asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about the common fisheries policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in securing a revised common fisheries policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the latest state of negotiations on a common fisheries policy of the European Economic Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the development of a common fisheries policy.

Since my right hon. Friend last reported to the House in July, the Council of Fisheries Ministers met in Luxembourg on 4 October. No real progress was made because Denmark alone was not prepared to negotiate. The next Council meeting is planned for 25 October.

I wish my right hon. Friend a happy Trafalgar Day.

It should be Waterloo.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern that is felt by the fishing industry about the failure to reach a solution to the problem? Will he give the House a guarantee that if by 31 December no solution is reached, foreign fishermen will not be allowed to fish up to our shores?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's good wishes. The one country that was holding out at the last Council meeting was not France, but Denmark. I wholly understand what my hon. Friend has said. The uncertainty in the fishing industry, not only in the United Kingdom, but in other countries, is extremely great. Therefore, there is a real incentive for all countries to find a solution. I assure my hon. Friend that no British Government—certainly not this Government—would tolerate fishing up to our beaches.

To remove any possible doubt and uncertainty, will my right hon. Friend assist the House by publishing in the Official Report the legal powers that would be used to exclude foreign vessels after 31 December in the event of failure to agree? Secondly, will he give us an assurance that, in the agreed position of the nine members, there is provision for the phasing out of historic rights?

With regard to my hon. Friend's first question, if he had experience of negotiations, he would not give away his negotiating position before he entered the negotiations. That applies to us in this matter.

Even if the Minister triumphs on the Copenhagen front and the Danes withdraw from their present position, does he agree that the EEC provisions are for historic rights to be exercised up to our beaches, but that those historic rights, with modern equipment, will put our fishermen's livelihoods at stake and so are unacceptable, irrespective of any Danish objections?

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I emphasise that, in the proposals put forward by the Commission, there is no provision for any foreign rights within six miles. With regard to the six to 12 miles belt, the Commission has put forward a number of proposals that are based generally on the historic rights of other countries. That is the basis on which we shall negotiate next week.

Does the Minister realise that the continuing uncertainty places even greater financial pressure on the fishing industry? What recognition will he give in aid to the industry during this period?

I am conscious of that fact. However, that is a separate issue from the vital and long term issue of settlement of the common fisheries policy. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the past two years we have shown our recognition of the problems of the industry in the present uncertainty by giving it £42 million in aid.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will greatly welcome his assurance that the Government will not tolerate a scenario that would permit fishing up to our beaches? Will he treat with considerable scepticism some of the proposals for local fisheries plans formulated by bodies not expert in the fishing industry?

I made plain the Government's position about fishing up to our beaches. A similar view is shared by other EEC Governments. There is provision for a fishery plan off the north-west coast of Scotland in the Commission's proposals which we shall be considering in the context of the negotiations.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread suspicion among fishermen that the Government have delayed announcing the financial assistance until the result of the policy negotiations is known, so that it might be a sweetener at that time? The protracted negotiations and the uncertainty have not helped the financial state of the fishing industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman make an early announcement of the financial aid that the industry desperately needs?

We made the position plain to the industry, although it may not be plain to the right hon. Gentleman. There is no connection between aid and the settlement of the policy, as I said in answer to the previous question.

With the negotiating pressure on the Minister by the threat of fishing up to our beaches, why does he not announce his contingency plans to stop it by the end of the year, draft in trawlers to protect our fishing grounds and make it clear that the partial settlements which have been so unsatisfactory to the British industry will not be the basis of the measures that he will enforce unilaterally from 31 December?

I have not made such an announcement, because it would be foolish to give away our negotiating position. The hon. Gentleman shows his lack of appreciation of the situation. It was the Labour Government, in the Hague agreement, who caused the doubts about the powers that we have in national measures.

Has the Minister not already virtually sold out to the Common Market? Is he not telling us that he has retreated from the 12-mile exclusive and the 50-mile preference limits to a 6-mile exclusive and a 12-mile preference? It would strengthen, not weaken, our hand if he told us his contingency plans to save the industry if no agreement is reached. Will he follow the example of Lord Boothby, who stated that if we cannot get our terms we should come out?

In the same recent announcement the noble Lord supported the Government's efforts to reach a settlement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support him.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been achieved to date on the equalisation of energy costs incurred by glasshouse growers in EEC countries.

