asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from trade unions representing workers in the sugar beet industry regarding the European Economic Community Commission's proposal for a new sugar regime; and if he will make a statement.

In addition to correspondence, my right hon. Friend has received a delegation from unions representing workers in the beet sugar industry. He explained the importance that the United Kingdom attaches to the reduction of the Community surplus and to the Community's commitment to the ACP countries. He also explained our criticism of the present proposals of the Commission.

Will the Minister make it clear to the House that the Government are determined to resist a proposal which discriminates against Britain, and which threatens jobs and investment in the British Sugar Corporation? Further, will he confirm that the Government will not contemplate in the future any reduction in the 1·3 million tonnes which we import under the Loméconvention? That is part of our commitment to the developing world, and it is vital to employment in the cane refineries.

The answer is "Yes" to both points. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Loméconvention is a commitment undertaken by the Community.

Does not the Minister agree that it is important for the EEC to subscribe to the international sugar agreement? It would be impossible for the EEC to do that so long as it continues to dump up to 3 million tonnes of sugar on the world markets.

As my hon. Friend knows, we support the general cutback of sugar production within the Community. We are concerned that its proposed cutback discriminates unfairly against beet producers in the United Kingdom.

Is it not a fact that the post-1980 sugar regime is based upon wrong calculations of the British crop? Therefore, it is grossly unfair to the growers in the United Kingdom. Will the Minister bear in mind the value of sugar beet as a break crop, not only as a cash crop, for which oil seed rape is no substitute?

We have pointed out forcibly to the Commission, and shall continue to argue in the Council of Ministers, that the basis of the Commission's proposals is not representative of sugar beet production in the United Kingdom. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue our arguments.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the volume of wine produced by European Economic Community member States and by the three applicant States in 1979; what is the expected volume of production in five year's time; and what is the volume of the current surplus.

The Commission's provisional estimates for the 1979 wine harvest are at 167 million hectolitres for the EEC, and approximately 58 million hectolitres for the three applicant countries. Given the many uncertainties involved it is not possible to make sensible estimates of production five years hence. The Commission estimates the current surplus at between 6 million and 10 million hectolitres per annum.

Will the Minister recognise that, on present trends and intentions over the next 15 years or so such a level of surplus will be achieved as to make the problems and cost of storage absurd, or alternatively, the promotion of consumption such as to lead to a part of the population of Western Europe becoming alcoholic by the end of 1990?

That is why we supported the wine package proposed by the Commission, which strikes at the root of the problem in trying to get some of the area of land currently used for the production of wine out of production. In the last negotiation, we achieved the reduction of the contribution to the net benefit of the United Kingdom.

What pressure is the Minister bringing to bear on the EEC to protect the interest of English wine, a fine commodity made in this country?

I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that the English wine producer is excluded from the restrictive measures proposed in the wine package. What we have achieved in the package—I reply to a point that I missed earlier in relation to this question—is an encouragement for the consumption of wine. Those who indulge in home making of wine are helped in the supply of musts from European countries.

As the EEC seems to want special pricing in oil, with cheap rates, will the Minister address himself to the question of getting cheaper Burgundy for Britain, and one or two Beaujolais along with it?

That is an extremely interesting suggestion.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will meet the chairman of the Agricultural Training Board.

I had a meeting with the retiring chairman last month. I and my noble Friend the Minister of State met the incoming chairman this morning.

When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Agricultural Training Board, will he ensure that his Ministry urges the board to concentrate on practical training, with the minimum of administrators?

Yes.

When the Minister next meets the chairman of the board, will he discuss the career structure in agriculture, particularly in view of the recommendations of the Northfield committee? What steps does he intend to take to make it possible for more new entrants to come into the industry, with the prospects of becoming either managers or tenants of farms?

This is a very important subject. I do not think that it is necessarily a subject for the chairman of the Agricultural Training Board. We are considering the suggestions made by the Northfield committee. We are talking to the various parties concerned. Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that it is important to find ways of encouraging able young people to make a good career in this industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present situation of African, Caribbean and Pacific sugar imports.

The guarantees on price and access given by the Community to ACP sugar producers are of indefinite duration and are separate from the current renegotiation of the Community's own internal sugar regime.

