asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he intends to introduce to protect the interests of both consumers and farmers in the light of the European Economic Community Council of Ministers' decision to accept majority voting on the farm prices review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on agricultural prices.

I refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on 19 May.

Does the Minister agree that the acceptance of majority voting on the farm price review creates the great danger that in future years the British housewife will have to pay, through increased prices, for the voracious financial appetite of Continental farmers, particularly French farmers? Therefore, will the Minister accept that there may be a need for Britain to withdraw from the common agricultural policy?

No, Sir. I do not accept that there is a need to withdraw from the common agricultural policy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be discussing future procedures at the meeting later this month, and I hope that a satisfactory solution to the problem will be found.

Does my right hon. Friend agree—I think that he might this time—that the effect of increasing common agricultural policy prices above that which we agreed, taken in isolation from the budget, has two effects? The first is to increase our net contribution, and the second is to increase the price to the British consumer of the £1,000 million net of European food that we import. They vote and we pay. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is entirely unacceptable?

No, Sir. What is wholly unacceptable is the exaggerated figure of £1,000 million. The figures produced by one consumer organisation have been shown to be blatantly inaccurate. For example, the figures included tropical food products which do not come into the CAP.

Has the Minister seen the text of the letter sent by Agricultural Commissioner Paul Dalsager to Commissioner Gaston Thorn, in which he points out that they have seriously underestimated the full cost of the agreement—he estimates by about 700 million or 800 million units of account. Does the Minister agree that this will therefore cost the British taxpayer and consumer another £400 million?

No, Sir. I have not seen the text of such a letter and there has been no confirmation from the Commission that such a letter has been sent.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that whatever the financial mechanics of the recent result, it has been desperately unfair to Britain and to British consumers? Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that an amendment is written into the Treaty of Rome, by addendum or in some other way, to ensure that it does not happen again?

Yes, it is important that the principle of unanimity continues in Common Market agreements in areas where national interests are at stake. That point has been made clear by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary.

Although we have lost out in the only area where there has been majority voting to date, are there any issues or areas in which we could benefit by majority voting? Has the Minister given any consideration to promoting those issues?

No, Sir. In terms of the principle of majority voting, one accepts, or does not accept, the principle that a country has the right to declare that a national interest is at stake. One does not calculate whether on some issues it would be an advantage and on others a disadvantage. It is an important principle, which has to be adhered to in the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of levy per tonne of wheat imported into the United Kingdom from countries outside the European Economic Community.

Yesterday's levy was £72·38 per tonne.

Is the Minister aware that the farm gate price for wheat is only £123 per tonne, which is high for Britain and suggests that the levy is nearly two-thirds the cost of home grown wheat? In that case, does he agree that even if the cost of wheat represented as little as one-third of the cost of bread, using imported wheat without levy could bring the price of bread down by 15 to 20 per cent. at a stroke? If he does not agree with those figures, will he place his Department's calculations in the Library?

The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate this matter, because the levy amounts to less than 2p on the price of a standard loaf. That is the effect at the consumer end. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the threshold price for wheat and the levy that must be paid—particularly as this is wheat in respect of which the Community is not self-supporting—is too high. We have tried, and we shall continue to do so, to bring that price down.

Does not the Minister accept that the cost to the livestock sector of the farming community of this level of levy is prohibitive?

This question relates to strong wheat, which is of particular interest to our baking industry. The issue of importance is the discrimination against our baking industry in obtaining a raw material that it cannot get from within the Community. That is what is wrong.

What does the figure of £70 a tonne amount to as a percentage of the import price?

At present, the world price for wheat—we cannot necessarily be sure what quantities will be available at that price—is around £84 per tonne. On the other hand, and contrary to what the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said, the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the actual market price for strong wheat in the United Kingdom is around £130 per tonne.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to prevent further loss of land for letting to tenant farmers.

I have nothing to add to the replies given on 1 April and 6 May to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle). We are continuing to consider what action is required to encourage the letting of land to tenant farmers.

When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to introduce legislation to implement the CLA-NFU agreement? What discussions has he had with his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the need for fiscal measures to encourage new lettings, and what steps does he propose to take to ensure that county councils no longer sell vacant tenancies into private ownership?

