asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of farm expenditure is attributable to rates paid on domestic hereditaments on farms.

The estimated rates attributable to farm businesses represented one quarter of 1 per cent. of farm expenditure in 1981.

What would be the effect on farm incomes, and ultimately on food prices, if the ill-considered proposal of the Select Committee on the Environment to rate agricultural buildings and the even more ill-considered proposal of NALGO to rate agricultural land were brought into effect?

There would obviously be an impact on prices, and farm incomes would be reduced. There would also be a substantial increase in the bureaucracy required. That is why the Government will have nothing to do with agricultural re-rating.

Conservative Members are so predictable that I presume that the question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was really directed at the Opposition spokesman on agriculture, fisheries and food. I wish to make it clear—

Order. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is here to ask questions, not to answer them.

I believed it to be an implied question, Mr. Speaker.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Labour Party's position, which is being criticised at the moment, is that the cost to a local community of the loss of potential rating power should be borne not by the local community but by the community as a whole and therefore should be charged by the local authority and the amount assessed in the annual assessment of farming costs, thus adding it to the equation in that way?

If the Labour Party wishes to go through that process, it is welcome to do so. It would not be popular with the local community, local farmers, British agriculture, or anybody else.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that to change the rating system would be wise, but unfortunate and unwise for the consumer? Will he confirm that the Labour Party's policy is to rate agricultural buildings?

I cannot be responsible for the Labour Party's policy, which, in fairness to the Labour Party. it must be said varies every few months. The Conservative Party will have nothing to do with the re-rating of agricultural land.

Reference has been made to a Select Committee of the House. Has the right hon. Gentleman read a book by his hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), which points out that farmers have received a considerable amount of public expenditure in the form of subsidies? Since that is the view of Members from both sides of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that farmers should make a contribution by paying rates on agricultural buildings?

I disagree with the premise and argument of my hon. Friend's book. The argument about world prices, irrespective of the volume of purchase, is incorrect. I notice that support for the book has come from elements in the Tory press and the Ulster Unionist Party with who my hon. Friend would not normally agree.

It is based on a distinct, passionate anti-European feeling. I personally applaud an industry which currently has an inflation rate on food prices as low as 4·9 per cent., where increases in farm gate prices have been lower than increases in food prices and retail prices, and where this year our balance of payments will be £1,700 million better than if we did not have such a successful industry.

Order. We have spent five minutes on question No. 1. We shall have to move more quickly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had any recent discussions with his European Economic Community counterparts on the prospects of reinforcing the threshold quota system for the main common agricultural policy products.

No, Sir. The application of the guarantee threshold arrangements next year will be a matter for discussion in the context of the 1983 agricultural price fixing.

Does my right hon. Friend feel confident that we can build on what is decided and create a system of almost automatic price reductions for items that are in chronic and recurring surplus? Is this not a means of reassuring those whose opinion, but for this issue, would not necessarily be anti-EEC?

Yes. There are areas where the main element, based on calculations of current income yields from production and improvements in productivity in Europe, should be price stability. That is why the Government have consistently pursued policies that have produced far more stable prices in Europe and Britain than those that prevailed under our predecessors. We shall continue that process in the forthcoming price-fixing.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will emphasise the need for a reduction in the quota intervention price rather than an increase in the co-responsibility levy, which would be less favourable to the British producer?

Yes. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It makes more sense to keep the price low and to encourage consumption than to put up the price and have a co-responsibility levy, which discourages consumption.

Will the right hon. Gentleman try to strengthen the protective mechanisms of the CAP in regard to threshold prices in the forthcoming price negotiations? Is he aware that these mechanisms almost disrupted and sabotaged the recent GATT negotiations?