With regard to the present 1·3 million tonnes imported from ACP countries, does not the Minister agree that, if this figure is not maintained, we may see further closures in the sugar cane port refineries, putting 1,700 jobs at risk at the Liverpool Tate and Lyle refinery? Will the Minister do everything in his power to ensure that this does not happen?

I wholly appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, having the day before yesterday met trade union representatives from the cane sugar refineries throughout the United Kingdom. I repeat that the commitment of the 1·3 million tonnes is a commitment of the European Economic Community, and it is of indefinite duration.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the current cost of the sugar regime of£400 million means that it is in need of a serious re-think. The dumping that has been taking place in the Third world has had devastating effects on those countries which are dependent on the export of sugar for their survival. But, in spite of that, I hope that when the Minister is negotiating during the course of the next two or three weeks, he will bear in mind that we must have no conflict in our own country between the beet producers and the sugar cane processors. All feel that they are in this conflict and want to stand together.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been making a statement of his opinions. Will he ask a question?

During the course of the negotiations, bearing in mind the interests of both the beet producers and the sugar cane processors, I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that he will make no efforts to interfere with the 24 per cent. public interest holding in the British Sugar Corporation.

We believe that there is room within the United Kingdom to accommodate the commitments of the EEC under the Loméconvention and also to see an improvement in the proposals made by the Commission in relation to the sugar beet industry. We believe that there is scope for it, and I give the right hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we shall be working towards that end.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present working of the European Economic Community sugar regime.

No, Sir.

Is not the cost of£400 million that we spend on maintaining a ridiculous 3 million tonnes surplus really at the cost of our overseas cane producers, many of whom are British Commonwealth members? Does not this pose a threat to the future of our cane sugar refineries because of the French pressure now in relation to Lomé?

The hon. Gentleman must have misheard my reply. I said that I was not satisfied with the current working of the regime. I repeat the assurances that I gave earlier. The commitments under the Loméconvention are not only our commitments; they are the commitments of the European Economic Community. I can do no more than repeat the assurances that I gave earlier.

When the Minister comes to negotiate the new sugar regime, will he bear in mind that during the last two or three years many farmers and processors have invested substantial sums of money in lifting and processing equipment, and that a substantial reduction in the present sugar quotas will inevitably cause them very substantial financial hardship?

I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says, and reiterate that we believe that there is room for a proper cane sugar refining industry in this country, and also for beet processing and beet producing.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last question I have posed, and give the House an assurance that during the course of this turmoil on sugar the Government have no intention of selling off the 24 per cent. public interest holding in the British Sugar Corporation?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the question of Government holdings in bodies such as the British Sugar Corporation is one that is under consideration.

Will the Minister bear in mind that sugar beet is a traditional East Anglian crop, and that there is no way that my constituency farmers will go on planting beet unless they have confidence in the commercial viability of that crop? Will he therefore make an early statement assuring my constituency farmers of the wisdom of continuing to plant beet?

I have already made many statements this afternoon giving that precise assurance.

Does my hon. Friend's dissatisfaction extend to the possible non-availability of sugar beet pulp as a food substance for the hill farmer?

Sugar beet production in this country is important not only as a break crop, as was mentioned earlier, but also in relation to its by-products.

Is the Minister aware that unless the proposed cuts in the beet sugar quotas are implemented—and perhaps even more cuts are needed—there will be further closures and redundancies in the sugar cane refining industry on Merseyside, and that this will be bad not only for our Commonwealth suppliers of sugar cane but for the people of Merseyside, leading to more unemployment?

I am totally conscious of the problems in this connection, but, as I said earlier, we believe that within Europe there is need to cut back production of sugar from beet. However, we believe that that must be done in a way that is fair to our producers and to our industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what bodies and interests he is consulting in the course of his consideration of Government policy towards untreated milk.

I have met representatives from farming and will be meeting those of dairy interests. Their views, together with those we have received directly or indirectly from other interested organisations and individuals, will be taken fully into account.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that outbreaks of serious stomach illness continue to occur, associated with the consumption of untreated or ineffectively treated milk—for example, in Cambridge, Lincoln, Aberdeen and South Bedfordshire in the last 12 months, to give but four examples?