Under the agreement between the European Commission and the Dutch Government, the preferential gas tariff to Dutch glasshouse growers is to be phased out on 31 March 1983. I am extending the aid to United Kingdom growers using oil at the maximum rates permitted under new guidelines recently issued by the Commission. This additional aid will be worth up to £1 million to the industry.

I welcome the extension of the aid and recognise the Minister's stand. However, does he recognise the catastrophic position of many of our glasshouse growers because of the cumulative effect over many years of the Dutch advantage in fuel costs? Is it possible to make aid available to make up for the years when the disadvantage was greatest? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to implement the Select Committee's recommendations for the industry, as, without them, there will be many bankruptcies in the years ahead?

The Government, in the absence of an agreement with the Dutch, negotiated that aid should be provided by national Governments. Britain, and perhaps one other country, has for a considerable time given the maximum aid allowable. I am continuing that right up to the moment when the Dutch gas subsidy is phased out.

In view of the long start that the Dutch had and the fact that the capital base of our industry has been eroded by what the Commission has proclaimed to be the Dutch Government's unlawful actions, could we not continue the aid until next autumn so that the creditworthiness of at least part of the industry can be restored after a situation that is not of this Government's making? Can we not at least do what is within our power to assuage the ill-effects of the Dutch cheating?

No, Sir. Under pressure from the United Kingdom Government, the Commission negotiated to phase out the advantage that the Dutch had by a certain date and agreed that until that date aid should be provided. We are almost alone of all European countries in giving the maximum aid to our growers during the entire period.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the United Kingdom is self-sufficient in butter and cheese.

Production of butter and cheese represented 57 per cent. and 70 per cent., respectively, of total new supplies in 1980, which is the most recent year for which complete information is available.

Do not the figures show considerable scope for further expansion by the United Kingdom dairy industry? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage that expansion?

The United Kingdom dairy industry has already responded to the stimulus that the Government have given. We have seen an increase in production both this year and over recent years. Its marketing in the United Kingdom and abroad shows it to be an extremely lively and effective industry.

Is the Minister aware that many of us are worried about recent press reports that the French Government are to block the importation of New Zealand butter if sales of cheap butter to Russia do not go ahead? Will that not have a catastrophic effect on the New Zealand economy, renege on assurances given during the passage of the European Communities Bill and—most important to me, as I have an Anchor butter packing station in my constituency—mean a loss of jobs in Swindon and the surrounding area?

I wholly share that anxiety, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will express his appreciation of our achievement this week in Luxembourg of 87,000 tonnes of butter for 1983. That was agreed at the request of the New Zealand Government, who have publicly stated that they welcome the Council's decision.

Would we have the power to veto future arrangements that might reduce the importation of New Zealand butter?

The original protocol and special conditions agreed for New Zealand imports were on a degressive basis, which the New Zealand Government have accepted. I agree that, for a host of reasons, New Zealand butter is of particular importance. We shall continue to work in close co-operation with the New Zealand Government over what happens after 1983.

May we have a categoric assurance that the agreement for importing New Zealand butter is not contingent on the French demands to sell off rock bottom surplus butter to the Soviet Union? New Zealand is, after all, an old trading friend and Commonwealth ally.

I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I managed to resist the attempt this week by the French Minister at the Council of Ministers to make the agreement conditional on the sale of butter to the Soviet Union. Agreement has been reached in principle. Various procedures have been followed through. The agreement should go through simply as a "procedure" point at a future Council of Ministers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current position for additional financial assistance to marginal land areas.

Discussions on the case for extending the United Kindom's less favoured areas have commenced with the European Commission, and the Government's present priority is to secure designation of the new areas.

I appreciate the progress that has been made on the recognition of marginal land in this country, but when does my right hon. Friend hope that the negotiations will be completed in Brussels? In the event of the submission being successful, when will tangible financial assistance be made available to our marginal farmers?

My hon. Friend will understand that we must make our decisions when we know the exact designation of the volume of land involved. We shall put on every possible pressure in Brussels to come to as speedy a decision as possible.

is the proposed delimitation of marginal land in the United Kingdom, which has been published in the form of maps, final, or is it subject, to negotiation and modification?