The hon. Gentleman refers to the damage caused to the GATT negotiations. The United States provides substantial public funds for agricultural production. The system of most of the Western world, based on the desire to ensure stability of food supplies, is an important factor. I prefer to live in Western Europe with its system of stability and adequacy of food supplies than in Eastern Europe with its inadequacy of food supplies.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent high barley crop has caused the Community to limit the import from third countries of all high-starch products? Is he aware that this has the unfortunate side effect of limiting imports of yams from the West Indies, which will have an adverse effect in the new year, if licences are revoked, on the trade that supplies ethnic minorities in this country?

I shall investigate the matter. Yams are subject to the import quota arrangements introduced earlier this year for manioc. Imports within the quota attract a 6 per cent. ad valorem duty. Once the quota is exhausted, all products are liable to the full barley levy. I shall look into any problems that my hon. Friend brings to my attention.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received any representations from the edible oil industry on Merseyside concerning the Lyons Maid factory.

No, Sir.

I thank the Minister for his reply. The closure of the Lyons Maid factory will represent a reduction of only 2,000 tonnes of edible oil a year on Merseyside, but is the Minister aware that there will be further job losses in an area that can ill afford them? Will he give a clear assurance that the Government intend to defend the edible oil industry against any EC regulations that could bring about more unemployment?

I share the hon. Gentlman's concern about the closure of this factory. It is a wholly commercial decision by the company concerned. On Merseyside overall it should not have any dramatic effect. The amount of edible oil involved is 500 tonnes a year—not all of it from Merseyside—compared with a total production of over 200,000 tonnes. It is not all that significant. However, any loss of jobs is significant.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of a Community tax on the import of such oils from outside the Community. This was suggested a year ago. We strongly opposed it then and shall do so again if it is proposed in future.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has that foreign fishing vessels are being registered as United Kingdom vessels for the purpose of fishing in United Kingdom waters; and if he will make a statement.

I am seriously concerned that some 60 ex-foreign, mainly Spanish, vessels have now registered under the British flag and are fishing in United Kingdom and Commmunity waters. Together with my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade I am urgently examining ways of eding this apparent evasion of Community restrictions on third country vessels.

Is it envisaged that United Kingdom law will be amended in the near future to prevent this real and growing threat to our fishermen, especially in the South-West? Alternatively, is the possibility of achieving a quick and effective solution more likely to follow an approach to the Commission with a view to the introduction of a regulation aimed at controlling and preventing the development of this practice?

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall not reject any opportunity to try to deal with the matter.

In regard to primary legislation, the issue is extremely complicated. There is no simple solution. The basic legislation is embodied in the initial Merchant Shipping Act 1894, which has implications far beyond fishing vessels.

Administratively, we have had success in a number of directions. Together with the Commission in Brussels, we are considering other ways which I hope will prove more effective in the shorter term. I also have under consideration one or two other measures.

Will the Minister give an assurance that none of the £15 million of Government aid will go to any of those 60 vessels?

Yes. I am delighted to give that assurance. My right hon. Friend made it clear yesterday that the Government are excluding from the temporary aid scheme those vessels which do not meet the requirement that 75 per cent. of the crew are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on 27 October. This is one example of how, administratively, we are making sure that the abuse is contained.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the main difficulty in amending the 1894 Act is that the Spanish are largely using the proper system for registering British vessels? Is not the quickest way of achieving reform to bring in a regulation within the EEC?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He has greater legal knowledge than I. There is no doubt that the fundamental redrawing of the legislation presents certain difficulties, especially in the short term. We shall therefore use every other means available to us. There should be some possibility of taking action, particularly through secondary legislation.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition are prepared to expedite either fundamental legal change or any statutory instrument that may be required?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. I sense that throughout the House there is support for the action taken by the Government and for any other action that we may consider necessary.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to alter certification arrangements for live cattle and sheep.

No, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend give a clear assurance that he has no plans at present to certify all fat animals at point of slaughter?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the United Kingdom is self-sufficient in butter; and how this compares with the position in 1979.