There is a whole range of product areas where illnesses have occurred and there are problems. It is important that any solution ensures that people know the risks involved at the time of purchase. To eliminate the right of people to purchase is another question.

Will the Minister give this necessary freedom to rural areas in particular? As long as the bottle is clearly marked it should be left to the responsibility of the person who drinks from it. If my right hon. Friend wants an example of someone who has drunk untreated milk for several years, he need only to look at the hon. Member for Devon, West, who does not look too bad.

That is a matter of opinion. However, there is strong feeling on this topic and we are trying to find a rational and sensible solution. Whilst I agree with my hon. Friend that it is perfectly reasonable that people should be allowed to purchase milk if they know the risks involved, there are none the less problems—for example the supplying of hotels—that are more complicated. I hope that we will make a detailed announcement soon.

Following the excellent supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), does not the Minister agree that the hon. Member for Macclesfield is a picture of health? Does he not agree that in many rural areas treated milk is not available, and therefore the continuation of the supply of untreated milk is vital?

I think that perhaps the comparison is declining rather than improving. However, we have looked into this question carefully and we shall also consult other Departments involved in agriculture. I hope to make a positive announcement soon.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current regulations governing the import of milk into the United Kingdom.

Imports of milk are subject to United Kingdom animal health legislation, and to our public health regulations, which lay down strict standards for the hygienic production, packaging and heat treatment of milk. There are also regulations covering the labelling and size of containers as well as the minimum fat content which imported milk must comply with.

Will my right hon. Friend and neighbour assure the House that there will be no relaxation of standards? Should there be any move towards harmonisation of health standards through the EEC, will my right hon. Friend still insist on the treatment and packaging of imported milk for subsequent retail in premises licensed by local authorities?

In the only court case involved, the Advocate General of the European Court stated that we had every right to employ our own health regulations until a Community health regulation was made. I see no prospect of a Community health regulation until at least 1982. We then have a period of two years in which to comply with it. However, any health regulation that gained our agreement would have to maintain our present standards.

Referring to the question of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) as regards being a picture of health, is there any connection between a picture of health and mental health?

If, by 1984, there is harmonisation of the import of milk regulations, will the Minister assure us that he will do everything in his power to stop the abolition of doorstep deliveries?

Yes. Doorstep deliveries are vital to the consumer and producer in this country. We shall do everything possible to maintain those services.

As Britain has had such a rough deal from the EEC as regards sugar, textiles and many other commodities, does the Minister agree that we shall get a similar rough deal about the importation of milk? Does he further agree that the time has now come to negotiate our withdrawal from the EEC?

No, I judge that our milk is better and cheaper and that it is time to consider exporting to the EEC.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will meet the president of the National Farmers Union.

I meet the president of the National Farmers Union frequently but have no specific plans at present for a further meeting.

As we suffer from a certain weakness in the marketing of our agricultural and horticultural products, and as my right hon. Friend announced last July that he was inviting certain prominent individuals to consider this problem, will he give some indication of the discussions that he has had with the president of the NFU, and those that he intends to have, in order to see what more the NFU can do to help the situation?

I am pleased to say that the NFU has announced that it is setting up, and has now set up, a new marketing division. It will concentrate heavily upon that aspect of British agriculture. We have also announced changes in the council for agricultural and horticultural co-operation that will encourage marketing co-operatives to a greater degree. A whole range of discussions are now taking place that I hope will improve our marketing effort.

When the Minister next sees Mr. Butler, will he tell him that in order to maintain milk deliveries a good price is needed, not only for the farmer, but also for the distributor? Will he also correct his earlier statement and will he tell Mr. Butler that a second case is now in process at the European Court? If it goes against us, the Minister and milk deliveries will be in severe difficulties.

In fairness to Mr. Butler, neither he nor the NFU has ever disputed the necessity for the dairy industry to maintain margins in order to continue a door-to-door service. The NFU is well aware that the distribution of milk depends upon the maintenance of that service. The hon. Gentleman seems to show a certain enthusiasm for the prospects of the court case, but the only case that has taken place on the same question was summed up very clearly by the Advocate General in favour of the British position. I see no reason for change in the current case.