The selling of tenanted land is something about which the county councils must, as democratically elected bodies, take their own decisions. We are considering what should take place in legislation, and that will obviously be considered within the context of the Government's future legislative programme. As to implementing the CLA-NFU agreement, I hope that as part of an alliance the hon. Gentleman will confer with his colleagues in the other half of that alliance who have made it clear that they would wish to make substantial amendments to the CLA-NFU agreement.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the consequences of the shortage of land is that last year there was an average increase in farm rents of about 25 per cent. in England, and rather more in Scotland. In the light of that, will he now give further consideration to introducing changes in the system of rent arbitration?

In the context of the whole question of tenanted and rented land, that is one of the matters that we are carefully considering.

Does the Minister recognise that over a number of years the pattern of agricultural subsidies has tended to favour large-scale farming operations and, thereby, the incorporation of smaller holdings into larger ones. Will he recognise that that factor, as well as the sale of smallholdings by county councils, has diminished the amount of tenanted land available? In those circumstances, he ought not to pay too much attention to the Country Landowners Association.

The agreement is not one by the CLA alone. It has also been arrived at by the NFU, which represents the majority of tenanted farmers in Britain. I have had no complaints from either the smaller farmers or the tenanted farmers about progress on the price structure and so on. Indeed, among farmers of every description—tenanted and others—I find a complete dislike and disfavour of the Labour Party's current proposals to nationalise the land.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of his hon. Friends do not think that the last Session of this Parliament is the most appropriate time to implement the CLA-NFU agreement? However, those hon. Members hope that the agreement will be implemented in the first Session of the next Parliament.

I take note of my hon. Friend's views.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional resources will be available to hill farmers following the European Economic Community price agreement.

Hill farmers will benefit from the improved levels of support for sheep and cattle arising from the price settlement.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of agriculture generally for the negotiations that he and his colleagues carried out in Europe? He will have seen the recent figures, which show a drop in the income of hill farmers. Therefore, will be ensure that in the current year they receive the maximum grants and allowances to which they are entitled?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. One of the good things arising out of this price review is the better position of livestock producers in relation to cereal producers. That is something that we worked for and welcome. The hill livestock compensatory amounts have increased by more than 50 per cent. under this Government. That shows that we are concerned about the interests of hill farmers. Together with the better price agreement that we achieved this year, that should give them some assurance for the coming livestock year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that support of the hill farmer is an essential part of the policy of preventing the denuding of the Highland glens, and that the Government's record in that respect is something of which we can all be proud?

I agree with that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying so. It is also important in another sense, in that our hill farmers contribute to the health of agriculture and the economy as a whole and also work for the benefit of British consumers.

Why will the Government not pay the £29 to our beef producers under EEC rules?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the suckler cow subsidy. As he knows, the level of that was reduced in the price review. We have decided that we shall pay from our funds the amount by which it has been reduced, so that it will remain at the same level. It is an option whether we increase it and we have decided not to do so. On the other hand, however, the fact that we have an improvement in the beef premium scheme, where we have gone from 25 per cent. Community funding to 40 per cent., indicates the considerable extent of what we achieved in the price review.

Have the proposals for a marginal land scheme been submitted to Brussels, and if so, what is happening?

They have not yet been submitted to Brussels. When we have completed consideration and preparation of the case, we shall do so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now take steps to ameliorate the effect of clawback on sheep exported to other Community countries.

During the seven months up to March, exports to other Community countries have averaged over 4,500 tonnes a month, which compares favourably with trade in recent years.

I recognise that British sheepmeat exporters have coped remarkably well with the problems of the sheepmeat agreement, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the problems they are now experiencing are very great? Will he therefore take steps to try to ameliorate those problems?

The figures that I mentioned indicate that some of the fears that were originally voiced about this export trade were not realised. I pay tribute to the efforts of our exporters. At the same time, I acknowledge that there are at present substantial difficulties, just as there were at exactly the same time last year. We shall take any opportunity within the Community to improve these arrangements and do our best in the interests of our export trade.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to have further discussions on the common agricultural policy with his counterparts in the European Economic Community.