Production of butter represented 57 per cent. of total new supplies in 1980, which is the most recent year for which complete information is available. In 1979 it was 47 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this increasing self-sufficiency in butter is a tribute to the British farming industry? Is he satisfied that British dairy farmers are being adequately rewarded for this improvement?

The figures show that dairy farmers—through their efficiency, good management and for other reasons—have increased production. I believe that they are being sufficiently rewarded. It is significant that, over the past year, partly for climatic reasons, there has been a further increase in production. The contribution made by dairy farmers is creditable.

Has the Minister any plans to persuade his counterparts in Europe to sell our butter surpluses to the Third world, not to the Russians?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are provisions under the food aid programme for aid to be given. In that general programme the United Kingdom plays its part.

Does the Minister agree that one of the benefits of Common Market membership is that the United Kingdom taxpayer is again having to subsidise exports of butter to the Soviet Union at about one-third of the price that we pay for it?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman also welcomes the fact that the United Kingdom consumer already receives a subsidy throughout the year and that over the Christmas period there will be an even greater subsidy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is still substantial room for enhancement in butter self-sufficiency by the United Kingdom dairy industry? Will he apply the same constructive approach to the marketing of butter as he has towards other commodities?

Although we have improved our self-sufficiency in butter, we are not completely self-sufficient, but the dairy industry is also a considerable exporter. It says a great deal for some of the firms involved, not least the Milk Marketing Board, that we have had success in exporting not only outside the Community but into the Community.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) about the general export of surplus butter? Will he confirm that during the period when the sale of butter from the EC was banned by a decision of Ministers the Commission, over a four-year period, continued to sell food, including butter, to Eastern Europe? If so, will the Minister deplore it?

At the behest of the British Government, the Commission, under the procedures of its management committee—which are the same as they were when the Labour Government were in office—suspended sales for a period. It is difficult to know the eventual destination of some exports, because they can be traded to other countries. That may have happened in recent years. It certainly happened under the Labour Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has had about the importation of Dutch chrysanthemums infected with chrysanthemum white rust fungus; and if he will make a statement.

I have received representations from the National Farmers Union and individual growers. As I have previously made clear, I have decided to allow the new Dutch control measures an opportunity to prove themselves, but if they are not effective I shall impose a ban immediately.

I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. Is he aware that eradication is a tenable policy only if all loopholes are closed, and that the Dutch plant growers have a disastrous track record?

I am aware that the only way to eradicate the disease is to prevent any imports which cause its spread. The Dutch Government are fully aware of this. I have informed them in writing that if there are any further examples of white rust being imported from Holland, an immediate ban will take place.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the danger of the spread of this disease to our own plants by lorries that have carried infected blooms subsequently visiting nurseries owned by our growers? In those circumstances, why is he taking a risk by allowing imports to continue? We know that under the present system blooms infected with white rust are able to enter this country.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that such imports must be prevented and stopped. However, the Dutch Government have put in a new system of surveillance which they claim will prevent any further exports to this country containing white rust. If that claim proves to be false and there is another import of white rust, I shall put an immediate ban on all imports.

The House welcomes my right hon. Friend's use of the word "immediate", but there is immediate and immediate. How quickly from the import of dirty material is "immediate"?

Immediate.

Has the Minister received evidence that on 3 November a consignment was imported from Holland to Covent Garden, some of which was sent to Hampshire and then to Gateshead, and that on 9 November 120 badly infected boxes were intercepted? How immediate is that immediacy?

The hon. Gentleman should be clear that the system agreed by the Dutch has only recently been introduced. The consignment that he mentions, which was known to me, was not subject to the new system of inspection. The Dutch Government have been informed that their new system will be tested and that, if there are any examples of white rust, there will be an immediate ban.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present value of the green pound.

The present value of the green pound is 1·61641 European currency units.

In view of the considerable benefits to the country from the improvement of the balance of trade in agricultural products, which affects all in the agriculture industry at a time of considerable difficulty and lack of profitability—except perhaps recently to those in the grain sector—will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be no change in the green pound?