I do not wish to suggest that the Minister should impose his own view on the NFU or on the Country Landowners Association, but will he impress upon the president of the NFU that, unless he is prepared to reach agreement with the CLA about the future of inherited tenancies, there will be no hope of retaining the existing number of farms for let, let alone achieving an increase?

Yes, but I shall always also impress upon the president of the CLA the importance of coming to an agreement with the NFU.

When the Minister next meets the president of the NFU, will he explain to him that it is no longer possible to buy a British manufactured combine harvester because of the closure of Massey Ferguson at Kilmarnock? Will he further explain to the president, as well as to the House, what he and the Secretary of State for Industry are doing to encourage the manufacture of agricultural implements in Britain?

I agree that the farm machinery industry is important in Britain and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is giving attention to that problem now.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will attend a meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers of the European Economic Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to meet Commissioner Gundelach of the European Commission.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to attend a meeting of the European Economic Community Council of Agriculture Ministers.

At the next Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting, to be held next Monday.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Council of Ministers, will he tell it that he will not accept the EEC's discriminatory proposals on the co-responsibility levy on milk? Will he also assure us that he will not accept the proposal of the EEC for a new super-levy on all United Kingdom milk production?

I gather from recent talks with the Commissioner that the original proposals are being altered and we look forward to examining new proosals. Like last year, there is no way that we accept any co-responsibility levy that discriminates against British dairy producers.

rose—

Order. I shall call first those whose questions are being answered.

When the Minister meets the Commissioner, in addition to the vigorous protest that he will make as regards sugar beet—which is important in my constituency—will he also add equally vigorous protestations lest anything should be done through EEC regulations to affect the potato growers who are also important in my constituency?

There are no proposals on potatoes before the Council for the coming week, but we shall look to the interests of potato growers in this country when they occur. In the meantime, we shall maintain the position.

Has there been a discernible improvement in the position since my right hon. Friend last answered questions on the import of sheepmeat to France? If not, what is he doing about it?

No. There has been a deterioration. Last week the French Government decided, for the first time since the original Court decision, to put an import levy of 43p per kilo on British lamb, which was totally against the Court's decision. As a result, the Commission took France to court last Monday, and I shall be doing all that I can to see that the case is taken as speedily as possible. The Commission expressed its hope to me that France was moving towards a position where she would comply with the European Court's decision, but the actions of 10 days ago are in absolutely the opposite direction.

Will the Minister assure the House that, when he sees Commissioner Gundelach next week, he will be fully briefed about the fishing industry, which I take it will be on the agenda? Has he seen the fishermen's associations about the serious position that is rapidly developing in the North Sea?

I am seeing the fishermen's associations next Wednesday and I saw other groups connected with the fishing industry last night. It is an Agriculture Council meeting next week and fishing will not be discussed, but there is a Fisheries Council meeting at the end of January. I am pursuing a policy that before every meeting of the Fisheries Council, I meet with the industry as a whole.

Does the Minister accept that, as long as we maintain the position that everyone else's sugar regime for beet and proposals for a co-responsibility levy are wrong, the chances of the British taxpayers' burden being alleviated through the CAP are strictly limited?

If I may say so, the CAP in a number of areas discriminates heavily against Britain. To say that solutions to the CAP problem can be achieved through measures that discriminate still further against Britain would be a mistake, and it is not a policy that I will pursue.

Will the Minister say whether at Monday's meeting there will be further discussion of the request by the French wine industry to discharge the excess product of fermentation alcohol into the ethyl alcohol market? Fermentation alcohol is an agricultural product and therefore subsidised, and such procedure will distort the ethyl alcohol market. Ethyl alcohol is an industrial product and is not subsidised. Does the Minister accept that, if the French wine industry gets away with that trick, job prospects in the field of ethyl alcohol in this country will be adversely affected?

As far as I know, the ethyl alcohol regime is not on the agenda for next Monday's Council meeting. When it is discussed, I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's point in mind.

Will my right hon. Friend be submitting proposals to the Commissioner about the designation of marginal land in the United Kingdom under the provisions of the less favoured areas directive?

No, but I shall be making a statement shortly about the designation of marginal land.

