.

Discussions on the Commission's proposals for changes to the sheepmeat regime have made little progress. I suspect that negotiations are likely to continue for some time.

I am sure that many of our sheep farmers would like to know whether the Minister is in favour of the present grading system, the deficiency payment and the headage payment, or is he in favour of further cuts in support systems.

I certainly think that we have to tackle the escalating cost of the sheepmeat regime because it has virtually doubled in three years and is now nearly 1.7 million ecus. In terms of the outcome of the regime, I am very much in favour of ensuring a system that will enable our industry to gain full benefits from its excellent structure, efficiency and expertise and from our natural advantages. I suspect that at some stage we will be looking at a different set of proposals, which is why I do not want to be too specific about how exactly we achieve our objectives. I am clear about our objectives and that we want to ensure that our sheepmeat industry has the maximum opportunities in the Community. I have made it clear from the outset that I am opposed to limits on headage payments.

My right hon. Friend will know that the farmers of south Dorset are particularly well set up and very efficient producers of mutton and lamb, and that they depend very much on the sheepmeat regime. Can my right hon. Friend reassure them that by a combination f the sheepmeat regime and green pound reform the Government will ensure that it is economic to produce mutton and lamb well into the next century?

I can assure my hon. Friend that that is very much my objective. Recent decisions that I have secured in the Community have proved that. My hon. Friend will know that the green pound devaluation which we secured in the recent price negotiations was more than double that of our nearest competitors in the Community. That greatly improves the competitive position of our producers and is another indication of how I fight for their interests.

What is the Minister's reaction to the fact that the European Commission wants to do away with variable premiums by 1992? The Commission specifically proposes to impose headage limits for hill livestock compensatory allowances. Is that not a serious threat of discrimination against British producers, especially those in the hills and uplands? Will he take this opportunity to give sheep farmers and their employees a clear statement of his and the Government's intentions for the future of the industry?

I have already made it clear that I am determined to fight for their interests in the way that I have always done. I have indicated the extra benefit that we secured in the price negotiations this year. I am as opposed as anyone to the imposition of limits on headage payments, because as well as running against the general objective of the CAP, which is to reward efficient producers and take advantage of natural advantages, it is clearly discriminatory. It also fails to take account of the importance to producers on quite modest incomes of the need to have substantial numbers of sheep in certain parts of the country, especially in Scotland where I have been for the last two days and where I thoroughly discussed these matters with Scottish sheep producers.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether a diagnostic test for irradiated food is yet available.

Work is continuing to develop tests that could be applied to particular categories of produce. Meanwhile, in those countries where food irradiation is already permitted, control of the process is carried out by licensing and documentary checks as recommended by the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Can the Minister confirm that with or without the availability of a diagnostic test his Government have decided to authorise the legitimation of the sale of irradiated food? Perhaps that is inevitable. If we believe everything we read in Vanity Fair the Prime Minister herself believes that ionising radiation in the bath will extend her shelf life. Is it not the case that dodgy produce that has passed its sell-by date is as unacceptable to the British consumer as are Prime Ministers who have passed their sell-by date?

The World Health Organisation approves of irradiation. More than 20 countries use irradiation, and more than 30 countries, including the United States and France, permit it despite there being no test available to those countries. Under those circumstances, there is no reason why we should not follow suit.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the consumer finds it unacceptable not to be given the choice of choosing food that is irradiated or not? Until a test is available that can inform the consumer whether food is irradiated it should not be sold in this country.

I ask my hon. Friend to be patient. Next month we shall publish a report by some of our officials who are drawing up a framework for irradiation. I will be greatly surprised if labelling does not feature among their main recommendations.

As no diagnostic test currently exists, does the Minister appreciate that not only consumers but farmers, retailers and the Labour party are against irradiated food? The only people in favour are the Government's big business backers. Will the Government back down and respect the will of the British people not to market irradiated food in this country until a diagnostic test is available?

I have seldom heard such nonsense. The advisory committee on irradiation and novel foods, formerly under the chairmanship of the master of Darwin college, Cambridge, and now under the chairmanship of the vice-chancellor of the university of East Anglia, concluded without doubt that irradiation is safe. All the Government's scientific advisers have shown that it is safe, as has the World Health Organisation. More than 30 countries permit it, so why not Britain?