We are correct to pursue our green pound policy, which is in the interests of our balance of payments and of British agriculture. If the Labour Party's proposals to devalue the currency by 30 per cent. were implemented there would be negative MCAs of 33 per cent., which would be pretty destructive of British agriculture.

Now that the transition of Community prices has been completed, and as inflation rates are somewhat more stable, do the Government agree that the time has come—at least from the agricultural point of view—to enter the European monetary system and thus assist farmers who are nervous about the pressure that will be put on this Government, and no doubt future Governments, about the green pound?

That matter should be put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to me.

With regard to the general operation of the green pound and the MCA system, I point out that under the Labour Government, when there were negative MCAs virtually the whole time, the cost of food went up by about 122 per cent. During the period of this Government, when there have been positive MCAs most of the time, the cost of food has gone up by 32 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the recent increase in the volume of exports is largely due to the fact that the MCAs are positive and that if there were substantial devaluation of the type recommended by the Opposition it would be wholly destructive to the pigmeat industry?

Such a policy would certainly do great damage to the pigmeat industry. In 1978, the last calendar year of the Labour Government, imports were increasing and exports were decreasing. Under this Government, imports are decreasing and exports are increasing.

Before the right hon. Gentleman decides to attack devaluation or anything of this type, will he recognise the great damage that has been done to agriculture and many other sectors of our economy by the very high interest rates that have been necessary to maintain the pound at existing parities?

I know that the hon. Gentleman rejoices in the fact that interest rates have come down so much over the past year. I am sure that if he looks at the performance of British agriculture in terms of production, export, import saving and everything else he will know what a creditable and superb record it is.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on his proposed aid to the Hull deep sea fishing fleet.

The form of the special £15 million aid is set out in a statutory instrument which was laid before the House yesterday.

I am well aware of that, but that is not an answer to my question. I asked what specific aid the Government are to give to the whole deep sea fleet. What part of the temporary life belt that has been thrown to the fleet will go to Hull and the deep sea fleet generally? When will the right hon. Gentleman announce measures to rebuild the deep sea fleet to ensure that we have adequate catches from third country waters and Hull can be a viable port again?

I cannot say how much aid will go to Hull. It depends on the number of applications that are received from Hull and how many of those applications are eligible and approved. I expect that about £800,000 is likely to go to Hull, judging by the way in which the money has been distributed in previous schemes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that under the last three schemes, including this one, about £3·6 million has gone to Hull. We have already entered into informal discussions with the industry on future restructuring. We hope to have more formal discussions shortly on the future structure of the United Kingdom fishing fleet.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Humberside distant water fleet has been compensated for its loss of third country fishing grounds? If not, will my right hon. Friend give that matter further consideration?

As my hon. Friend knows, the loss of third country waters was a considerable factor in the European negotiations and a positive element in the calculation of the quotas. Therefore, that was a real part of the negotiations. In the interim, various arrangements for fishing—for example, sectoral quotas, which the freezer sector of the British fleet alone has enjoyed, and access to the herring fishery, which that sector of the fleet did not have previously—show that we have not ignored the needs of the distant water fleet, particularly the Hull fleet.

Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister are kept well informed of the battle that we in Hull, from the Lord Mayor downwards, are putting up to salvage our deep sea fleet, will the Minister say something about our share of decent quotas in Arctic waters? What are the possibilities of our ships fishing in Antarctic waters in the South Atlantic? Will the Minister say something about the work that he is doing to save the Humber research laboratory in my constituency? All those things are important, as is aid for the consortium and co-operative of the city council and the workers, dockers and others in the Hull Landing Company on the dock.

I was glad to have the opportunity yesterday to meet representatives of the industry from Hull. We had full and useful discussions with them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the loss of distant water opportunities seriously affected Hull and other deep water ports. I am sure he will welcome the fact that, in the final stages of the negotiations on the common fisheries policy, we negotiated an extra 3,000 tonnes of Greenland cod above the original offer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. It shows our concern for his section of the industry.