As long as the French impose a levy on British lamb, why should we not impose a levy on French motor cars?

That is an attractive idea, but in a Community where eight countries and the Commission are condemning France for her illegal action, it is correct to endeavour to persuade the French Government to comply with the law. If the Community is run on the basis that one illegal act results in a whole range of illegal acts throughout the Community, it will spell the end of the Community—which I know that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated amount of financial aid which has been allocated by the European Economic Community for the provision of milk and dairy products to schoolchildren for the current year.

The letter of amendment to the 1980 draft EEC budget forecasts financial aid for the supply of milk to school children at 59.7 million European units of account (meua), 28.9 meua of which is to be financed from the co-responsibility levy on milk producers. However, as the hon. Member knows, the European Parliament has rejected the draft budget.

Does the Minister agree that the Government's policy appears to be not to give free milk to children, especially those aged 5 to 7 years, but, if they agreed to give that free milk, almost 50 per cent. of the retail cost would be paid for by the EEC? Does he further agree that it is crazy not to give milk to the children and allow them to gain nutritional value and increase their health?

The education authorities' obligation to provide school (No. 2) Bill simply relaxes the local milk. If local authorities decide to continue to provide milk to schools, it is possible for that subsidy to be claimed.

Why do so many local authorities, particularly Conservative-controlled local authorities such as Borders regional council, not take advantage of the assistance available from the Common Market? Their failure is to the detriment of children and milk producers?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman also believed in a certain amount of freedom for local authorities to come to their own conclusions, rather than dictation from the centre.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the prospects for the beef producing sector of the United Kingdom agriculture industry.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister bear in mind the serious problems that the beef industry is suffering through distortions in the common agricultural policy? It needs a long period of profitability, stability and certainty to restore confidence and rebuild herds.

I appreciate the problems that the beef industry has been facing, but we have carried through three devaluations of the green pound and just before Christmas we announced substantial increases in hill livestock compensatory amounts, which should indicate to beef producers in this country that we believe that there is a good future for beef production.

Does the Minister accept that the increase in costs for beef farmers over the past two years are way in excess of revenue, even taking account of the changes that he has referred to, and that those increases have eroded the benefits that they might have had from European schemes? Those schemes encouraged some farmers to move from milk to beef.

I appreciate that beef producers have had to face in- creasing costs, along with other producers. That is why we have carried through measures that we believe will help them. We are concerned about the livestock sector generally and we shall continue to follow policies to support it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention to meet the president of the Food Manufacturers Federation.

I shall be meeting the president of the Food Manufacturers Federation tomorrow and again on 6 February.

When my right hon. Friend meets the president of the Food Manufacturers Federation, will be congratulate the Federation and all its companies on its excellent service and the good value for money that it gives to the British consumer? Is he aware that that vital industry could be inhibited in providing value for money and the necessary service to the housewife if secondary picketing is allowed to continue, bearing in mind that the industry is dependent on containers with a steel content?

I agree that the food manufacturing industry in this country has a good record and one that could help us penetrate overseas markets. I, too, regret any secondary picketing that is damaging food supplies in this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman seek advice from the president of the Food Manufacturers Federation on the impact of the rise in energy costs announced yesterday on employment prospects for the industry and price levels for the housewife?

I shall discuss a whole range of matters when I meet the president. I believe that the gentleman concerned will be anxious about the general economic situation and a whole range of measures, and that he will not take one matter in isolation.

When my right hon. Friend meets the president, is it his intention to discuss the viability of the starch regime? If not, will he tell the House what is his policy towards the regime?

It is not my intention to discuss that matter with the president. I discussed the matter with the starch manufacturers yesterday and we agreed upon the attitude that we shall take as far as Community negotiations are concerned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention to meet the president of the Country Landowners Association.

My right hon. Friend hopes to meet the president of the Country Landowners Association on 5 February.

Do the Government share the general concern that, since the 1976 Act, there has been a tendency for agricultural tenancies to decrease and, consequently, for rents to rise to high levels? Will he discuss the problem with the president of the CLA with a view to securing a suggested remedy to it?