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the proposed introduction of food irradiation in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, the Government accept independent scientific advice that food irradiation, properly applied, is safe, and that moreover it offers consumers real health and economic benefits. I have just received the report from officials on the framework of controls that would be necessary if we were to remove the present prohibition. I will announce a decision as soon as consideration of their report has been completed. A number of organisations and individual bodies have drawn attention to specific matters relevant to the controls, and they too will be taken into account in our consideration.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will move cautiously. There is widespread public concern that irradiation will merely mask unsafe foods. After all, we have lived happily for generations without it, and can do so in the future. There is a danger that 30 years hence we shall all be back here saying that we should not have taken such a step because there has been damage to life and health.

The advice of scientists from 54 countries, based on their consideration of the matter over a long period, is that they believe irradiation is safe. It is important of course that food is not unfit for consumption before it is irradiated. Irradiation can do nothing for food that has already deteriorated, any more than can pasteurisation.

Does the Minister accept that, leaving aside the probable dangers of irradiation in terms of the creation of free radicals which may well create chemicals within food which are dangerous to human health, irradiation is dangerous because it is impossible to detect whether the food was unfit before it was irradiated? The only way of detecting whether food is of sufficient quality at present is by examining the bacterial load on that food. We have no means of detecting the original bacterial load before the bacteria have been killed by irradiation.

The advisory committee on irradiated and novel foods consists of top-level experts specialising in radiological protection, biochemistry, microbiology, toxicology and nutrition. They have thoroughly examined all aspects of the subject and have come to the clear conclusion that it will not prejudice the safety and wholesomeness of food and that it has certain advantages. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clarke) may be correct in what he said about the Labour party, but I can assure him that he is not correct in what he said about the responses of many consumer organisations, farmers, consumers and others outside the industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that every winter an advertisement on television shows a young boy who eats a bowl of porridge and then starts to emit a red glow? Is he aware that many members of the public feel that a similar result may occur when they eat irradiated food? It is absolutely necessary that there is public confidence in this matter. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will take whatever steps necessary to bring about that confidence?

Yes, indeed. We ave already received a report from the advisory committee on irradiated and novel foods. There have been many conferences in many countries, and as my hon. Friend said, irradiation is practiced in more than 20 countries and is available in more. It is important to have a proper framework of control in general and to deal with the problem of unfit food. Labelling will also be necessary so that consumers can exercise free choice. I hope that when we publish that report we will have a very thorough debate, which I believe will show that irradiation, properly controlled, can play an important part in food safety.

Does the Minister appreciate that a great weakness of the irradiation of food is that it allows unfit food to be dressed up as good food? Is he aware that in this country imported seafood has been found to be unfit for consumption, exported to Holland, irradiated and re-imported to Britain and put on the market?

Such matters will be an important aspect of the framework of controls that we shall set up. I urge the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the working party report and the Government's conclusions on it.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has received on the outcome of the recent price-fixing negotiations in Brussels.

The price settlement was very satisfactory for the United Kingdom. The green pound devaluations and reductions in the milk co-responsibility levy which I secured have been particularly welcomed in the House and elsewhere.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is entitled to gentle if not ecstatic congratulations on that generally satisfactory outcome? Is it not particularly good that there has been a step towards reducing the milk co-responsibility levy and will he press for further progress in that regard?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the major breakthroughs in this year's price negotiations was that we achieved a reduction in the milk co-responsibility levy across the board, and elimination of it in less-favoured areas. We also secured a commitment that that would be the first stage in further developments towards phasing it out. It is particularly satisfactory that many other Ministers now recognise that the milk co-responsibility levy does not necessarily have a part to play in the CAP reforms. I hope to extend that to cereals. I assure my hon. Friend that I will be pressing for further progress in future price negotiations.

Will the Minister give us an assurance that the recent changes in interest rates will be taken into acount in future price-fixing negotiations, as they are creating adverse financial conditions for farmers in my constituency? Returning to headage payments, is the Minister aware that 884 farms in my constituency and in Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale are in receipt of hill livestock compensatory allowances, and the headage payments restrictions would adverseley affect them? We welcome the Minister's support, and hope that he will strengthen his resolve to ensure that those arrangements are not interfered with.

