Object.

Object.

Object.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the forthcoming food Bill; and if he will make a statement.

I have received a wide range of representations. I intend to introduce new legislation as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the forthcoming food Bill will not impose unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation on Britain's very successful food industry? Is he aware, for example, that many small, traditional family bakers could be driven out of business by the proposal to refrigerate or to freeze their products, particularly when those products are sold on the same day as they are produced? Will he do everything in his power to ensure that the small corner bread shop is protected?

The particular point to which my hon. Friend refers comes from a different source, but,in general, it is vital for the success of the British food industry that British consumers should feel that food is entirely safe and that we are acting on their side when we try to ensure that any gaps in the existing law are filled. I put food safety first and I hope that we will be able to achieve that end with the least amount of bureaucracy.

Will the Minister ensure that the new Bill contains clear regulations concerning the importation and sale of irradiated food? Does he share my concern about reports that irradiated food, such as prawns and shell fish, has found its way into this country, been sold to companies, processed into canned food and sold in our shops? Will he ensure that the new Bill contains clauses to prevent such activities?

If what the hon. Gentleman says were true I would be extremely concerned. I heard this allegation, yet again, but I was disappointed to find that those who made it had not bothered to put in front of me the evidence that they claimed to have. I asked immediately for that evidence and three days later, it arrived. I am having it examined urgently. The hon. Gentleman is right. I believe that consumers should choose whether they want irradiated food. All irradiated food should be properly labelled; then it will be for the consumer to decide.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further consideration he has given to the case for reducing the level of saccharin intake on health grounds and its implications for his decision to abolish the minimum sugar standard for soft drinks: and if he will make a statement.

I have asked my independent advisory committee for advice on the level of saccharin in certain foods. The revised soft drinks regulations retain, for the present, their statutory maximum level on the use of saccharin.

In view of the urgent advice which my hon. Friend seeks from his expert committees about the need to reduce the level of saccharin in the diet, is it not unwise at the same time to abolish the minimum sugar standard of soft drinks and thus open the way to the use of more artificial sweeteners, instead of safe and nutritious natural sweeteners?

Just because we are removing the minimum sugar standard in drinks does not mean that there will be an increase in artificial sweeteners. We are maintaining the present regulation which insists on not more than a certain amount of saccharin in all soft drinks and food.

Does the Minister agree that if the level of saccharin were reduced to protect the health of the people of the United Kingdom, that would give an opportunity for the greater use of cane sugar from the Commonwealth and help Commonwealth producers?

It may and it may not. Most soft drinks already contain much more than the minimum level of sugar. Even if it was found that there were risks connected with saccharin and people used less saccharin in soft drinks, an increase in the amount of sugar in soft drinks would not automatically follow.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if the abolition takes place, a large tonnage of sugar will be lost to the market? Has the Ministry made any estimate of what that loss will be? My information is that it will be about 150,000 tonnes a year. If that is so, what effect will it have on the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries—the Commonwealth countries which, under the Lomé convention, have quotas of cane sugar coming into this country?

I repeat the point: the abolition of the minimum requirement of sugar will not result in a substantial reduction in sugar in soft drinks. Many soft drinks, by their nature, require sugar for their flavour and texture. We believe that labelling is the correct requirement and if people want drinks with less sugar, those drinks should be labelled so that people can make their own decisions. The consumers' safety is paramount.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers to discuss fisheries policy.

I shall attend the next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 27 November.

In a recent Adjournment debate the Minister gave a commitment that there would be an announcement on a decommissioning scheme this side of Christmas. Is the Ministry in a position to make such an announcement?

I see no reason to change my position: we should settle this by Christmas. However, this will not be on the agenda of the Council of Ministers, and I do not intend to raise it with the Council.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable unease about the implications of the recent statement by the European Court, and the subsequent action taken, on the availability of fish off the south-west coast in the English channel? Will he assure the House that during the next negotiations he will seek an enhanced total allowable catch to take account of the additional fishing vessels in our waters?

My hon. Friend raises two points: the first relates to the so-called quota hoppers. We are confident that we still have a substantial provision, which is supported by the court, to defend ourselves against the great bulk of those hoppers. Whether I press for additional amounts of fish depends on the scientific evidence available to us. I cannot give an undertaking that we shall do so if the evidence from the scientists shows that it would be imprudent. I cannot invent fish, and there are not enough of them about at the moment.