My right hon. Friend believes that it would be wrong for the Government to introduce changes in agricultural holdings legislation which are not acceptable to the industry as a whole. Without the industry's agreement, farms will not be let.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the two pieces of legislation that were enacted by the previous Labour Government and which were most ferociously opposed by the CLA were those which gave greater security of tenure to the families of farm workers and tenant farmers? Will he make clear that the Government have no intention of undermining that security, both in relation to farm workers and tenant farmers?

The original question concerned the letting of farms. I suggest that the two pieces of legislation passed by the previous Government—capital transfer tax and the 1976 Act—have completely dried up the supply of land to let.

Will my hon. Friend make clear to the president of the CLA that it is crucial to come to an agreement with the NFU over a wide range of matters, particularly with regard to the farming ladder? If something can be done about that, it will provide opportunities for many young farmers.

It would not be right for me to lay the blame on either body as to why the talks broke off. However, it is well known that the NFU have more difficulty in coming to terms than the CLA.

Will the Minister give the assurance that is asked for by the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition, that the rights of tenant farmers will not be eroded and replaced by the auctioneering that went on before we passed our legislation? Before that time, ordinary, decent, hard-working tenant farmers were priced out of the market by greedy massive landowners.

I detect an almost universal wish in the industry that more farms should be available to let and that opportunities should exist for young people to farm. The Government will seek to consider ways in which those objectives can be carried out.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has had regarding his decision to sell Ministry-owned land at Laxton, Nottinghamshire.

Seventy-nine, as at 16 January.

Does the Minister agree that the unique value of Laxton is not contained in the acreage that might be flogged off for profit but in the methods that have been employed there? Does he agree that they are unique and should be preserved?

Certainly. Let me make clear that the Government have no intention of affecting the historical system of land tenure at Laxton in any way. I have given assurances to that effect Any buyer will be required to give assurances to the Government in the same vein.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest available annual figures of agricultural classified land lost to development in England and Wales and the proportion of this which is grade I and grade II.

About 30,000 hectares of land in England and Wales go out of agricultural use each year. I regret that we do not keep statistics of land losses by grades of land.

I should have preferred that answer in Imperial terms, but does my hon. Friend agree that that is far too much land? Does he agree with the simple proposition that it is wrong on economic as well as environmental grounds for one acre—metrically adjusted—to be developed while there are hundreds and thousands of derelict acres lying unused in city centres?

I agree with my hon. Friend that 75,000 acres is far too many lost to agricultural use. He is right to say that every acre of land that has been previously developed and can now be built on again is an acre of agricultural land saved. I am working in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to seek to achieve that end.

When considering the loss of agricultural land, will my hon. Friend consider encouraging the regeneration of hill pastures, possibly by encouraging the use of lime?

My right hon. Friend seeks to encourage the increase in production of all agricultural land in the country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current differential between the value of the green pound and the market rate of the pound sterling.

For most products, the current difference between the rate for the green pound and the market rate of sterling used for MCA purposes is 5 per cent. giving an applied MCA percentage of 3·5 per cent.

I acknowledge that parity has been almost achieved, given the low margins being achieved in the industry, but will the Minister say how he believes the British farmer will get a return from the market in future?

If my hon. Friend looks at the effects in relation to beef following the devaluations, he will see that we have been able to announce today an increase in the revised target prices. They are 19 per cent. higher than those that existed at the end of March last year. That indicates the effect that has already been achieved by the MCAs and the benefits to producers in the country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 January.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

As we understand that the Cabinet may have discussed the possible British boycott of the Olympic Games this morning, on the proper ground that sport and politics are mixed, will the Prime Minister also call for a report from the Minister with responsibility for sport on the proposed rugby tour of South Africa which may lead to our expulsion from the Commonwealth Games? Will the right hon. Lady tell the House whether she supports her Minister or whether she agrees with the views of Mr. Dennis Thatcher?

I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman's three questions. With regard to the Olympic Games, Ministers have discussed the matter. We favour trying to move the venue from Moscow to elsewhere, if it is possible to do so. That cannot be done alone, and we believe that we should try to do it by taking concerted action with our allies in making an approach to the International Olympic Committee, in whose lap the decision lies. With regard to the Lions' tour of South Africa, the Minister with responsibility for sport has expressed my view that the tour is contrary to the Gleneagles agreement. With regard to opinion in the Thatcher household, the Prime Minister does not have a monopoly.