It is subject to modification and negotiation if the Commission considers that there is some justification in doing so. We believe that there is every possible argument for the maps that we have submitted. On all the assumptions and past criteria, we believe that those maps will be accepted, but obviously I cannot guarantee that the Commission will not query any of those maps.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Welsh farmers, for whom this is an important matter, feel that progress has been extremely slow? Will he give an assurance that any settlement on marginal land will not result in any erosion of benefits for hill land?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain to Welsh farmers that the Government were unwilling to accept the procedures that were being adopted when we came to office, and we went to the Commission and asked for totally different procedures. Had we adopted the previous procedures, it would have taken another two to three years before we could have sent the maps. Therefore, we have done everything possible to speed up the process. I can only guarantee that we shall review the hill subsidies in terms of the problems of the hills themselves.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, if this matter proceeds quickly, it will be the next major step forward in British agriculture and will be of particular importance to the South-West of England? Will he also bear in mind that, given the present tremendous loss of agricultural land, if we could re-use some of our marginal land for food production it would help not only British agriculture but the consumer?

The importance of that is recognised in a number of areas. It is of considerable importance to Northern Ireland, Wales, the South-West and various other areas of the United Kingdom. That is why the Government have done everything possible, first, to prepare our proposals more speedily and, secondly, to negotiate them more speedily within the Commission.

Will the right hon. Gentleman study the findings of the Arkleton Trust, which have demonstrated that, in the less favoured areas, British farmers have done far less well under the Community arrangements than have other Community farmers? Will he therefore make more financial resources available to compensate for that?

That is undoubtedly why the Government have done superbly well in massively increasing the hill farm subsidy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sheep have been killed as a result of sheep worrying during the last 12 months.

There are no figures for the last 12 months.

Does the Minister agree that one of the most sickening sights in the countryside is that of sheep that have been killed or savaged by packs of dogs? Why has the Government's only contribution to the problem been to stop collecting statistics rather than solving the chaos with the licence fee? Why do they not embark on a campaign to make all dog owners responsible for what happens in an effort to ensure that this practice ceases?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first concern about the damage that can be done. He has no doubt seen the graphic poster that we have produced as part of our publicity. The hon. Gentleman will know that we stopped collecting statistics because they were unreliable. Many incidents were not reported. We believe that education and publicity offer the most realistic solution to the problem, and our considerable efforts in that direction will continue.

In considering any legislative measure for the control of dogs, will the Government bear in mind the importance of all parts of the United Kingdom moving together in this regard, as there is obviously an important fiscal aspect in which there should be no differentiation between one part of the country and another?

I note the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but there might well be different physical attributes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that recently in my constituency there was a grisly incident of sheep being murdered by dogs? In addition to the ghastly experience of the farmer having to clear up the aftermath, no compensation was available to him despite the fact that the dogs' owner was convicted of failing to look after them properly. Will my hon. Friend consider creating conditions under which a dog licence must be accompanied, either under the householder's comprehensive insurance or other insurance, by insurance against third party risks?

The Government have at present no plans to increase the dog licence fee. Compulsory third party insurance is a matter for the Lord Chancellor.

Is the Minister aware that this is a special problem in the Lakelands and that the National Farmers Union, both in the Lakelands and nationally, has asked the Government to increase the penalties? Will she make a statement on those increases?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the question of penalties is for the Home Office.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now bring forward a contingency plan for the development of the British fishing industry in the event of failure to agree on a common fisheries policy.

Not at this stage. Negotiations on a revised common fisheries policy are still continuing.

As there are only two months to run of the 10-year derogation negotiated by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), is it not high time that the Government faced the fact that the industry now needs action, not words? Is it not clear that any settlement cobbled up before the end of the year will involve a sell-out of a fundamental British national interest? In the circumstances, will the Minister serve notice on other EEC Governments that the British Government intend to introduce a national plan to protect our waters from foreign vessels and to develop an onshore industry which will provide thousands of jobs in areas of greatest need?

Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my reply to question No. 1, he would have realised that Nine of the Ten are prepared to negotiate on a realistic basis. If he wishes to do a service to the industry, he will realise that we should not reveal our negotiating position in advance.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement regarding the three-mile limit up to the beaches. Like other hon. Members, he knows perfectly well that there was no fishing up to the beaches in 1973 prior to our entry into the Market. If, during the time that he is preparing his contingency plans, there is no common fisheries policy by 31 December, will he consider the restructuring of the fleet, as that will be necessary if we have to go it alone? I also hope that—

Order. We have had the question. The hopes can wait.