The Minister discusses quotas and the total allowable catch with the scientists. Will he conduct an urgent investigation into the quality of scientific advice? It cannot be right that one year we are given one total allowable catch, and the next year it is cut by a third. We do not know where we are. Will the Minister make provision for an increase in the allowable catch, set up a far-reaching inquiry and ensure that the scientific evidence is right so that we can achieve stability in the industry?

I am always willing to review the methodology of the collection of information on total allowable catches. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is done by an international body. What I am not willing to do, once that evidence is presented, is to apply some sort of political coefficient to it just because that is convenient for political reasons. We depend on scientific advice reached objectively. I shall review it, but I will not invent fish.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest situation as regards the EEC proposal to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax for defeathering of geese and ducks.

The European Community has made no proposal to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax for this purpose.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern in the British poultry industry about a proposed Government regulation to ban the use of mineral hydrocarbon wax in the defeathering process, as part of a more general ban on mineral hydrocarbon oils? Is he further aware that the food science laboratory says that such waxes and oils have no effect on human health and that the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concurred with that view? Even if the ban were imposed, it would not apply to our European competitors; as a result it would hand a large part of the British poultry market to those competitors and there would be no improvement in the health of the people eating the birds.

I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to reassert that the primary purpose of Government legislation in this area is the safety of the public. That must come first. I am looking at the representations from the industry, and I realise its concern.

If the Minister cannot tell us about geese and ducks, can he tell us about defeathering Prime Ministers? Is there to be a stalking horse or not?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come often to agriculture questions, because the industry that we are discussing and the consumers who use its products are the most important in Britain. We want to ensure that the industry is healthy and we do not like it being used for cheap political jibes.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussion he has had since taking office with retailers on the subject of food labelling.

I have met a number of retailers individually and collectively and have discussed with them a wide range of labelling matters.

Apart from these discussions, has my hon. Friend discussed with the industry the need for proper refrigeration and storage? Does he agree that if all retailers were as good as Marks and Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury there would be no problem of food poisoning?

I have visited some large superstores especially to look at refrigeration and I am well aware of the high standards in the vast majority of superstores, markets and shops in this country. Nevertheless, my colleagues in the Department of Health are examining measures to improve our refrigeration and storage yet further and we are co-operating fully with them.

If the Minister persists in allowing irradiation, will he make sure that irradiated food is labelled as such and does not have a stupid label stuck on it whose meaning would not be obvious to the consumer?

It is very simple. I repeat the promise made from this Dispatch Box on many occasions: irradiated food will be properly labelled with the words "irradiated" or "subjected to ionising radiation". A logo is not in itself sufficient.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if his welcome food labelling initiative is to be successful, the labels on food packages must be honest? What plans does he have to ensure that the origin of food products is clearly marked and that labels marked "British beef', "British lamb" or "British eggs" mean what they say?

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister made that very point in an important speech yesterday. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that labelling must be honest. For example, Britain has set up UKROFS—the United Kingdom register of organic food standards—to ensure that the important organic food sector is not damaged by anyone who puts on food an organic label which it might not deserve. We are trying to introduce that system across the EEC because it is best to have EEC-wide organic food standards.

If the Minister understands the importance of information in facilitating consumer choice, why on earth does he not pursue a more vigorous policy? Will he acknowledge that the scheme that he presently favours is only voluntary and will not provide essential information such as the amount of sugar in a product or allow a consumer to differentiate between saturated and unsaturated fats? They are major deficiencies. Will the Minister reconsider the scheme for which he is arguing in the Council and recognise that, if nutrition labelling is to be effective, it must be not only comprehensive but mandatory?

I reject the hon. Gentleman's point. Britain is in the lead in nutritional labelling in the EEC. The hon. Gentleman must face the political reality that not many other EEC countries agree with the Government's labelling initiative on nutritional standards. As there is no prospect of a compulsory scheme being accepted at this stage, I see no point in bashing my head against a brick wall on this point. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are requirements in the directive. We can have mandatory labelling for certain nutrients if we perceive a particular risk. The British Government are insisting on a review of the voluntary proposals in three years' time to see whether they are working adequately.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector.

My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss a range of issues affecting the industry.