In view of the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice this week that a published interview with a juror was not contempt of court, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will take urgent steps to have that part of the law changed? Does she agree that disclosures of that sort undermine public confidence in the jury system and may put in jeopardy the jury system itself?

As my hon. and learned Friend recognises, that was, indeed, a significant judgment. Of course, the Government will have to consider what to do about it. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising the matter.

In the event of the failure of the Government to transfer the venue of the Olympic Games from Moscow, will the right hon. Lady undertake to refuse permission to the Duke of Edinburgh to visit Moscow?

I am not prepared to give undertakings at the moment. I have indicated to the House the view that we take about the matter. If we are unable to succeed in that view, other matters will arise. Decisions will have to be taken at the time.

Since my right hon. Friend and I are equally determined that effective action should be taken to deter Russian aggression, will she ensure that full consultation takes place before the Government take a definite line on the boycott of the Olympic Games? If such an appeal was rejected by the sporting bodies concerned, the effect would be highly damaging and counter-productive. As far as changing the venue is concerned, leaving on one side the practical difficulties and the fact that the Government will, no doubt, be expected to meet the cost, will she take into account the fact that the whole point of the Olympic Games, from the individual's point of view, is that he expects to match himself against the best in the world? An Olympic Games in which large numbers of good competitors do not take part will be seen as pointless by many. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that might well arise if the countries of the Third world, which object to the Lions' tour of South Africa, felt that they should go to Moscow rather than elsewhere?

Obviously I am very much aware of the viewpoint of those who have been training for a number of years so that they reach peak performance at the time of the Olympics. We must take account of that. That is why we believe that it is right to move the venue away from Moscow. Equally, we cannot just stand back and watch what the Russians are doing in Afghanistan, deplore it and take no action at all.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 January.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given.

With rocketing price inflation and earnings rising by 19·2 per cent. a year, does the Prime Minister still maintain that there are no circumstances in which she would introduce a wages freeze?

I expected that catch question. Labour Members have been trying to trap me for a long time. One of the problems we face is that of trying to get away from years of incomes policies, because, as a result, people have come to expect an annual increase for nothing. That is one of the troubles bedevilling this country.

In view of the alarming international situation and the abiding hostility of some groups in the Labour Party to Britain's role in the defence of the West, will the Prime Minister voice her concern about the work of Trotskyist revolutionaries within the Labour Party, which has just been revealed once again?

I voice my concern at the activities of these revolutionaries wherever they work, and particularly in the Labour Party. The only way in which we can ensure that they do not triumph is by making certain that we are returned at the next election.

Does the Prime Minister ever wake up during the night and reflect that her economic and industrial policies might be wrong?

I very rarely wake up—[Laughter.]—during the night. If one is to have a clear mind, it is better to sleep well and briefly at night and be wide awake in the day.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Will the Prime Minister take time to examine early-day motion No. 312 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends? Will she not condemn the pledge given by the Labour Party to withdraw the right of council tenants to buy their homes if they so desire? Does she not agree that that pledge is consistent with the decisions of the Labour Party to keep council tenants as second-class citizens in tied cottages?

I condemn that pledge which was given from the Opposition Front Bench earlier this week. I believe that it is an attempt to deprive future generations of an opportunity that their parents would have wished them to have, and that we propose to give them. I hope that the Labour Party will never have the opportunity to introduce that pledge.

As the Prime Minister has given strong public support to President Carter to apply sanctions and put pressure on Iran to release the American hostages there, is it not totally inappropriate that this country should be training Iranian military personnel? How many such personnel are in this country? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance today that they will all be gone tomorrow?

There are very few people from Iran undergoing some kind of training in this country—the figure is fewer than 30. There are some training under similar contracts in the United States.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to find out from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he has done with the coypu strategy group which has been totally omitted from the otherwise immensely interesting and reassuring White Paper published yesterday?

I shall pass that staggering piece of news on to my right hon. Friend.