Yes, Sir, on 14 June.

May we assume that in any discussions with his counterparts the Minister will again raise vigorously the whole question of the veto? Did the right hon. Gentleman not hear the Foreign Ministers say yesterday that the re-establishment of the right of veto was something for which Britain would have to fight? What will happen if our rights are violated, as they already have been, and our people are hurt and injured by the CAP? What will we do in those circumstances if the right of veto is not forthcoming? Will he consider withdrawal at least from the CAP, or, as many of us would like, from the Common Market?

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear in his Council of Ministers—the Council that is primarily responsible for the procedures of the Community—the matter will be raised at the next meeting. We have had major discussions and my right hon. Friend has clearly expressed the Government's views.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some anxiety about the impact on British agriculture and horticulture of the inclusion of Spain and Portugal in the EEC? Has he made an estimate of what that impact might be? If so, will he publish it?

No, Sir. At present, negotiations must examine the various formats of a transitional arrangement. In general, there will be some considerable advantages as well as problems from Spanish accession to the EEC, as many of Spain's food imports are produced in Britain. When finalising our negotiating position we must examine both the advantages and the disadvantages.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask Mr.Dalsager or another Commissioner to obtain a copy of the text of the letter that the right hon. Gentlman, extraordinarily, does not seem to have read? It was published verbatim in the last issue of Agra-Europe. Is the Minister aware that it says that they have seriously underestimated the cost of the price agreement and that it will cost several hundred million pounds more? Does the Minister agree that he has concealed that cost from the British people?

I have sought and will continue to seek the most updated. figures on the estimates of the Commission. I asked at the last meeting what the exact costs were. I also asked for a detailed assessment of the updated costs, post the agreement from the Commission. As soon as they are available to the United Kingdom I shall see that they are published and made available.

Will my right hon. Friend explain slowly and carefully to the Opposition that there is no way in which Britain, a major exporting country, can secure the larger share of the home market that it needs without accepting in return some form of CAP?

Having almost doubled the proportion of the agricultural budget that comes to Britain during the past three years, we are now in a rather stronger position than we were three years ago to support the advantages as well as to recognise the disadvantages of such a policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the level of farm production in the United Kingdom.

Yes, Sir. The situation described in the "Annual Review of Agriculture 1982" White Paper, Command. 8491, is satisfactory.

Does the Minister agree that increased productivity of British farms could be achieved if we used to that end the contribution that we make to the Common Market?

If the hon. Gentleman intends to follow that line, he must realise that any other system could cost the taxpayer up to £2,000 million per year in deficiency payments. If that is his choice, I hope that he will say so.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the level of horticultural production? If he is, is he satisfied with the level of horticultural profitability for the industry?

Yes. There have been problems in some parts of horticulture. I acknowledge them. My hon. Friend will know, both from our support for marketing and on fuel costs, that there has been ample evidence during the past few years of our concern. We have demonstrated it in practical terms for that important section of the industry.

Although the Minister may be satisfied with production, is he not worried about over-production, especially of cereals? Does that not mean that, in addition to the levies, the taxpayer must pay £50-plus for exports of surplus wheat and barley, as well as having to support the Minister in a programme, which is also backed by public money, to export British food?

Yes, I am worried that products are in surplus. The hon. Gentleman will know that we did our best to achieve restraint at the last price negotiations for those products. I would have more respect for the hon. Gentleman's comments if he showed some pride for and appreciation of what British agriculture has achieved. From 1978 to 1980 self-sufficiency in the commodities that we can grow increased from 67 to 75 per cent. In terms of savings on imports, that means that agriculture is saving about £1 billion more this year in foreign exchange than three years ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a substantial body of opinion among the Opposition that it is neither important nor relevant for the United Kingdom to have an agriculture industry?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the European Economic Community Council of Ministers last discussed the export of subsidised food to the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

On 5 February 1980.