When my hon. Friend next meets the president, will he bear in mind the importance of maintaining milk prices to ensure the continuing viability of dairy farms, particularly small dairy farms, which are essential if the fabric of the countryside as we know it is to be retained?

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. Dairying is essential to the countryside. Real incomes in the dairy sector increased by 16 per cent. last year because quotas brought stability and profitability, and we aim to keep it that way.

When the Minister next meets the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the dairy sector, will he take into account the fact that there is a large butter surplus—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, there is not."] It is part of the dairy sector. When the Minister distributes the large dairy surplus in the form of butter, will he make sure that there is no confusion and disruption in Bradford, for example, because there are too few outlets for free EEC butter? Instead of obstructing distribution and refusing to allow new outlets, will the Minister adopt a different policy and thereby avoid the confusion, frustration and bad tempers that arise because of the long queues that are formed as a result of the Government's policies?

The hon. Gentleman is somewhat out of date. There is no longer a butter surplus. The justification for the scheme to which he refers is no longer relevant: it was to dispose of a surplus that no longer exists. If I had my way, I would not continue it at all.

My hon. Friend knows well that we cannot discuss dairy farming in isolation from other sectors. For example, wheat prices are 40 per cent. below what they were four years ago and bread prices are up by 20 per cent. As three companies mill 95 per cent. of Britain's flour, is it not time that we referred them to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the arable sector has been under considerable pressure. That is why we are seeking to assist it in the European negotiations. We have always been hostile to the co-responsibility levy, which is such a burden upon the arable sector. I am sure that we shall continue to seek higher profitability in this important sector of our countryside.

Will the Minister explain to the House why, having been informed by Dutch agriculture authorities on 1 November of the presence of lead-contaminated animal feedstock in the United Kingdom, he waited five days until 6 November before imposing restrictions? Why did he not issue precautionary notices to farmers immediately, warning them not to give this contaminated feedstock to their animals, thereby avoiding unnecessary cattle deaths and potentially hazardous milk entering the food chain?

The Minister acted with exemplary promptness. The hon. Gentleman has made a profession of trying to promote this sort of scare. We took action immediately. We recalled the contaminated feedstock and we have taken steps to ensure that no milk is distributed from the farms and no animals are slaughtered off the farms. We have taken every measure that could be taken and acted with a promptness of which the hon. Gentleman would have been proud had he been responsible for it.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the testing of small flocks of free-range hens.

I have received a large number of representations. These were taken into account in the preparation of the new orders of 26 October and will result in a considerable reduction in the cost of testing, particularly for small flocks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the testing requirements for salmonella for small flocks have caused considerable concern for organisations such as the Women's Institute and for people such as my mother-in-law, who sell free-range eggs at stalls at Women's Institute branches and at farm gates? These organisations and individuals will welcome the much simplified testing arrangements. the substantially reduced requirement for testing and the substantially reduced costs of testing for salmonella. Any reasonable-minded person will feel that my right hon. Friend has struck a fair balance.

I have received many letters from people who have stated that we have done exactly what was right. I do not know whether my hon. Friend's mother-in-law was among them. We had to put the safety of the eggs first. If we had not done that, smaller flocks such as those owned by my hon. Friend's mother-in-law might have been blamed for a future outbreak of salmonella. That would have been damaging to the consumer and to my hon. Friend's mother-in-law.

Why was it that when one of my constituents from Wooler made representations to the Minister on this matter and was featured in a national newspaper, a newspaper cutting was sent to the regional eggs inspector, who was dispatched on a 300-mile trip to warn my constituent to stop selling eggs that were not in boxes and had not been through a packing station? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to enforce these crazy packing rules on all free-range eggs sold in shops, or is enforcement reserved as a form of intimidation that is more characteristic of East European regimes than one would expect in this country?

The hon. Gentleman is being less than kind. We sought to help his constituent—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should hear me out. In the course of becoming aware of the lady's problem, we discovered that she might inadvertently have been breaking the law. She may have been doing what the hon. Gentleman said: selling her product through the village shop. We have laws that are designed to protect people from being ripped off. If we allowed free-range eggs to be sold that were not boxed some people would try to obtain a premium from eggs that were not produced in that way. I thought that the hon. Gentleman belonged to a party which believed in protecting the consumer. I put the consumer first.