Will the Minister verify that the industry, both deep sea and near water, urgently needs a restructuring plan and aid? Vessels are earning enough money to keep going, but not to pay off debts or to finance new investment. There is an urgent need to ease the burden of dock charges on the industry so that British ports can compete for landings on equal terms with Continental ports.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the problems of the fishing industry. One of the big problems of long-term structural planning is knowing precisely what the fishing opportunities will be. Once we have established what they will be, both in our waters and in third country waters, we can sensibly plan the structure of the fleet. Therefore, if as we hope, we have a common fisheries policy within sight, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's support.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the percentage increases in United Kingdom retail food prices in the most recent five-year period; and in the periods 31 January 1968 to 31 December 1972 and 31 January 1973 to 31 December 1977, respectively.

The increases were as follows:

	Per cent.
January 1968-January 1973	49
January 1973-January 1978	136
October 1977-October 1982	54

The right hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that over the past two years the increase has been only 14·3 per cent., and over the past year only 4·9 per cent.

Do not those figures clearly show that the exceptionally steep rise in food prices in the four years after 1972 was due to the adoption of the common agricultural policy?

Unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, as he should recall, the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my predecessor, announced a few months before the election that only 10 per cent. of the 100 per cent. rise in prices during the period of the Labour Government was due to the Common Market.

Following that massive own goal by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), will my right hon. Friend remind the House that in 1974 and 1975 the Labour Government wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on completely unselective and useless food subsidies?

Yes, Sir. Altogether, that Government's record was pretty disastrous.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has received any recent information concerning the level of bank overdrafts incurred by the farming industry.

The latest information relates to mid-August 1982, when total bank advances outstanding to agriculture and forestry in the United Kingdom were about £4¼ billion. Survey data show that borrowing amounts on average to no more than one-tenth of total assets per farm in England and Wales.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the considerable increases in productivity achieved by British farmers over the past five years have not happened out of thin air, but have been incurred at the expense of a trebled level of bank borrowing? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase this year in farm incomes is no more than is necessary to repay a small portion of those debts?

Yes, Sir. I am pleased to say that one of the results of the increase in farm incomes this year is that there are signs of considerable increases in investment in British agriculture, which will benefit the construction and machinery industries, which are very much in need of those orders.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware that all the political parties in the House are in favour of setting up a land bank to help young entrants. In view of the opinions expressed by people of all political shades, will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing forward proposals to set up such a land bank?

That is not directly connected with the question, but there are plenty of facilities, including those of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, which can be of considerable assistance to people—including young people—who wish to inject capital into British agriculture.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures show that the cost to the agricultural producer of producing extra food for the consumer has been considerable? Will he comment on the absurd and stupid story in the Daily Mail the other day, by Andrew Alexander, condemning the whole set-up of British agriculture and what it was doing for British consumers?

I disagree with many articles in newspapers, but I suppose that I disagreed with that article more than most. I can only comment that on the one occasion when Mr. Alexander started to practise politics instead of preaching it he lost his deposit.

The Minister might pay a little more attention to the chairman of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation. Does he agree with him and his hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) that the British farmer is now receiving over 60 per cent. of his income from direct Government aid in one form or another? Is he aware that the level of indebtedness has trebled? Is that not an indictment of the common agricultural policy, which he has been trying to defend? Does that not mean that certain sections have done extremely well, but that most farmers have done badly under the Minister's administration and the CAP?

I look forward to the hon. Gentleman bringing forward proposals that will improve substantially the incomes of British farmers. We shall monitor the cost, because the last costs that the hon. Gentleman suggested were about £2 billion, added to which he wants to nationalise land, to have negative MCAs of 33 per cent. and to re-rate British agricultural land. That combination would be a disaster.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what degree the United Kingdom is likely to be self-sufficient for ware potatoes in the current crop year.