Is it right or tolerable that we still export millions of tonnes of food and wine to the Soviet Union at knock-down prices, when our consumers must pay Common Market taxes of up to £1 per pound on beef and 50p per pound on butter? As the Government have been talking about that matter for years, is it not intolerable that the export of subsidised food and wine to Russia is greater than ever before?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend on 8 April this year, we are not happy about that. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the matter. I should have more respect for what he said if he did not exaggerate, but showed some appreciation of what we have already achieved. We have opposed any special subsidy—no special subsidies favouring Russia are in force. On two commodities that have caused anxiety—butter and butter oil—there is no subsidy and therefore no exports. I should respect what my hon. Friend has said more if he acknowledged what had been achieved.

We all know that there are surpluses in the Community. Do the Government have any plans to give such surpluses to the young, the needy and the elderly in Britain?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the butter subsidy that we have achieved, the fact that we operate premium schemes on beef and sheepmeat that are of direct benefit to British consumers, and that, last but not least, at the last price fixing we considerably improved—by 25 per cent.—the sum available under the school milk scheme. All of those demonstrate our interest in the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, at the next meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Community, he will table a further strong protest regarding the recent abandonment of the Luxembourg compromise and seek a clear assurance that the recent incident will not be repeated.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to convene a meeting of European Economic Community Agriculture Ministers in order to reverse the decision on the farm price review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise the subject of the farm price review at the next meeting of European Economic Community Agriculture Ministers.

The Government regret the way in which the Community's customary procedures were set aside at the Agriculture Council on 18 May. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made that clear to our partners. Foreign Ministers will return to the subject of the Luxembourg compromise on 20 June, when the Government hope that a clear understanding will be reached for the future.

Can it be made clear, and without too much diplomatic finesse, both on 20 June by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and on 14 June by my right hon. Friend the Minister, that we will never put up with this type of behaviour again, and that it crucially affects the basis upon which the British people voted "Yes" in the referendum?

Yes,Sir.

What will the Government do if the Minister does not obtain satisfaction on 20 June? Does he agree that the issue is one of sovereignity, in which foreign powers are attacking the British consumer?

No. I never operate on the basis of making suppositions about what we shall do if we do not succeed. I am sure that we shall succeed.

Is the Minister aware that some Opposition Members feel more sorrow than anger about the incident, not least because the additional cost that his proposed package will allegedly impose on the CAP could put the future of European planning in jeopardy? I appeal to the Minister to do everything in his power to bring a constructive end to this unhappy episode.

Yes, we shall certainly do that.

In view of the long struggle to arrive at a common fisheries policy, does the Minister agree that if the Government continue negotiations on fisheries without the Luxembourg compromise being on the table the chances of achieving any deal in favour of or even fair to our fishermen are almost non-existent?

I agree that for a common fisheries policy, or, indeed, any other policy, it is right to have the principle of unanimity. The last time that we failed to secure a fisheries agreement was due to the use of the Luxembourg compromise by another country. But for that, we might have agreed a policy that our fishing industry required and wanted. Irrespective of that experience, however, it is absolutely right to have the principle of unanimity.

In view of the great concern in the fishing industry at the implications of this breach of the Luxembourg compromise, will the Minister now do what we have long been asking him to do and set out in a statement what Britain regards as its legal rights to exclude Common Market fishing vessels from British waters after 31 December?

As my hon. Friend well knows, no Government have worked more closely with the fishing industry than we have in the past three years. Only this morning I had further deliberations with the industry. We are working together on negotiations on the common fisheries policy and will continue to do so.

Whatever the dispute over farm prices, several other countries believe that the Luxembourg compromise is still in operation and would be prepared to operate it. Does that not apply to the fishing industry, or is the Minister now in a more optimistic frame of mind about the fishing issue after his discussions with the French?

I am not in a particularly optimistic frame of mind about the fishing negotiations, because there are many factors involved, concerning not just France, but Denmark and other countries. Having experienced several sets of fishing negotiations, I remain, until agreement is reached, neither optimistic nor pessimistic. It is true, of course, that within minutes of violating the Luxembourg compromise a number of member countries such as France and Italy swore their future allegiance to the compromise.