As a rural Member, I have been under pressure from a number of members of the Women's Institute, including my wife, about egg production. I hope that my right hon. Friend can clarify a serious issue that arises from the orders that he has laid. There is genuine confusion about small flocks. When there is talk about a small flock of fewer than 25 birds, does that mean chickens or a combination of 25 chickens and ducks, for example? Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position?

We are talking about 25 chickens. The combination position is quite different. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that those of us who believe that we should be allowed to buy free range eggs, in the knowledge that they are both safe and free range when we pay for them, do not want the market to be undermined by those who want to get rid of the restrictions. We do not want them to move in and make a fast buck.

Will the Minister confirm that in recent months six consignments of imported eggs have been found to be contaminated with salmonella, yet all those consignments have been sold on the British market without let or hindrance? What is the point of driving 1,600 British egg producers out of business, as the Government have done during the past year, and then allowing foreign producers to fill the gap in the market without being subject to equivalent safety tests? Should there not now be effective health controls on all eggs supplied to British shops?

Of course I can confirm those figures because they are my own figures; they were given to the hon. Gentleman by my Ministry. The hon. Gentleman does himself and his party no service if he does not admit that the Government are fighting for our regulations on salmonella to be extended throughout the whole of the European Community. That is the only fair way to go about things. In the meantime, the 97 per cent. of eggs that people buy in this country, which are produced by this country's farmers, are all the safer because they are protected by our regulations. The hon. Gentleman should be fighting for people in Britain to buy British eggs, knowing that they are better protected. He and his hon. Friends should not constantly try to undermine the market.

Is it not true that free-range hens can often be more at risk of salmonella than battery hens because of birds of the air and others farmyard detritus? Have the figures that my hon. Friend has produced helped to resolve that argument?

When the salmonella arguments began, there were those who immediately jumped to the conclusion that the problem would help them in their argument in favour of free-range hens rather than battery hens. The very best that can be said is that there is no proof that the risks of salmonella are any less in free-range eggs than they are in any other sort of eggs. Indeed, my hon. Friend is right to say that there are natural hazards which could perhaps lead to somewhat greater risks in free-range eggs.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the present state of the British sheep industry.

The industry is pleased that the essential decisions on reform of the sheepmeat regime have been taken and is anxious to get on with the job of securing export markets.

What assistance will the Minister give to those sheep farmers in the less-favoured areas who this autumn have suffered a drop of at least one third in the sale value of their breeding ewes? That is a serious loss. Will the Minister therefore consider paying compensation to farmers who have sustained that loss due to changes in the transitional arrangements of the European Community sheepmeat regime?

There has been a drop in breeding ewe prices, although of late the recovery has been quite sharp. Some uncertainty played a part in that, but weather conditions resulting in lack of grass and forage also played a significant role. I am not prepared to consider compensation, but I am prepared to set out the final details of the regime so that there is certainty. The producers whom the hon. Gentleman and I represent in our constituencies will have a buoyant export market and stability to look forward to, which is far more useful to them than living in a permanent state of uncertainty with the threat of a change in their regime always imminent but never quite happening.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the British sheep industry recently suffered the grievous loss of a trans-shipment of sheep from New Zealand to a constituent of mine. They were a special strain of sheep which is gradually becoming extinct and they died as a result of the activities of customs officers at Honolulu airport. Will my hon. Friend make the strongest representations to the Americans to ensure that sheep coming to Britain in future will not have to remain for an hour and a half on the tarmac without air conditioning?

I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments. We have already taken up that matter most strongly with the United States authorities and will continue to press it.

Will the Minister give the House a categorical guarantee that British sheep farmers will not be any worse off as a result of the negotiations currently taking place in Brussels?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Commission's proposals to limit hill livestock compensatory allowances to the less-favoured areas. I can tell him categorically that we are opposed in principle to the Commission's suggestion because it discriminates against British farming.

My hon. Friend will be aware that in Scotland the Highland clearances removed the people so that sheep could be put in the glens and on the mountains. Is he satisfied that the changes that have taken place in the common agricultural policy will not result in a second Highland clearance, this time of the sheep? Will he confirm the strategic need to maintain the livestock on Scotland's hills?

I certainly confirm my hon. Friend's remarks. Continuing with the previous system would have threatened that livelihood in the hills and we were under continual pressure on that. However, as I have already said, we are determined to fight for the future of the British uplands which, in many cases, is based upon sheep.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his advisory committee on pesticides last met; and what matters were discussed.