We expect that supply and demand will be broadly in balance this season.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he assure the House that the support arrangements for the home potato industry will ensure self-sufficiency, thereby retaining the confidence of potato producers? Will he also assure the House that greater steps will be taken by the Potato Marketing Board to assist farmers to market their potato crops in a better way than they have in the past few years, so that we do not have the massive potato imports that we sometimes have at the end of the season?

The Potato Marketing Board, particularly with its contract scheme, has been successful in evening out some of the market problems. I hope that we can continue to be self-sufficient in potatoes, although that crop is perhaps more subject than others to changes in the weather and other conditions.

My hon. Friend will be encouraged to know that the current price is above the guaranteed price. However, we must look ahead-and I am delighted that both the National Farmers Union and the Potato Marketing Board have prepared proposals. I have had preliminary discussions with them and I look forward to carrying those discussions further.

As the Potato Marketing Board is grower-financed, and therefore grower-oriented, does the Minister agree that it has a vested interest in keeping up the price of potatoes? Might it not be more helpful to have a Potato Marketing Board which collates correct and unbiased information, as does the United States Department of Agriculture?

If the Potato Marketing Board fails to fulfil its statutory responsibilities it is subject to questioning and control. In recent years the board has shown proper concern for outlets for potatoes other than those going direct for human consumption, such as through potato processors. It has also shown particular concern for the consumer. I encourage the board to follow that policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with conditions at Southall horse market; and if he will make a statement.

We have been monitoring all horse markets following the introduction in 1979 of the code of practice and we are writing to markets where breaches of the code have been noted. My officials have written today to the operators of Southall market. I stand ready to take further action, including the introduction of legislation, if the necessary improvements are not made quickly at the poorest markets, including Southall.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's reply and thank him for what he has done to implement the 1979 code of practice. However, in view of the suffering of many animals at Southall and other horse markets, will he consider the introduction in any future legislation of powers to close horse markets where grave abuses continue?

I know that my hon. Friend has taken an immense interest in this topic. He has informed me constantly of the situation at Southall. I am sure that he would be quick to point out that there are perfectly good marketing practices there, with plenty of people dealing fairly and reasonably with the animals. Alas, there are also places where animals suffer hardship. Therefore, I repeat the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend that, if necessary, legislation will be introduced to ensure that the code of practice is enforced.

asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy; and to what time scale he is working.

The Government have already made good progress in improving the operation of the common agricultural policy. The agricultural share of the Community budget has dropped from 80 per cent. when we took office to around 60 per cent. this year. We are determined to keep up our efforts for as long as necessary.

Is it not fair to say that the fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy is pure illusion?

My hon. Friend should reflect upon the fact that over the past year British food prices have increased by less than 5 per cent., our exports have increased by £600 million in the past four years and our imports are £1,000 million down. He should recognise that Britain is now obtaining considerable benefit from the changes that we have achieved in the common agricultural policy.

Will the Minister confirm that he has no intention of seeking any fundamental reforms in the common agricultural policy which would reduce the price of commodities to the British housewife?

I repeat that under the Labour Government food prices went up by 122 per cent. Under this Government they have gone up by only 32 per cent. as a result of our handling of the common agricultural policy. The view of the Minister of Agriculture in that Labour Government was that the majority of price increases were due to factors outside the Common Market. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reflects carefully on that.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that in any reshaping or adjustment of the common agricultural policy he will not lose sight of the importance of the continuity of food supplies? That has gone largely unremarked during our membership of the Community, but it is valuable to the consumer.

Yes, Sir. In the 1930s we made the mistake of relying on world markets, and great sections of British agriculture and horticulture were destroyed. After the outbreak of war we recognised the terrible failure of that policy. I am pleased to say that under all post-war Governments adequate food supplies have been ensured, and under this Government our self-sufficiency in the goods that we can produce has increased from 67 to 75 per cent.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

Has the Prime Minister noticed that Britain now imports more manufactured goods than it exports? If she thinks that her policy of industrial anorexia is not contributing to that deindustrialisation and to today's horrifying unemployment figures, how does she explain that the crucial factor in this week's savage job cuts in the Sheffield steel industry was not her pet alibi of poor quality, productivity or delivery, but a lack of domestic demand, notably in engineering steel?