Will the Minister accept his guilt in this matter? Does he agree that his foolishness and ineptitude in having already accepted most of the inordinately high prices led the other countries to assume that they could go ahead? The real question, however, is what he intends to do about it. Does he accept that the House is entitled to know this in advance of the meeting, because the House agreed to enter the Common Market on the basis of the false promises and the false premise? We therefore wish to know in advance what the Minister intends to do. If he cannot get agreement, is he prepared to withdraw the section of the European budget that is applied to create these high food prices?

The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". On the first part, I make no apology for those parts of an agreement in which I secured double the butter subsidy achieved by the Labour Government and massively improved the beef premium scheme that they had achieved.

What about the higher prices?

I shall come to them. I also massively improved the school milk subsidy achieved by the Labour Government. Finally, the total effect on prices in a full year is that which was achieved by the Labour Government every three weeks.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what impact the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has so far had on agriculture.

Not all of the provisions of the Act are as yet in force. It is therefore too early to assess its impact on agriculture. But it is already providing a stimulus for much constructive debate in the countryside and I believe that full co-operation by all concerned will ensure its success.

Does the Minister accept that, so far, the Act has actually been a disappointment to all those who wanted to stop the destruction of a great deal of Britain's countryside and to ensure that it was preserved? Does she realise that we want action from the Government and not excuses for failing to protect Britain's countryside?

I am sure that that is a great exaggeration. I have pointed out that some parts of the legislation have not yet come into full effect, so the hon. Gentleman cannot say that the Act has been a disappointment. Indeed, all the signs are that the contrary will be the case.

Is the Minister satisfied that enough publicity has been given to the contents of the Act? Should not more publicity be given in schools, for instance, about the purpose of the Act and the need to make the countryside a better place?

My hon. Friend will be aware that this is primarily a matter for the Department of the Environment. Nevertheless, with regard to my Ministry, ADAS is doing a great deal to ensure that there is publicity about the Act and we shall be constantly watching its implementation. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is made aware of my hon. Friend's concern about publicity.

In paying tribute to the efficiency of farmers and, particularly, plant breeders, may I ask the Minister to confirm that, as well as paying high costs, high levies and high export refunds for food, it will be possible under the Act for the public to pay farmers for not producing food? Is that one of the provisions of the Act? Does she agree that such a precedent must be examined very closely?

No, I do not agree that that will be an effect of the Act, any more than I agree with the hon. Gentleman's exaggerated comments about the increases in food prices in the CAP review.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the helpful approach of the National Farmers Union, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council has made farmers well aware of their responsibility for conservation? Does she also agree that the confrontation forecast by the Labour Party has not taken place?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said, a major role is being played by ADAS in encouraging the co-operation of farmers.

Is the Minister aware of the brutal official vandalism of the countryside that is taking place under the Act? Is she aware that in a recent "Farming Today" programme the interviewer said that he was standing in a field of 1,000 acres? Does she realise that that means that ditches, hedgerows and so on have been destroyed and that posterity will agree that the farmers, and not people from the cities, have vandalised the countryside? Is she aware that nothing is being done to prevent this, which is taking place in the interests of immediate profits? Is it not disgraceful that wildlife is suffering dreadfully because of the official despoliation of the countryside, leaving large chunks of it looking like the prairies of Canada?

I am sorry to disagree so much with the hon. Gentleman, but the contrary is true. Removal of boundary hedges, for instance, has not been eligible for grants since 1974. Moreover, advice from ADAS shows that the rate of hedgerow removal has declined markedly in recent years. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like many others, will be delighted to know that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the solution reached to the problem of Dutch horticultural gas prices will provide fully equivalent energy costs to horticulturalists in all European Economic Community States.

I am satisfied that the agreement between the European Commission and the Dutch Government will achieve its aim of removing the distortion of competition in the glasshouse sector caused by the Dutch growers' preferential gas tariff.