I assure my hon. Friend that in any contingency plan we shall make sure that the interests of the British fishing industry are looked after, and we shall also consult the industry closely.

What will be the legal position after 31 December? When will the right hon. Gentleman announce the Government's aid to the fishing industry? We were expecting it in July, but, according to a reply this week, the Minister said that he hoped to make the announcement shortly. How short is "shortly", because originally it meant last July?

I said "soon", and I stand by that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the articles of the Treaty of Accession, the Commission and Council have to come forward with proposals on access by 1 January 1983. There is, therefore, a responsibility on both the Commission and Council to reach a decision, and that is recognised in the Treaty of Accession.

If they fail to do that, when will the Minister present to the House and the industry the necessary contingency plans? Is he aware that their legislative enactment, if required, will have the support of both sides of the House? The industry and the public at large need reassurance now, not soon.

If special contingency measures are necessary, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we shall bring them forward at the most appropriate time for the best interests of the British fishing industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tonnes of straw were burnt during the 1982 harvest in England and Wales; and how many acres were involved.

This information will not be available until January 1983, when I will be happy to send it to the hon. Member.

I shall look forward to receiving that information. Does the Minister accept that all concerned agree that the burning of straw is a deplorably messy, dangerous and wasteful means of disposing of a potentially useful agricultural by-product? What have the Government done to assist the industries concerned to find a constructive use for the by-product?

For several years my chief scientist's group and ADAS have played a major role in the Oxford straw utilisation conference, attended by farmers, scientists and potential users. My right hon. Friend will be addressing the next conference in November. Research into disposal and utilisation has continued in collaboration with the Paper Industry Research Association, commercial interests and the joint consultative organisation for research and development in agriculture and food.

From the information that may have been available to my hon. Friend's Department, can she say whether the number of complaints about straw burning this year has declined compared with last year?

With the damp weather in 1982, fewer incidents of damage or nuisance were reported than in 1981. A few farmers still disregard the code, but most are well aware of the need to observe it. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate them on their responsible behaviour.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in maintaining health standards of the United Kingdom poultry flock.

The health status of the national flock remains at a very high level. In particular, the freedom from Newcastle disease, which the measures introduced about a year ago were designed to protect, has been maintained. Following the recent judgment of the European Court on the import rules, introduced at the same time, revised measures have now been notified to the Commission and the other member States. Those measures, which will be implemented shortly, will ensure that our health standards are maintained.

In view of the immense importance of sustaining the health of the United Kingdom poultry flock, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that nothing will enter Britain from abroad until the rules are fully defined and all are aware of what is required of them? How can we be sure that there will be proper enforcement of the rules, bearing in mind that the work on the enforcement—for example, the certification—will probably be carried out abroad? What time scale does she envisage in bringing all that into effect?

The revised import rules are extremely detailed. In broad terms they are designed to safeguard the stock, but would permit imports subject to certification. The press notice issued by my right hon. Friend shows that details of such certification are being sent to each of the member States, which will be asked to let us have specimens of their export documents. My hon. Friend asked how we could be sure that the rules would be properly enforced. We shall make the necessary administrative arrangements to implement the new measures and ensure that the rules are properly enforced. The time scale will be as soon as the countries have provided us with the certification requirements.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the state of the goose farming industry.

United Kingdom goosemeat production is expected to be about 860 tonnes in 1982. This represents a 15 per cent. increase over the levels in recent years.

In that case, what is the thinking behind the Minister's decision to despatch a goose ecologist to the Falkland Islands?

I am sure that he will boost the current good trend in goose production, for which the United Kingdom is responsible.

As it is possible to fatten geese on grass alone, would it lot be possible to persuade various nationalised industries and statutory organisations such as the roads, railways and so on, to make use of the grassland along their verges to fatten geese?

I understand that geese are also very good watchdogs. I do not have responsibility for nationalised industries, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have responsibility for such matters.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from horticulturalists about the state of the horticulture industry.

I am in constant touch with the representatives of the horticulture industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the news about the extension of adaptation aid will be especially welcome to that very hard-pressed industry? Will he maintain the vigilance that he has shown to ensure that fair and proper competition is maintained throughout the EEC?

Our horticulture industry makes an important contribution to the economy of Britain. The research programmes and the ADAS advice service and the capital grant programmes have all been retained and, in some cases, improved. We shall continue with that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the number of reports that are still coming in about lorries laden with produce coming to some of our east coast ports and selling produce on the roads, thereby evading VAT and health regulations? What is being done to stop that undesirable practice?