The advisory committee on pesticides last met on 19 October when it reviewed a number of pesticides, the labelling of timber treatment products and the operation of the wildlife incident investigation scheme.

Is the Minister aware that on Tuesday this week I introduced a Bill to ban pesticides such as lindane? Is he also aware that since then I have been inundated with telephone calls from doctors, solicitors and members of families complaining of cases in which people have suffered from illnesses similar to that produced by lindane poisoning? This is a grossly under-reported area of the market. Will the Minister meet the all-party home safety committee and appropriate Ministers from other Departments to discuss the serious matter of the poisoning of the home environment by lindane and other nasty chemicals which can still be sold in do-it-yourself stores throughout Britain?

I took the opportunity of reading the speech that the hon. Gentleman made when he introduced his 10-minute Bill last Tuesday. The possible effects of lindane on the food chain have been reviewed by my Department's independent advisory committee on pesticides and we are satisfied that the uses of lindane in the agricultural sector are now so limited that there is no damage to the food chain. However, the Health and Safety Executive is reviewing lindane's industrial and home uses and I cannot comment on that at this stage.

Is not the Department to be congratulated on its recently published attractive booklet on pesticide use which deals with the issues in an adult manner? Will my hon. Friend undertake to release as much information as possible within the limits of confidentiality to contribute to a full debate on this important matter?

I thank my hon. Friend. I thought that the booklet was excellent, and I hope that it will be widely circulated among hon. Members and the community. It explains the rigorous checks that the Government apply to all pesticides, and the work of the independent academic experts who give the Government the best advice in the world.

Is the Minister aware of the deep concern about the use of the chemical nuvan as a pesticide in fish farming, especially salmon farming? What advice has he received from the advisory committee about the damage done by that chemical to the natural life of the sea, and to the environment in general?

That pesticide is due for review by our independent advisory committee, and I do not wish to say anything before that review is completed.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the effectiveness of the current measures designed to regulate straw burning.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has already announced a far-reaching review of straw and stubble burning, which will take account of the many representations that we have received. We hope to announce the conclusions of the review shortly.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend will wish to strike a happy balance between those who want a total ban and farmers who regard burning straw stubble as a necessity. I commend to my hon. Friend the proposal for a proper regulated licensing scheme, which I feel would strike that happy balance.

We shall consider every proposal put to us, including that one. I promise all hon. Members who wrote to me about the matter that we shall consider their views, and those of their constituents, very thoroughly.

Given the considerable potential for commercial and energy-based use of straw—and given that the arguments for burning it are tenuous, and that burning leads to habitat destruction, pollution and considerable nuisance for those living in rural areas—does the Minister agree that it is time that he drew up distinct proposals for an outright ban, rather than byelaws which have been shown not to work by the National Society for Clean Air?

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. I have enjoyed his speeches in the past.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on discussions held with the European Community concerning hill compensatory allowances.

We are firmly opposed in principle to Commission proposals that would discriminate against British farmers in the less-favoured areas, where they are essential to the welfare of our countryside.

Can the Minister give an assurance that any withdrawal of FEOGA funds will be made up by the Government? Can he give a further assurance that the hill compensatory allowance for this year will be increased?

We oppose the Commission's proposals in principle, and our first battle involves making certain that we impress on our negotiating partners the fact that we will not surrender a principle that is so important to us. All other issues are subsidiary to that.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest estimate for the volume of liquid milk available for use in the confectionery industry; and if he will make a statement.

The main use of liquid milk bought by the confectionery industry is for the manufacture of chocolate crumb. The current estimate of supplies for this purpose in the period January to August 1989 is 155 million litres, which compares with 153 million litres in 1983.

Why is the volume of liquid milk available to the United Kingdom confectionery industry consistently held back? Companies such as Rowntree of York are forced to invest millions of pounds in machinery to take powdered milk when they would prefer to use liquid milk. Will my hon. Friend hold urgent discussions to ensure that quotas are increased so that the industry can use this natural product?

There is a proposal to increase quotas, but we are opposed to it because we believe that there is no case for an increase across the Community as a whole. My hon. Friend will know, however, that the milk marketing board is altering its seasonal scale to encourage producers to produce milk more in the trough. I hope that that will go some way towards solving the problem.