Can the Minister say when full harmonisation will be achieved, so that our glasshouse growers know when they are supposed to be on the same basis as Dutch growers? Will she give an undertaking here and now to keep the position under careful review so that in future no steps are taken on the other side of the Channel to restore in some other form the advantages against which our growers have had to contend for so long?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall certainly be doing that. Under the existing Commission guidelines, the aid that we currently pay to our growers ceases on 31 December this year. The Commission has agreed to give early consideration to extending the guidelines so that aid may continue until April 1983, when the Dutch advantage will be eliminated.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress made on this subject, after a long period when no progress at all was made. Will she continue to ensure, however, that close attention is paid to this, as the Dutch have got away with a great deal over the past few years?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to have a viable and successful British glasshouse industry.

Will the hon. Lady also ensure that capital grant-aid to glasshouse producers is equivalent to that which is provided by the Dutch Government to their producers, in order to ensure that fair competition exists within the Community?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we keep that matter under constant review.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the British glasshouse industry will be watching the progress of talks between now and the end of December with considerable anxiety? Continuity of assistance between the end of December and April, when the new arrangements come into effect, is important. Will my hon. Friend also undertake to have long-term discussions within the Community to ensure that the energy costs do not get out of kilter in the future?

I can reiterate to my hon. Friend that the Commission has agreed to give early consideration to the matter of assistance from the end of 1982 until April 1983, when the advantage will be eliminated. We certainly keep the matter under constant review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is expected to be the total cost of the common agricultural policy in 1982.

Taking into account the latest revisions proposed by the Commission, the 1982 budget provisions for the common agricultural policy, as estimated by the Commission, are likely to be as to guarantee expenditure £6,898 million and as to guidance expenditure £409 million, making a total of £7,307 million.

Is that not a great deal of money and are there not many better ways in which it might be spent?

It is, but it covers the whole of agriculture in the EEC. To go over to the deficiency payments system in Britain alone would cost about £2 billion. I know that, with his considerable interest and anxiety on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman will be relieved to hear that in the past three years the budget has increased by only 26 per cent., whereas under the Labour Government it increased by 260 per cent.

Will the Minister explain to the Labour Party that the CAP has many advantages? One is that the consumer has not gone short of any food over the past five or six years. Will the Minister also bear in mind that, while it may be slightly expensive, it has tremendous advantages for the whole of the rural scene?

Yes, Sir. It is also true that in the three years that the Conservative Government have been in power the price of food has increased less than the retail price index in general and has been very much to the forefront in the battle against inflation.

Is it not true that between 60 and 70 per cent. of the EEC budget goes on the CAP? Will the issue of the restoration of the veto be decided by a majority vote? Will we be allowed to use the veto or will the Government be treated with the same contempt that they were on the last occasion?

I gather from the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question that he has been absent for most of Question Time. I am sure that he will read with fascinated interest in Hansard tomorrow the replies already given to that question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite what he has said, the whole policy is in danger of becoming structurally unbalanced because of the rapid fall in the beef breeding herds in the past six years? As my right hon. Friend knows, they have declined by about 25 per cent., from 1·9 million cows per annum to 1·4 million. Will my right hon. Friend look at that matter?

My hon. Friend's point is of immense importance and that is why in this price-fixing we are pleased to have obtained substantial improvements in the beef premium scheme. As my hon. Friend also knows, the Government, as part of their policy, have substantially improved the hill subsidies for beef cattle. I hope that a combination of those factors will bring about the restoration of the fortunes of the beef industry that my hon. Friend rightly proposes.

When the Minister gives us the appalling figure £7 billion as the CAP cost, does he realise that most of that is completely wasted money, in so far as it is used to create surpluses which then have to be exported onto the world market and depress it further? Is he not aware that 47 per cent. of that expenditure goes on export subsidies? Would it not be better if we had our own agricultural policy so that we could take advantage of cheaper world prices and use our money to develop British agriculture?

No, Sir. That is a myth, because the hon. Gentleman looks at world prices in isolation so that they do not reflect the impact that there would be on those world prices if European production were suddenly eliminated and one started to purchase the existing small surplus. That would produce an enormous rise in world prices. Plenty of illustrations in recent years show that that would be the case.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House the value of the net import of foodstuffs to Britain from the European Community? On average, how much is that above world prices at the moment?