The next price negotiations—I am almost tempted to say thank goodness because they take so much time—will not begin for another nine months or so. It would not be right for me to comment on what general aspects of agriculture we shall be considering then. The draft proposals for the hill livestock compensatory allowances are only at an early stage of consideration and I am sure that there will be long negotiations on them. I have made clear my position on headage payments limits, but I must point out that one of the difficulties facing us is that a number of other member states are trying to skew the many elements of the common agricultural policy far more towards very small farmers. That is not in the interests of agriculture in the Community as a whole. However, it is one of the factors that they will be taking into account in looking at the limitations, so I shall have quite a battle. I am clear that it would be a mistake to extend the system any further. I voted against the beef regime recently because I disliked the limitation on headage payments there.

Will my right hon. Friend inform the House what effect the devaluation of the green pound will have on farmers' incomes?

I am glad to say that the changes in the green pound this year will, of themselves, add about £155 million to farmers' incomes, but will have a negligible effect on the retail prices index.

That, of course, will not do anything to offset the 20 per cent. loss in farm incomes from 'which farmers have suffered since 1983. Can the Minister tell us whether, when he was in Brussels, he discussed the pricing of organic produce? Can he tell us especially whether he tried to convert his colleagues in Brussels to the view advanced in Britain by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who said a couple of weeks ago that he regarded the production of organic food as another means by which farmers rip off consumers?

That is not what my right hon. Friend said.

Yes, it is.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, we did not discuss the pricing of organic produce in Brussels and we have not done so before. The increase in organic production has a part to play—although in my own view, it is not a major part—in the development of agriculture and it is important to allow it to develop because I know that some consumers especially want organic food. It is important that organic produce should be defined correctly and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome our recent announcement about an agreement on standards for organic produce, which is an essential first step in the development of organic produce.

My right hon. Friend won many advantages for British farmers in the Brussels negotiations. Did he have an opportunity to discuss the fruit and vegetable regime, which still suffers from many inefficiencies, costs about £1 billion ecu a year and has been sharply criticised by the Court of Auditors?

I have noticed that the Court of Auditors has just criticised the operation of the regime and I am trying to get hold of a copy of its report myself because I want to study it urgently. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the price negotiations. We managed to extend the stabilisers to certain further vegetables and there have been, therefore, reductions in price there, which will be helpful in dealing with some of the critical aspects of the regime that my hon. Friend has in mind.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in reducing the damage to the world's whale population.

The moratorium on commercial whaling, agreed by the International Whaling Commission, has been the major step in reducing damage to the world's whale population. It has been in place since 1985 and effectively observed since 1987. The United Kingdom has played a leading role in achieving that and in tackling possible loopholes.

May I thank the Minister for his sterling work on behalf of the world's whale population? Does he agree that far more needs to be done, especially in respect of the actions of the Japanese? Does he agree that the Japanese Government seen to be positively venal in the way in which they abuse the world's animal resources, especially whales and elephant ivory? Will he ask his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to call in the Japanese ambassador and tell him that if the Japanese continue to exploit almost to extinction some of the most wonderful animals on this planet, we will stop buying their wretched cars and hi-fi?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I have a fellow feeling for both whales and elephants. We have taken the lead in sponsoring resolutions against Japanese whaling in the International Whaling Commission. Despite attracting 16 votes in favour and only four against, our latest proposal failed to be adopted by just one single vote. Nevertheless, the result clearly demonstrated the serious concern that exists not only in this House but around the world and Japan should pay firm heed to that.

Is the Minister aware of how deeply the nation feels about the plight of whales and elephants? How much whale and elephant meat—

On whales, please.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) mentioned elephants. What steps are being taken to prevent both those meats being imported for dog food?

I do not have a specific answer to my hon. Friend's question but I shall write to him on that matter.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how long he expects the lamb variable premium to continue.

There are complex negotiations ahead. We must ensure that the future regime, whether through variable premiums or some other means, enables our industry, including that in Northern Ireland to prosper and gain full advantage from the excellent structure, efficiency and expertise that it already has.

In the light of the need to continue to reduce consumption of animal fats, does the Minister accept that any scheme succeeding the present premium should also encourage and favour the production of lean meat?

Yes, in fact we have just reduced the maximum weight payable on fat lambs from 26·5 kg to 21 kg, which does exactly what the hon. Gentleman has requested.

As the Minister mentioned Northern Ireland in his answer, what does he see as being the future of the sheepmeat regime as we move towards 1992?

I see the sheepmeat regime, especially that in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, moving forward with greater exports and greater efficiency. We have already exported 23,572 tonnes of sheep and mutton this year and we hope that that will continue.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to persuade the EC to concentrate beef support on the suckler cow.