We shall quickly follow up any information about such practices. One encouraging aspect of horticulture is that on a legal basis some of our exports are improving.

Can my right hon. Friend go further in his remarks about horticultural exports and give some indication of the recognition that he might give to those striving hard in that difficult area, especially bearing in mind the knock-on effect of an enlarged EEC? What steps does he mean to take to help the exporter?

We shall do everything possible to encourage those trends. From a recent visit to retailers in Belgium and Holland, I realised that there was considerable scope for improving our exports to those countries.

What principles will inform the Government's attitude to the difficulties that will be faced by the horticulture industry because of the enlargement of the Community to include the Iberian countries?

We shall study the impact of that in the negotiations. It will be varied. In terms of the enlargement, there is considerable opportunity for improving exports of some of the Northern hemisphere products which are not produced in the prospective new EEC countries.

Does the Minister accept that the level of bankruptcies and pending bankruptcies in the horticulture industry are disturbing? Is he aware that unless something akin to longer-term security in respect of the energy element is forthcoming from the Government, the basis of our horticulture industry could be destroyed during the next few years?

I consider the horticulture industry to be sufficiently sophisticated to notice the difference in the way in which we tackled the Dutch subsidy problem as opposed to the method adopted by our predecessors.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the recommendations in the Flowers report "Coal and the Environment" which affect his responsibilities.

Our general policy is to try to ensure that agricultural land losses are kept to a minimum and that the interests of agriculture and the coal industry are properly balanced. My officials are participating in the interdepartmental discussions on the recommendations in the report.

Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers suffer a grave injustice because they cannot claim compensation for consequential loss in the event of coal mining subsidence? In the light of the Flowers report will my hon. Friend urge my right hon. Friend to amend the voluntary code at an early date?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern that those affected by mining subsidence should be properly compensated, but while I am concerned to safeguard the interests of the agriculture industry, compensation for subsidence is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, as my hon. Friend will know.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the latest figures for stocks of intervention foodstocks in terms of the number of days of consumption.

Foodstocks—including animal feeding stuffs—held in intervention in the European Community in terms of days' consumption are:

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these stocks are not excessive in relation to the total consumption of the EEC, and that in this day and age it is better to have a surplus than to have a shortage?

I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. When one sees what is happening in other countries, one realises that consumers, in particular, always benefit more from surpluses than shortages.

At the same time, does the Minister agree that a more accurate and objective indication of a surplus would be in respect of the percentage of annual production? In that regard, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that throughout the EEC there is at least a 20 per cent. surplus of dairy products and milk production?

We are concerned about continuing surpluses in particular products. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken certain steps in recent price fixings to try to put some restraints on increases in production. I put the question back to the hon. Gentleman: would he rather have 5 million tonnes, as we have in intervention in the Community, in cereals, as against the 50 million tonnes shortage that Soviet Russia is experiencing?

Does the Minister expect the stocks to increase or to decrease over the next 12 months? As he has firmly rejected the export of surplus butter to Russia, where should the surpluses go?

If my hon. Friend understood a little more about agricultural production he would realise that this problem happens all over the world, and the effect on surpluses depends on world trade and prices. There are other factor, which are impossible to predict at this stage.

As the Minister accepts that we have these surpluses of foods, does he think that his Department can prevail on the Department of Education and Science to take advantage of them to help local authorities, which are in the shameful position of having to end school meals?

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that this Department has negotiated support for school milk. I am glad to say that many local authorities have taken advantage of that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a comparison between the current United Kingdom market price and world market price for(a)wheat, (b)beef,(c)butter and(d) sugar.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall publish the information in theOfficial Report; but my hon. Friend is aware that world prices fluctuate substantially—for example, only a short time ago the world price of sugar was 40 per cent. above the Community price.

Does my right hon. Friend agree—we shall see later in theOfficial Report—that for most of these commodities the European prices are much higher than world market prices? Inasmuch as the United Kingdom is a net importer of European foodstuffs, is this difference in price not a heavy tax on the British consumer over and above our net budget contribution? Would my right hon. Friend—on a slightly different matter—

Order. That is enough to get on with.

On the general scene of food prices, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that during the period of this Government farm gate prices have increased at only half the rate of inflation in general. With regard to the Community agriculture budget, whereas under the Labour Government this went up by more than 200 per cent. , under this Government it has gone up by only 26 per cent.