No, Sir. However, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that in the past three years of Common Market membership the balance of trade has improved by £1 billion as a result of Britain's food and agriculture performance.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend is attending the NATO summit in Bonn.

Since a long-term settlement of the Falkland Islands problem will demand negotiations with the Argentine, are the Government prepared to start now in order to avoid any further loss of life?

No, Sir.

As the price of the recovery of the Falkland Islands grows in terms of life, injury and cost, will my right hon. Friend accept that the Argentine is simply not interested in just the Falklands or South Georgia, but also the South Sandwich Islands and British Antartica? Does my right hon. Friend accept that some of that territory is further from Argentina than London airport is from Moscow?

If I knew the correct answer to that question I would say "Yes, Sir." As I do not, I am not sure.

The right hon. Gentleman might have used the same technique with the previous answer to advantage. However, may I say that his answer to that question is quite unsatisfactory? I urged upon the Prime Minister on Tuesday, and in a letter to her yesterday, that the Government should take a fresh initiative in the Security Council to see whether an alternative to unconditional surrender can be offered to the Argentine forces. Many hon. Members and people throughout the world have pressed that upon the Government. Such a Security Council resolution would insist that the Argentine agreed to withdraw from the Falklands but would also offer the possibility of negotiation thereafter.

I must urge the right hon. Gentleman to take back to the Cabinet the proposition that the whole matter should be looked at, because if the fighting continues to the bitter end many more lives will be lost on both sides.

The right hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He has made a serious point that deserves a serious and proper answer.

First, it is important to say that at no time have we demanded unconditional surrender. We have made it clear that if the Argentine forces in Port Stanley announced their wish to withdraw to the mainland they would be given time to do so with dignity and good order. That is their opportunity. Before their invasion we made it clear to the Argentines that we were prepared to discuss matters affecting the future of the islands with them. Even after their invasion we were prepared to do so if they promptly withdrew. However, their response was to insist on ultimate transfer of sovereignty to them as a pre-condition. That was not acceptable.

Since our landings on the islands and the losses that we have incurred, it is unthinkable to negotiate about the future of the islands as if everything was as it had been before. As I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept, the situation has moved on and the islanders will need a breathing space before they can express their views about their future. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish them to do that.

I fully acknowledge part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. We have never disputed the fact that fair offers have been made to the Argentine junta. I am not asking the Government to come forward with a full plan of what they are prepared to negotiate about later, but I repeat that a number of people and countries are saying that the Government should see whether a fresh proposal could be made immediately to the Security Council to help stop the loss of life. The loss of life in the past 24 or 48 hours and the loss of life that may be occurring now adds further weight to that proposition. Once again, I urge the Government to do what many people throughout the world are asking them to do.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that I made a careful and considered response to an important request. I stand by that response and have nothing to add to it.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the report of the Overseas Students Trust, which highlights the anomaly of charging students from Hong Kong and the Falkland Islands three times as much for their education as students from Europe are charged, and recommends that students from the British dependent territories should be treated as if they were British born?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and I assure him that the Government will consider the report very carefully.

Since the whole country owes an unrepayable debt to those of our forces who have given their lives in the Falkland Islands, will the Government give further consideration to the genuine and deeply felt pleas from relatives that the bodies should be brought home for burial?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence said that the matter will be carefully considered, and it certainly will be.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 10 June.

I have been asked to reply.

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

Will the Home Secretary confirm that as soon as hostilities cease in the Falkland Islands the Government intend to hold a full and fair inquiry into the events leading up to the Argentine invasion? When will such an inquiry begin and how will it be set up?

In response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister undertook that there would be such an inquiry. She will certainly be in contact with the leaders of the Opposition parties to discuss how that might best be promoted.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people are somewhat bewildered by the proposal to repatriate Captain Astiz, since we are not required under the Geneva convention to do so at this stage and bearing in mind that there are still three innocent British citizens, who happen to be journalists, who are being unlawfully detained in Argentina?

Captain Astiz has been questioned, as agreed, on behalf of the French and Swedish Governments. He is a prisoner of war. Certain dispositions have to be undertaken in relation to prisoners of war, but there are no positions to be taken against him as far as Britain is concerned.