In the discussion on the reform of the beef regime we pressed for reduced levels of intervention support and increased direct payments to producers, particularly specialist beef producers. I am pleased to say that the case for concentrating more support on the suckler cow was recognised and we secured the possibility of a major increase in the suckler cow premium which will, following the announcement that I made recently about United Kingdom national financing, be set 42 per cent. higher in 1989–90 at the maximum permissible of £47·43 per cow.

When my right hon. Friend discusses these matters with our European partners, will he remind them that in concentrating support for beef on the suckler cow rather than on intervention and on headage payments, with all the difficulties and problems to which they give rise, they would be helping a system that would be much easier to administer, much less prone to fraud and which would target aid to rural areas and specifically to the primary producers? Will he also remind them that that in its turn would help to keep people and families in the countryside, which would be helpful in producing a high quality product in a natural way and bring tremendous nutritional value to the consumer?

I agree with all those points. We now have a policy that is more market oriented, and that too is in the interests of the consumer. Those were the points that I had in mind when we pressed for the changes that we have now secured.

In future, will small farmers who at present are earning more from part-time employment off their farms, benefit from all the payments that are made available on suckler cows?

Yes, I think that is so.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing a 42 per cent. increase in the suckler cow premium, not only from Europe but in negotiations with our own Treasury. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of not rushing into any proposal to amalgamate the suckler cow premium with the remaining value of the headage payment, certainly not for the present, and under no circumstances when there might he a headage limit on the suckler cow premium as well?

There are no further proposals on this front at present, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Will the Minister keep particularly in mind that any headage limitation is just as inappropriate in this area as it is for sheep, particularly in parts of the country such as Northumberland, where farms units are large and where the nature of the land and the acreages involved are such that large numbers are necessary?

The point about large numbers being necessary is one that I have stressed constantly in relation to limits on headage payments. As I indicated earlier on the special beef premium, I eventually voted against the final package because it still contained that element. I am sorry to say that we could not muster a qualifying blocking minority, but I indicated my position by voting as I did.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he proposes to take any action in response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendation on licensed trade tenants' security contained in its report on the supply of beer.

Government decisions on the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission are for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. He will, of course, be taking account of the views of the National Licensed Victuallers Association.

I should like him also to take into account the views of my hon. Friend, because he bears responsibility for tenant security for licensees; I do not know why. He has been subject to a considerable amount of lobbying over the years by publicans who are concerned about their tenant security. As the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer recommended that publicans now become subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 my hon. Friend will obviously want to express an opinion to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and the House would like to know what that opinion is.

As soon as the report was published, I met the NLVA. Its views have been passed on to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Is it not fair to say that the Minister should have consideration for the small producers of food? That could apply also to small producers in the brewing industry. The small producers have been squeezed out and crushed for far too long by the juggernauts, the few, large brewers. The report gives small breweries a chance to get their beers into more chains through the guest beer slot and therefore encourages those businesses. Should not the Minister make representations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to defend those people?

Conscientious to a fault, I also met the small brewers soon after the report was published. It is inconceivable that my noble Friend is unaware of their views.

Does my hon. Friend not accept that the tenant of a pub, particularly in a rural area, plays a vital role in the community? Is he not concerned that if we erode the position of the tenant, we shall be doing great damage to rural communities? Therefore, will he not prevail upon his right hon. Friend to amend the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report?

My hon. Friend is tempting me, but I will resist the temptation. I am sure, having spoken to my noble Friend, that he is fully aware of the point of view that has been expressed by my hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend stop being so coy? He has not only a right to an opinion but a duty to have an opinion. Is he aware that on this extremely important issue the totally unreconstructed free market philosophy advocated from the Opposition Benches is not shared by all Conservative Members?

My hon. Friend is never short of his opinions. He can be certain that I am never short of mine when it comes to talking to my noble Friend.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the new beef premium.

The special premium for beef production, which replaced the beef variable premium, was introduced in the United Kingdom with effect from 3 April 1989. The first payments under the scheme were made to producers at the end of April.

What are the Minister's views on headage limits as a means of targeting support to smaller farmers?

I completely dislike headage limits. That is why we voted against the proposal in the Council of Europe.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the farming industry's opinion that, because of the decline in the national dairy herd of about 1·5 per cent. to 2 per cent. a year, we shall need an increase in the suckler cow herd of about 4 per cent. a year to meet the flow of beef required for the United Kingdom market? In the light of that, although the increase in the suckler cow premium to the maximum was welcome, is it possible that it will be insufficient to ensure that growth in the suckler herd? Will my hon. Friend carefully watch developments in the beef industry and ensure that growth is sustained so that United Kingdom producers can continue to supply their own present market shares and not be disadvantaged accordingly?