Has the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs drawn the Minister's attention to the publication known as "The Budget Problem"? Does he agree with it when it states that Britain

"buys food from other member states at Community prices which are higher than world prices because of the price support mechanisms of the CAP and …the resulting cost to Britain is not matched by equivalent gains on the industrial side"?

I know that that has been the constant view of the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he should reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) said. There may be many people in the Socialist economies of Eastern Europe who would prefer to have the surplus problems of the CAP to the shortages of the Soviet Union.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on any progress made to reform the common agricultural policy.

A number of measures have been taken, and that is why under the previous Government, Community agricultural spending increased by over 210 per cent. , while under this Government the increase has only been some 20 per cent:.

Since it is possible for us to obtain dairy products from other countries more cheaply than we have been obtaining them under the intervention price scheme, what is now the Government's attitude? Are they seeking to abandon the CAP or do they think that they can bring about some real reform in the next Session?

Many measures and changes that have taken place have resulted in a dramatic improvement in cost savings. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to rely on the cheapest price that he can obtain in world markets for particular commodities, he should not argue in the same breath for full employment and stability. We have a stable food supply and a stable agriculture, and the contribution towards reducing inflation has been considerable.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with in nisterial colleagues and others. 1M addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the disruption that her miserable Ministers, who are acting against the country, have caused to the police, Telecom workers and steel workers and the miners? Is not the right hon. Lady prepared to take some action against this disruption, and what will she do about the militants in her police force who disrupted the Home Secretary's meeting last night? Will she take time off today to listen to the new record "How does it feel to be the mother of 1,000 dead?". Will she take—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the rest of the House.

That is rather a lot of questions. The police have had a very good deal from this Government and I thought that the performance yesterday evening by the Metropolitan Police Federation was disgraceful. I do not believe that it will have found favour with the vast majority of the Metropolitan Police force, and I think that it have done it a great deal of damage The hon. Gentleman mentioned various other subjects With regard to competition, it serves the British consumer better than nationalised monopolies. With regard to steel, just a few moments before I came to the House I learnt that agreement had been reached in the Community in Brussels on the limitation on steel exports to the United States. That is expected to take effect from 29 October. Once again our Ministers have done a good job.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the recent reports that the Home Secretary is about to submit to the House new regulations regarding immigration? In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that no final decision will be reached before we have a full debate in the House on the matter?

I understand that the new immigration rules will be required when the new British Nationality Act takes effect. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to publish a White Paper next week, which will contain draft immigration rules. The White Paper, subject to agreement with my right hon. Friend the Lord President, will be debated for a whole day in the House. Final decisions on the new immigration rules will not take place until after that debate.

In view of the statement that the right hon. Lady has just made about the steel industry, and in view of the mounting crisis in that industry, even if the agreement with the EEC forms the basis for a settlement with the United States, will it not still cause a big injury to the British steel industry? What steps will the Prime Minister take to assist the industry in its immediate crisis?

Obviously if the EEC has reached agreement as reported, and countervailing duties are therefore not imposed, the situation will be much better than it would otherwise have been. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is still a great steel crisis the world over. We have to recover our home market, much of which was lost as a result of the disastrous 13-week steel strike in 1980, when those who had loyally purchased from the British Steel Corporation found that their source of supply was not reliable and had to go elsewhere for steel.

Britain's home market is suffering more than any other from steel imports and yet the British Government do less than any other Government about it. What steps will the Prime Minister take to try to deal with increasing steel imports, which threaten to close further major plants unless something is done to stop them?

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he objects to the United States taking steps against imports, and at the same time wants us to take steps against imports? The two do not add up. Britain acts with the Community on steel and we must continue to do so. We must learn to compete in terms of our home market and exporters. Strikes cost jobs and the right hon. Gentleman has been the strikers' friend.

The right hon. Lady must face the facts about an industry which she is steadily ruining. Does she not understand that there is a great difference between the position in the United States and here? In the United States about 1 per cent. of the industry is affected by imports, whereas here the figure is about 30 per cent. The United States took some action to deal with the problem, but the British Government have taken no action to protect British industry.

One-third of our gross domestic product is exported, so if we start protectionism in Britain as a general principle we shall lose jobs in every export industry in the country.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to study the speech by the director-general of NEDC, in which he called for a truce over the frontiers of ownership and instead a concentration on efficiency?