As the number of long-term unemployed reached 1 million for the first time last week, and as this week's CBI Economic Review says that there is no evidence of an upturn in the economy, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to publish the evidence for the economic recovery that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury assures us is all around us?

In recent weeks a number of statistics have shown that the economic recovery is proceeding. I stand by them.

Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the commander of the task force is not being restrained in his operations to recapture Port Stanley for any political reason?

He is not being restrained in any way. The operations are entirely a matter for the commander of the task force.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 June.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the NATO summit in Bonn.

Will the Home Secretary find time today to look at reports in the press about the proposals from the Select Committee on Home Affairs for a review procedure for complaints against the police in England and Wales? Does he agree that it would do much for his reputation as a Home Secretary who is committed to fairness and justice as much as he is to law and order if he went for a fully independent review system? Short of that, will he at least commit himself in the White Paper to independent regional assessors?

I have undertaken to consider carefully what the Select Committee said. I shall fulfil that undertaking and will come forward with an answer to it and with my proposals for legislation as soon as possible.

Will my right hon. Friend probe the Leader of the Opposition's views a little further? To many of us it sounds as if he is prepared to hand over the Falkland Islands to a Fascist dictatorship, in the hope of saving some lives?

It is not for me to probe the views of the Leader of the Opposition under any circumstances.

What news does the right hon. Gentleman have of the number of casualties sustained so far in the Lebanon? What news does he have of the bombing of refugee camps in and around Beirut? Will he take this opportunity to condemn the unwarranted incursion into the Lebanon by Israeli forces and tell the House what negotiations the Government have held with our European partners?

In response to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I cannot give him the information that he seeks. On his second point, I confirm what my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said—that we wholeheartedly condemn Israeli aggression in the Lebanon. We have demonstrated that in the United Nations and we shall support Mr. Habib and everyone else in seeking an Israeli withdrawal at the earliest possible moment.

At what point did the Prime Minister reveal to her Deputy Prime Minister that she had brushed aside the professional advice on air superiority given by some of her Chiefs of Staff? As a former Scots Guards officer, what did the right hon. Gentleman say?

She did not do so and so I did not have to say anything.

Will my right hon. Friend disregard the comment made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) about the Home Affairs Committee report on complaints against the police, because the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee and heard nothing of the many hours of evidence listened to keenly by those who were members of the Committee and who submitted the report?

On the rare occasions that I have to answer at Prime Minister's Question Time, I am always grateful to those who question me on my subjects as Home Secretary. I well understand the great problems that attach to finding the correct solution for complaints against the police. The situation is extremely complex and I hope that the House will bear with me, because we all want to get the answer right.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 10 June.

I have been asked to reply.

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

In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that she is ready, if necessary, to turn the Falkland Islands into a fortress for an indefinite period, are we not at least entitled to know the estimated annual cost of all this and where the money is to come from? If, as the Prime Minister said, freedom is expensive but worth defending, when will the Tory Government give greater priority to public investment in jobs to ensure freedom from unemployment for the 3 million people on the dole queue?

When the Prime Minister said that freedom was worth defending, she was surely right. The right of self-determination for the Falkland Islanders is worth defending and that is what we are doing.

Given the generous offer made by the Australian Government, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the possibility of retaining HMS "Invincible", especially as there is an overwhelming case for having two carriers permanently operational?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence have made clear, we are grateful to the Australians for their offer and it will be most carefully considered.

How many more men from the 1st Welsh Brigade are to be killed or cruelly mutilated, and how many Welsh mothers are to mourn their sons, before the Prime Minister desists from her provocative and deliberate insistence on unconditional surrender and from an insistence that for eternity the Argentine must not participate in affairs on those islands? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to think as a mother, which she fitfully and publicly did some time ago, and stop the role-playing of a warrior queen?

The hon. Gentleman has made some personal remarks. Perhaps it would be in order for me to reply to him in a similarly personal way. There are a good number of us in the House who fought for a long time in defence of freedom in the world. We are entitled to say that we did. We are entitled to be worried about what strains we are putting on our young soldiers today, but we know in our hearts that it is right to do so.