It is too early yet to see what effect the increase will have on dairy and suckler herds. Nevertheless, I will do exactly as my hon. Friend asked in the latter part of his question.

The Minister is not doing too bad. I liked his answer to the question. Is he aware that we like beautiful British beef on our tables on Sunday? I hope that the Minister will tell Europe where to get off and stop this European rubbish coming to our shores. We should all eat British beef.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The increase in the suckler cow premium will help to produce that British beef.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the public's response to the Hyde park festival of food and farming.

The festival of food and farming was a great success. Attendance was about 1 million, and visitors clearly enjoyed themselves thoroughly and were impressed. Great credit is due to all concerned in the planning and execution of that most imaginative event.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend's Department on its work on the festival. Does my right hon. Friend intend to repeat the festival? In view of his question, I suggest that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) should be invited to open another festival.

A most distinguished guest opened the festival. As my hon. Friend knows, that guest could not have been more distinguished. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I fully recognise what is behind his question, which is the importance of getting over to the public at large, and particularly the urban population, the great contribution that the farming industry makes to our food and to the attractiveness of our countryside. The festival was a great success in that respect. It was the first major Hyde park festival for nearly 150 years. There are obvious difficulties in repeating it year by year. I have noted my hon. Friend's support for the idea of doing it again.

Is it not the case that British food and farming has been rather soured by salmonella and listeria scares? Does the Minister agree that the British public want cleaner, healthier and pesticide-free food and a system of agriculture with a lower input of fertilisers and pesticides?

The British public quite rightly want an increasing range of high-quality, safe food. There will always be some problems throughout the world about dealing with safety, because salmonella and listeria are in the air that we breathe. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in the past few months we have taken a wide range of measures to deal with the new problem of one particular type of salmonella. The festival showed the very high quality of food that British farmers are producing, and the consumers' response was extremely good.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the festival was a marvellous opportunity to celebrate the centenary of his Department and to recall the excellent work that his Department has done and is doing on behalf of the British consumer in its polices, which it is pursuing vigorously, for the reform of the CAP?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, and in particular for underlining the dual role which we have and which is correctly done in one Department—that of pursuing the best agricultural production that we can possibly have and ensuring that the consumer interest is completely taken into account.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent quota-hopping.

Under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, substantially foreign-owned fishing vessels can no longer be registered as British fishing vessels and have no entitlement to fish against United Kingdom quotas. Following the failure of certain quota-hopping interests to obtain an injunction suspending the operation of the Act, the Government are monitoring the position and will take any action necessary. The Government are also urging the Commission to take action on a Community level to eradicate the practice of quota-hopping.

I welcome that reply. Will my hon. Friend pass on to our right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General the congratulations of the House and of our fishermen for the determined way in which he fought the case brought by Spanish interests? He fought it right up to the High Court and won. Will my hon. Friend also take a message of unity from this House to the European Commission to the effect that its apparent insistence in favour of quota-hopping would undermine the common fisheries policy in a way that would be absolutely fatal and to the detriment of our own fishermen in particular?

I shall pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to the Law Officers. I noticed in the judgment that the judges congratulated them on the way in which they presented the case. I shall also reinforce, as we have been doing, our unanimity in the House to stamp out quota-hopping.

Will the Minister explain what he means by monitoring quota-hopping? When he refers to the Government taking "any action necessary", may I ask him to explain what action will be taken, if necessary, to protect the fishing fleet and the rest of the United Kingdom?

The action that we have taken in the courts up to now has been successful and has driven quota-hoppers away from our shores. A licence can now be valid only if the vessel to which it relates is British registered. We intend to press on—in the courts, in the Community and elsewhere—to eradicate quota-hopping.

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

I met representatives of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, including the chairman, on 22 March when we discussed several issues of mutual interest.

Does the Minister agree that the whole House should recognise the value of hedges as wildlife habitats? Will he confirm that grants are available for the planting and laying of hedgerows under the new farm and conservation grants scheme? What action is being taken to prevent the erosion of the soil in some areas?