I saw the speech. I wondered whether the director-general made the same speech when so many nationalisation measures were introduced. It would have been better if he had made the speech then.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the reports in today's papers about the Polish refugee, Josef Samek, who, after 41 years, was reunited with his daughter who lives in my constituency and who believed him to have died in a Soviet labour camp? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the period that Josef Samek is being allowed to stay in Britain has been reduced from six to three months? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he will be allowed to remain in Britain with his family for as long as he wants to?

As my hon. Friend knows, we had a general rule that Polish people here at the time of the military takeover were allowed to stay and were not made to return to Poland, where they might have had a terrible time. If my hon. Friend provides details of the individual case, we shall consider it sympathetically.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time to keep up to date with the work of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights? Does she regard the convention as having an important part to play in guarding civil liberties now that it has stood so firm in defence of the three British Rail workers and seems to have persuaded the Home Secretary that he must extend to women citizens the same rights in relation to foreign husbands as men citizens enjoy in respect of their wives?

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say earlier that a White Paper is to be issued next week, which will be debated in the House before final decisions on new immigration rules are taken. The closed shop case would not have arisen but for the disgraceful legislation by the Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman's party supported.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the TUC unions which are proposing another day of action in support of National Health Service workers would be better advised to say publicly that they will accept pay settlements lower than the National Health Service settlement? Does my right hon. Friend further agree that the best way to help the low-paid and families is to increase child benefit by more than the rate of inflation?

My hon. Friend never misses an opportunity to plead that cause. I agree that it would be best if the National Health Service strike were ended now. That would be better for the patients, better for the reputation of the country and better for all those who hope to achieve orders from overseas and whose interests the strike damages.

Can the Prime Minister explain why we should believe that the economy will become much better with the fall in inflation when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, for example, has been saying the same thing for the past two years and more and the situation has gradually worsened?

Many right hon. Members in the Labour Government said that the most important aspect was a fall in inflation. We heard that again yesterday. We must have a fall in inflation if we are to compete with other industrialised countries, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He will be aware that in spite of being now much more competitive with overseas countries we have still a long way to go before output per man in Britain equals that in the United States, Japan, Germany and France.

Does my right hon. Friend share my regret that the European Community should send so much of its butter to the Soviet Union at heavily subsidised prices when our own people cannot afford to buy it? Will my right hon. Friend use her considerable powers to influence our colleagues on the Continent to change the rule?

As my hon. Friend knows, Britain has voted firmly against subsidising food exports from the Community to the Soviet Union and will continue to do so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 October.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the proposed closure of the Wood Green and Southgate hospital in my constituency, which takes patients from Finchley, and which is being closed because of the Government's refusal to fund one-third of the wage rise for Health Service workers this year? In the light of that closure and other closures being contemplated, will the Prime Minister give a categoric assurance to the House that the Government will fund the whole of any increase to Health Service workers next year from the Treasury and not decide, as Ministers are discussing, to fund none of it?

The hon. Gentleman raises two points. It came out firmly in yesterday's debate that the resources available to the National Health Service as a whole are 5 per cent. more in real terms this year. Therefore, the only question is the distribution of that increase over and above what the Labour Government provided in accordance with priorities which all Governments must make and which every responsible person in the House and elsewhere should be prepared to make.

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that steel is a vital subject? Would it not be unfortunate if tomorrow's strike were to let in our competitors and take away our orders? Could the unfair competition from Spain be looked at again? Is the Prime Minister aware of the steel committee of the OECD? Will the Government refer our problems vis-a-vis Europe and the World to that committee following the meeting of the International Iron and Steel Institute in Tokyo, where the heads of the steel industry got together and provided much information for all Governments?

I agree with my hon. Friend that if we have more strikes they will cost jobs. Strikes besmirch this country's reputation overseas. They stop investment and orders that would otherwise come here, and cost not only the strikers' jobs but jobs in other companies.

rose—

Order. We were one minute late in starting. I shall allow one more supplementary question.

Will the Prime Minister explain why the Government are subsidising unnamed private steel consortiums, and giving vast sums of public money to buy out and close private steel firms such as Manchester Steel Ltd. in my constituency, with the loss of 810 jobs and a vital industry?

While the steel market is falling world-wide, and we are not competing as well as we should, we have to make the best possible arrangements for jobs as a whole I believe that that is what is happening.