In view of that reply, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to write a letter of apology to the Dairy Trade Federation after the ridiculous and crass speech that he made yesterday to the federation? He criticised it for its inability to affect the amount of dairy imports when in reality there is not enough milk in this country for manufacture. Will the Minister ensure that his right hon. Friend sends that letter of apology and is briefed before he speaks again to the federation?

Not the least of my right hon. Friend's talents is his ability to tell home truths to people who might not be interested in receiving them.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to announce the level of hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for 1990.

An announcement on the 1990 hill livestock compensatory allowance rates and the scheme conditions will be made as soon as possible, following completion of the autumn review of the economic conditions in the hill and upland areas.

Does my hon. Friend agree that continued livestock farming in the upland areas is indispensable to much of Britain's finest countryside, not to mention many rural communities? If so, does he agree that an increase in the HLCA payments to help hill farmers through their current difficulties would be the best value for money of any environmental expenditure?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of hill farmers as we have neighbouring constituencies which share the same characteristics. Our first priority is to make sure that we get this right in Brussels. Then it will depend on getting it right in the United Kingdom.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

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.

In the shambles of the privatisation of nuclear energy, who should take the blame? Should it be the advisers who advise or the Ministers who decide?

rose—[Interruption.]

Order. This takes up a lot of time.

If there were a shambles, that question would arise. As there is not, it does not.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is an intrinsic part of Conservative philosophy to conserve our environment and our heritage? Further, does my right hon. Friend accept that all those who are concerned with preserving the rain forests will applaud the practical lead that she has given towards that end?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government have given a lead in tackling the problems of climate change. In particular, we have given a lead in our aid programme for conserving the forests, especially in Brazil, where, through my right hon. Friend who is now the Secretary of State for the Environment, we signed the first such agreement between an industrial country and a country with tropical forests. We have also signed one with India. I was able to announce at the United Nations the earmarking of £100 million under our tropical forest action programme. That is good news, both for developing countries and for the developed world.

What is the Prime Minister's answer to the question put to her and her colleagues by Brighton ambulance man Brian Murray, holder of the British Empire Medal, who asked: "Why do they have such short, ungrateful memories?"

We have great gratitude to the ambulance men. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, through the Whitley council they were offered a 6·5 per cent. increase backdated to April and in London 9·3 per cent., backdated to April, both of which would amount to quite a considerable small lump sum if it were taken now. They had also reached an agreement on 24 October about how to run the emergency services. We very much regret that that agreement is not being honoured. It was fully agreed between management and people.

If the Prime Minister is so confident of the case, why does she not let Mr. Murray and his colleagues go to arbitration? Does she recognise that to lavish praise on ambulance people at the time of a disaster and then to stop them going to arbitration is gross hypocrisy?

No. This is negotiated through the Whitley council. It was negotiated through the Whitley council and was recommended for acceptance.

When my right hon. Friend completed her interview with Mr. Brian Walden, did she receive any complaints from the programme staff about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had wriggled out of giving his interview? When she was Leader of the Opposition, did she ever fear to have her intellectual competence questioned?

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must ask a question on which the Prime Minister has ministerial responsibility.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

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

During the course of her busy day, would the Prime Minister take time to read yesterday's Evening Standard headline:

"Thatcher's Plan to Save The World"?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy of reading the speech.

I thank my right hon. Friend for persuading our right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to listen to the pleas of Andrew Gorst, a 14-year-old pupil at Ripley St. Thomas in my constituency, who keeps 48 hens and has some very satisfied customers. He would have had to pay as much as someone with 10,000 hens but now he will pay at a very reduced rate. I should like to say "Thank you very much" to my right hon. Friend.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister deserves all the compliments for listening to the case of a small farmer and taking the requisite action.

Does the Prime Minister agree that her announcement in New York yesterday of £5·5 million for environmental research is a poor substitute for the £33 million that she withdrew from the natural environment research council in February this year? That affected 160 scientists, 41 of whom are involved in research into ozone and the glowing heat effect. Will she reinstate that budget?

The grant allocated to the natural environment research council by the advisory board for all research councils was put up, having regard to the importance of the work of the British Antarctic Survey, to the importance of the world experiment on the circulation of the oceans—we shall take part in that—and to the need to put more into satellite work on monitoring climate change.