The hon. Gentleman must have made a mistake in his reference to imports in manufactured goods being more than exports. The monthly figures give imports as cost, insurance and freight, and they give exports as free on board. If one excludes cost, insurance and freight—which come in invisibles—a proper comparison of imports with exports can be made, and if that is done the hon. Gentleman will find that what he said is not so. There is still a surplus of manufacturing exports over imports. The hon. Gentleman has made a common mistake.

The unemployment figures are out today, and unfortunately the underlying trend is upwards. However, there is a deep world recession, which is affecting other countries in Europe and, of course, our industrial competitors further afield.

The hon. Gentleman implied that we need not take any notice of quality and productivity. Of course we must want quality—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman suggested that he did not want another homily on quality and productivity, but both are vital. The hon. Gentleman went on to speak about demand. I point out once again that the import penetration of cars is above 55 per cent. If those cars were made here, we should have the steel trade here. That also applies to many machine tools. The problem is not a shortage of demand, but the fact that people choose to buy foreign goods instead of those produced here.

As the Government are about to come to a decision on overseas students' fees, will my right hon. Friend find time today to press the appropiate Ministers to accept the offer of the Hong Kong Government to share with this Government the cost of giving home student status to Hong Kong students?

I understand that a scheme has been proposed by the Hong Kong Government, the cost of which would be shared fifty-fifty with this Government, and we are considering it.

In view of today's NATO Defence Ministers meeting, the considerable public disquiet about cruise missiles and the regrettable position that might arise in December next year if there is no progress at the INF and START talks, will the Prime Minister assure the House that if it were necessary to deploy cruise missiles a system would be adopted similar to that adopted for the Thor missiles, whereby they could never be fired without the physical agreement of representatives of the British Government? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that no decision will be taken in December 1983 on their deployment without a debate in the House?

We are already pledged to honour the NATO commitment, and I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would wish us to go back on that. He wishes that there were no need to have cruise missiles stationed here. There would indeed be no such need if the Russians dismantled their SS20 systems. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes that as much as we do. Should cruise missiles be stationed here—they will have to be unless the SS20 systems are taken down—the same rules will apply to them as have governed American nuclear weapons here for many years.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the latest economic proposals of the Labour Party are unattainable and irresponsible? Does she agree also that their only beneficial side effect is further to undermine the credibility of the Labour Party?

I believe that they are totally irresponsible and dangerous. They would lead to a rapid return of inflation, and that would be followed, once again, by increasing unemployment.

Is the right hon. Lady aware of the deep resentment that is felt in the West Midlands at the flippant reply given last week by the Secretary of State for Employment over the mounting job crisis in the region? Is she further aware that a reply given to me shows that the highest rate of unemployment before May 1979 was 6½ per cent.? It is now 16½ per cent., and continuing to rise. Is the right hon. Lady proud of the fact that under her Administration the centre of manufacturing and engineering in this country has been brought to such a devastated state?

What I said in answer to the first question is directly relevant to what the hon. Gentleman asks. If there had not been import penetration, or, to put it another way, if our car industry had been more competitive and less strike-ridden and produced goods and cars that were saleable to ordinary people in this country as well as overseas, the West Midlands would be much more prosperous than it is now. Incidentally, in that connection, I congratulate Jaguar on the excellent work that it is doing.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the past 30 years the growth of the hotel and catering industry has provided many permanent jobs for young and unskilled workers? Does it not follow that we would be well advised to apply our grants and aid to a growing service industry rather than give them to the old, outdated and outmoded industries that claim too large a percentage of our national wealth?