I fully share my hon. Friend's views about hedgerows. As he knows, the farm and conservation grants scheme, which began on 20 Feburary, provides grants of up to 40 per cent. for the planting of hedges in lowland areas. I particularly urge farmers in the east midlands and in East Anglia, my own part of England, to make full use of the grants.

Did the chairman raise with the Minister the whole question of the reorganisation of his Ministry? Is it true that discussions are going on as a result of which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might be linked to the Department of Industry? Alternatively, is it true that the Government might be considering setting up a whole new green Department based on a combination of briefs from various other Departments?

When I spoke to the chairman of the CPRE, Mr. David Astor, that matter was not on his agenda, but perhaps it may be next time.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to reduce levels of nitrate pollution caused by agricultural activities.

I announced in March the Government's intention to designate a pilot sample of nitrate-sensitive areas, in which a range of agricultural measures could be tested. Since then, a consultation document has been issued setting out the Government's more detailed ideas and inviting comments on them.

When does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to announce the set-aside in the nitrate-sensitive areas? Will he agree that the whole scheme that he has initiated is further proof that the Government care about good water quality and that we are in the lead in the European Community in trying to achieve that?

Set-aside is a different scheme from the proposals for nitrate-sensitive areas on which we intend to embark. We are getting ahead with our proposals for nitrate-sensitive areas. I hope to have the areas which we are using as pilot samples in place for the harvest in 1990. Of course, we need to have the Water Bill through Parliament, and the National Rivers Authority set up, before we can proceed with our proposals for the nitrate-sensitive areas. The fact that we are getting ahead with our proposals before the decisions in the European Community on this matter must be a clear indication of the Government's leading role in dealing with those matters.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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.

From personal experience, what advice would the Prime Minister give to neighbours who do not get on too well?

I am not experienced in such matters.

Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of a great many hon. Members that the principal member of her Government, the Lord Chancellor, is today being held to account by his Church for fulfillng his public duties? Does she agree that that is hardly the mark of a Church which would call itself Christian or tolerant?

I have very great sympathy with my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Will the Prime Minister tell us this month's excuse for the appalling trade figures?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, part of the reason for the trade figures is the higher investment that I understand he seeks.

is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some confusion on the Conservative Benches about the Government's economic policy? Will she state whether the recent increase in interest rates was to hold up the value of the pound or to restrict private credit and the money supply?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the recent increase in interest rates is to get the rate of inflation down. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find no con fusion on economic policy. The Chancellor and I find none. The only confusion that we find has arisen from the interview given on the BBC today by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when he called for import controls and for us to stop treating the pound as if it were a sacred relic. That is against the Common Market, against GATT, against the pound and against common sense.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

Does the Prime Minister acknowledge that since the last general election the rate of inflation has doubled, the trade deficit has quadrupled and mortgage rates are going through the roof? If those are signs that the Prime Minister is doing well, what will happen if she does badly?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, to us the rate of inflation is unacceptably high, but to the Labour party it was unsustainably low. It is better than it could sustain for more than a few months. Our performance has given the highest standard of living ever known, the highest number of jobs and a rate of inflation infinitely below the 26 per cent. rate of the Labour party.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

In view of the turmoil in China can my right hon. Friend give some assurances to the people of Hong Kong as, in the present situation, there must be considerable anxiety among them?

I share my hon. Friend's view and I believe that there must be very great concern in Hong Kong about events in China. My hon. Friend will recall the joint declaration we negotiated with China to guarantee that freedoms and the capital, economic policy, which Hong Kong enjoys, should continue for 50 years after 1997. I believe that it is very much in China's long-term interests to make that agreement work and to see Hong Kong remain stable and prosperous. I believe that that will be the case and we shall do everything possible to see that it is.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

Has the Prime Minister been briefed on the contents of the book "Who framed Colin Wallace?"? Is she aware that it contains specific details and evidence of acts of treason by the security services and that it contains specific records, on the record, from former members of the armed forces and the Civil Service confirming those acts? What advice would she give to Members of the House who wish to pursue such allegations, when her own Ministers continue to be evasive whenever those issues are raised?

No, Sir, I am not aware of the particular allegations in the book referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I dealt fully with allegations of that kind in my statement to the House on 6 May 1987 and I have nothing further to add to that statement.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to plan a visit to Lisburn and North Down where she would find that a huge number of people who see the path away from sectarian politics as being Conservative party participation in elections there?

I have been to Lisburn and I had a very warm welcome from all of the people there and I greatly enjoyed my visit. I shall not be able to get there very quickly, but I understand the point that my hon. Friend has made.