Will the Prime Minister take time off from her many commitments today to direct her attention to the escalating steel strike? Does she not realise that there is great danger of this strike becoming a general strike in time, and that nobody any longer believes in a policy of non-intervention? Does she not realise that, according to a letter in The Times this morning, certain Tories are arguing that the fundamental line of the Government is now totally wrong? What does she intend to do about it?

If the hon. Member is asking me to intervene and mediate in the steel dispute, I cannot do so. There is a very good mediation and conciliation process in ACAS which is already operating. If the hon. Member is asking me to give a bigger public subsidy of taxpayers' money to those who are already earning above average wages, that would be wrong also.

Will the Prime Minister discuss with the Home Secretary today the measures that could be taken to combat the spread of flying picketing, which is resulting in violence and arrests on the picket line? Is she aware that the vast majority of the British people are very much against the denial of the right to work brought about by the intimidation on the picket line and by secondary picketing? Will she consider bringing forward that part of the Employment Bill, dealing with secondary picketing, which allows industrialists to take action, in order that it may be on the statute book within the next few weeks?

My right hon. Friend receives reports from the area police authorities about what is happening on the picket lines. I believe that the police are carrying out their duties to the best of their ability in order to see that people are able to go about their lawful business unhindered. I must be candid about the provisions in the Employment Bill on secondary picketing. I do not think it is possible to get that Bill through in time to deal with the present strike. We must attempt to deal with the problems that arise on the picket lines under the powers of the present common law.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 17 January.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the fact that during the last election campaign the Conservative Party made great play of being in favour of the family? Therefore, will she tell us how she can justify the decision not to increase child benefits at a time of rapidly increasing inflation?

This party is very much in favour of the family, but that does not mean arguing for every single benefit to be increased. Families must provide the benefits from which family benefits are increased. Labour Members are always prepared to ask other people to do something without recognising that demands made on the Government are demands that we make on ourselves.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect that it is a fact that those in the steel industry who are on strike are not prepared to earn their extra money and the steel management has not got the money to pay the extra amount? Therefore, where do the Opposition think the money will come from to pay the steel men more?

I cannot answer for the Opposition, but one of the problems we face is the fact that wealth must be created before it can be distributed. The extra money demanded for the steel industry comes out of the same pool as that needed for hospitals, education, family benefits, and so on.

We shall be debating the steel industry later this afternoon. I hope that an attack will be made on the foolishness of the Government in fixing a level of steel capacity that is far too low. I should like to revert to the original question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs). The figure for earnings, published yesterday, was 19·2 per cent. The figure of pensions increase was fixed on a basis of earnings of 17·5 per cent. The right hon. Lady, when she was seeking votes last April, decided to underwrite our commitment to increase this figure. Is she now intending to increase the amount of pensions in view of the fact that earnings are much higher?

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that pensions went up by more than 17½per cent. this year—more than 17½per cent.

I understand that the right hon. Lady may not have fully understood the question. I shall put it again. The pension increase this year was based on the 17·5 per cent. increase in earnings together—

I understand that.

If the right hon. Lady understood, it was a damned bad answer. I do not assume that she was trying to deceive the House. Assuming that she was not trying to deceive the House, we should try to get the facts right. The pension increase of 19·5 per cent. this year was made up of 17½per cent. based on earnings and the 2 per cent. that she pledged to give before the election to make up for the shortfall. Now that the figures have been published, it is seen that the estimate was too low. I repeat my question. Now that the right hon. Lady has won the election and does not need the votes, does she propose to renege on the undertaking she gave before the election?

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation that pensions did go up by some 19 per cent. this year. Most hon. Members on the Government side of the House remember very well the time the Opposition were in power when they left out three or four months' rapid increase in the cost of living from their calculations.

It is clear that the right hon. Lady has no answer to the question. Will she therefore give an assurance, in view of this increase and in view of the concern that the Secretary of State for Social Services has expressed about the link between prices and short-term benefits, that there will be no decoupling between price levels and the fixing of short-term benefits on unemployment, invalidity and sickness benefits to worsen even further the position of those who are worst off and who will be badly hit by the increases in electricity and gas prices and other charges?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have to operate the law as it is unless and until the law is changed. One of the main factors in keeping down general prices is to try to keep down the increase in wages. We shall be glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's help in the steel industry towards that aim.