I agree with my hon. Friend that tourism and the hotel and catering industry are extremely important to our economy, and that in future more jobs will come from services. This year the Government spent about £56 million on tourism. We are having a review to see whether that money is being best applied, how best the Government can help tourism and the hotel and catering industry, whether there is too much bureaucracy in handing out that money, and whether we have the best structure for promoting tourism. We are anxious to do all that, because my hon. Friend is right to say that many jobs depend upon it.

Why does the Prime Minister continue to ascribe the appalling unemployment figures to the effects of the world recession, when world markets grew last year by 5 per cent. and our manufacturing exports shrank by 4 per cent.?

That is because the greater part of the problems are attributable to the world recession. In addition, there are further problems that are specific to this country—the overmanning and restrictive practices throughout the years and the habit and practice of overpaying ourselves, or paying ourselves nearly twice as much for producing the same amount, whereas our competitors' pay and output are much more nearly hand-in-hand. Those facts have made the recession deeper here than in a number of other countries.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the report, published yesterday, of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, in which, from its unique position of overseeing sentencing policy throughout the kingdom, it is unanimous in condemning excessive leniency in sentencing for crimes of violence? Does she agree that that supplies official confirmatiomn of an anxiety that is widely felt by ordinary people? Judicial and Executive functions cannot overlap, but does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate to draw that report to the attention of the Lord Chancellor?

I have seen the report, although I am not completely au fait with it. I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will have seen it and read it in full. I share my hon. Friend's concern about remarks in the report, which I believe to be correct, that in certain cases sentences are nothing like severe enough. I share the view of Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice, who said that medium or long-term custodial sentences were appropriate for most robberies and most offences involving serious violence.

Has the Cabinet had before it today not only the appalling unemployment figures but the evidence of the sheer grinding increase in real poverty? Did she study, for example, the figures that were given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), which showed that the number of people living on supplementary benefit in this country had increased by nearly 1 million during the past three years? Does she blame all that on someone else?

The number of people on supplementary benefit has gone up as the threshold for supplementary benefit has risen over the years. [Interruption.] Of course it has. The number of people on supplementary benefit went up under Labour Governments as well. The number has increased from the early years as the level of poverty has been redefined by successive Governments—[Interruption.]—and therefore more people have qualified for supplementary benefit. Having been a Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for many years, I am very well aware of that. Added to that, there is the extra burden on those who are unemployed. The way to get unemployment down is to get industry more competitive—[Interruption.]—but unfortunately the Opposition never understand the truth. The way to get unemployment down is to get industry more competitive and its products better designed, so that those who earn their living in this country will buy the products produced here.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that this is a question, not of the redefinition of poverty, but of its intensification? Is she not aware that in the past three years the number of children in families living on supplementary benefit has gone up to nearly 1 million and that the figure has more than doubled during the three years for which she has been responsible? Does she have no shame about these matters?

As I said, the numbers have gone up. One of the reasons is increasing unemployment. I have said what I think is the best way to get that down. The supplementary benefit scheme means that those who are unfortunately without work are catered for.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 2 December.

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

Will the Prime Minister spend some time today looking at reports that the European Commission has consistently been defying the Council of Ministers by selling butter to the Soviet Union? That is outside its remit. Is she aware that that process has been going on for some time? Indeed, it happened when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), was in charge of the Commission. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the fact that the right hon. Gentleman seemed less than assiduous at his Prayers today shows that he could not organise a harvest festival in a vineyard?

I heard the allegation to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I do not know whether it is true. The matter is being looked into. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just told me that butter sales to Russia reached their peak during the last four months of the Labour Government.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study reports in the newspapers that the Inner London Education Authority is proposing to withdraw grant from the Scout movement because Major General Walsh, the Chief Scout, wants to increase discipline, self-respect and hygiene in that movement?

Almost all hon. Members would say that the Scout movement is excellent and that Major General Walsh is a superb leader.