Can my right hon. Friend think of any circumstances in which it might be proper to take industrial action against the sick, the disabled and the infirm? Can she think of any occasion on which such action has been condemned by the Leader of the Opposition?

It is always a matter of great regret and concern if strike action is taken against the sick and the infirm, particularly when there was an agreement on 24 October with regard to accident and emergency services which is not now being operated. We must also bear in mind that nine out of 10 miles done by the ambulance service are not for accidents and emergencies but to get people to hospital, whether as in-patients or out-patients. Most of those non-emergency people are managing excellently to get themselves to hospital. But that does not alter the main point of my hon. Friend's question—that action should not be taken against the sick.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

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

When the chairman of the Conservative party recently said that the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), had resigned because of long-standing serious differences with the Prime Minister on economic policy, was he telling the truth?

I have nothing further to add to the statements that I made at the Dispatch Box last week.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on recently announced measures to assist the disabled.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has recently announced a number of measures to give extra help to some 500,000 disabled people and carers. These will add a further £100 million on top of the £8·3 billion a year being spent on benefits for long-term sick and disabled people in real terms. That is nearly double what was being spent in 1979.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the recent improvements, especially the carers' allowance and the mobility allowance for deaf-blind people. Does she recall her 1979 commitment to introduce a system of cash benefits to meet the costs of disablement? Will she therefore take a personal interest in the current review of disability benefits to ensure that that promise is implemented to help the 6 million disabled people in Britain to live a life of dignity?

I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that we have honoured our pledge by increasing the amount spent on the disabled by 90 per cent. in real terms—that is, over and above inflation—since 1979. The number of people receiving help with their extra costs through mobility allowance has increased sixfold and through attendance allowance threefold over the past decade. That is a record of which the Government can be proud. I certainly assure my hon. Friend that we shall be seeking to do more to help many disabled people who at present do not receive mobility allowance or attendance allowance.

Is the Prime Minister aware that although her figures are correct, the impression that she seeks to create is false? In the past 10 years the real value of the average male take-home pay has risen by 20 per cent. while the average real value of disablement benefit has risen by less than 1 per cent. That is why her boast about helping disabled people has a hollow ring.

I do not think that the many people who now receive disablement benefits but did not receive them before will find that that comes with a hollow ring. There are many people in receipt of disablement benefits who never received them before. Spending on the disabled has increased from £1·8 billion in 1978–79 to £8·3 billion in cash terms. That is an increase of £4 billion in real terms. Of that real increase, £3·5 billion is attributable to the increased number of beneficiaries—those who otherwise would not have received benefit—and £500 million to the increase in the average amounts paid.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to help the disabled is to target help to those who are most in need? Does she particularly welcome the new benefits of up to £65 per week for families with severely disabled babies?

Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the sum of £65 per week which is intended to help those people. I know my hon. Friend's personal record in this matter and the tremendous interest that he has taken in that aspect of disablement and we all honour him for the lead that he has given.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) this morning again put the Government's view that there is no compatibility between the dangers faced by firefighters and those faced by ambulance workers? Where does the Prime Minister think that ambulance workers were at King's Cross or the Brighton hotel, when she was particularly pleased to see them—waiting outside like glorified taxi drivers? When will she stop treating the women and men of the ambulance service as though they were members of her Cabinet? Why does she not pull out the Army, pay ambulance workers the money and stop risking lives?

First, the point about comparability with other emergency services was considered by the Clegg commission, which was set up by a Labour Government but whose recommendations were honoured by a Conservative Government because the Labour Government did not have the money—they just made promises. The Clegg commission did not uphold the demand for comparability between the services. The London ambulance service has been offered 9·3 per cent., backdated to April. The way to conduct the negotiations was through the Whitley council.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 9 November.

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

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever the route selected for the M3 around Winchester, it will inevitably cause serious environmental damage? As it was the Government of the day who diverted the route from the open country to the north of Winchester to the sensitive area to the south-east of Winchester, will she reassure the House that the Secretary of State for Transport will speedily be given sufficient funds to ensure that whatever route is finally selected it will be friendly to the special and historic environment around Winchester, which is a national asset?

I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this as he has been in correspondence and has been to see me about it. He knows that at the moment my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are considering the reports of two independent inspectors, who held public inquiries into proposals for that road scheme. I cannot anticipate what their decisions will be, but I know that they fully understand the importance of environmental issues in cases such as this.