Will the Prime Minister please explain to the House how we can have a record deficit on the import of manufactures and, at the same time, barely reach the 1979 level of investment in the manufacturing industry? Will she explain to the House what has happened to the supply side miracle in the economy?

The supply side miracle has given us the highest standard of living the country has ever known, the highest standard of business investment ever known and now, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be very glad to welcome, the highest level of investment in manufacturing industry in real terms.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the police in Wolverhampton on their prompt and effective action in apprehending, earlier in the week, those who were dealing in crack? Will she reassure the House that she will give every support to those involved in making sure that that evil trade, which has brought so much misery and degradation to other parts of the world, is never allowed to take root here?

I believe that the police were entirely right to take firm action against drug dealers and that crack peddlers must know that they have no safe haven. I believe that the disturbances that followed the enforcement of the law at Heath Town on Tuesday night were absolutely disgraceful. I also believe that the police should be warmly commended on the action they took and on the way in which they restored order, quickly and effectively. I believe that, in doing so, they have the support of the overwhelming majority of the people of our country.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

Does the Prime Minister believe that the threatened expulsion of diplomats and journalists threatens the improving good relations between Britain and the Soviet Union, which are most welcome to the overwhelming majority of people of both countries?

I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that we should refrain from taking action against people who are carrying out unacceptable activities in this country. We found those people in both the Soviet and the Czech embassies and we had to take action against them. The action had to be taken regardless of the effect upon our relations. The worst thing of all would have been to say that because we have better relations we can ignore all those unacceptable activities.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she has never suspended an interview on "The World at One" because she objected to the line of questioning?

I confirm that. I was absolutely appalled at what happened today. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman could never take his place at this Dispatch Box because he would object to the line of questioning.

Try me.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the economic problem of this country is no longer that we are suffering from overheating but that the radiator has now blown up into tiny fragments all over her?

No, Mr. Speaker, but I note that official Labour policy would make things infinitely worse by wanting lower interest rates, lower exchange rates, higher public spending and, according to the shadow Chancellor, a less deflationary emphasis, all of which would lead to the sort of inflation we had when Labour was in power.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that she has never been a member of CND but has consistently advocated multilateral disarmament? Does my right hon. Friend believe that this consistency is absolutely vital if one is to be taken seriously as a political leader?

I confirm that I have never been a member of the CND. I believe in sure and strong defence of liberty. We know from experience that conventional weapons are not enough to prevent war, because of the two world wars that we have had. We must continue to have the nuclear weapon if we are to have peace in Europe.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

We have been listening with interest in the course of the past two or three months to the Prime Minister's references to the ozone layer and green issues generally. Can she tell us whether she expects that hole in the ozone layer to be patched up by the use of market forces? Has she got in mind a man, a ladder, a bike and an enterprise allowance?

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman—I believe a grammar school boy—would have had the understanding to know that it is the success and profits of the private sector that have been sufficient to finance the excellent research of the Antarctic Survey and to provide even more money for the survey to discover the hole in the ozone layer, which formed the basis of the action which has been taken on it, and that also it is the success of the market sector which is very rapidly producing ozone-friendly products to stop the threat to the ozone layer.

Can I say to my right hon. Friend how much the people of Heath Town will welcome her reassurance this afternoon? I will personally deliver her message to the police tomorrow. Can I have her assurance that she will advise that those who are found guilty of the terrible offence of handling crack be dealt with severely?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Crack is a very great danger and we shall do everything possible to stop it coming into this country. I hope that the courts will take notice of what my hon. Friend has said. I believe that people want that offence dealt with by severe sentences.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to repeat today the Chancellor's Budget prediction of 5½ per cent. inflation by the end of the year?

I am not going any further than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose handling of the economy has given everyone the highest standard of living and the highest standard of social services that they have ever known—[Interruption.] There is so much row from the Opposition because they cannot bear the facts to be told.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 May.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech that she made at Perth when she expressed strong support for the threatened Glasgow university veterinary school? Is she aware that we in Cambridge have always strongly supported Glasgow veterinary school, as it has supported us? Can I assume that my right hon. Friend's support for Glasgow extends to Cambridge?

I am very supportive of veterinary schools, which have a high standard of excellence. Glasgow, in addition, does a great deal of highly relevant research, and attracts much research from the private sector. I fully support my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his attempt to save it, which I believe will be successful.