asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what, for each of the past four years for which figures are available, was the European Community entry price expressed as a percentage of the third country offer price for beef and butter, respectively, using the definitions and methods of calculation previously used by the European Community Commission.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will publish the information in the Official Report.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in the latest figures published by the EC, the offer price for beef was one half the EC price and the offer price for butter was one quarter the EC price? Will he also confirm that we are paying £3,000 million more per annum for food than we need to because of our membership of the EC?

The logic of the hon. Gentleman's question is that he would destroy British agriculture in order to buy cheaper goods. That is absurd. The latest figures for the years asked for by the hon. Gentleman show that there has been a decline in the difference between world and EC prices of butter and beef. However, if one starts using world prices they should be calculated on the basis of cheap food imports and the eradication of European agriculture.

Why has the Commission stopped publishing comparisons between offer and entry prices? Is it because it is aware of the burden of the CAP on the British economy—a burden which has not been compensated for by industrial benefits as was promised at the time of Britain's entry?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the increase in the CAP budget under the Labour Government was dramatically greater than under this Government. When I took over, the agricultural proportion of the European budget was 80 per cent. It is now 60 per cent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will report on his inquiries into the reduction of the size of the proposed European Community fisheries inspectorate.

Mr. Holden, head of the Commission's fisheries enforcement unit, has told my right hon. Friend and has recently confirmed to my officials that the staff resources allocated to him are what he has requested and are adequate for their task.

As the conservation of stocks must be the fundamental objective of any common fisheries policy, what confidence can we have in the EC's ability to run such a policy if it is prepared to halve the inspectorate before it gets off the ground? Have the Government reversed those proposed cuts in the inspectorate?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the inspectorate. A much larger inspectorate was envisaged when it was thought that it would operate at national as well as international level. With the support of the House, we have successfully negotiated that national enforcement should be our responsibility. Therefore, a relatively smaller task force is needed for international supervision.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, far from the inspectorate being reduced, it should be substantially increased in view of past well substantiated instances of continental vessels breaking all the agreements and regulations? If the protection fleet is not increased, the fishing community will have an even shorter future than appears at present.

The right hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand the situation. There is no inspectorate at the moment, and that is one of the basic problems. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not welcome the inspectorate.

I agree with my right hon. Friend's remarks about the additional inspectorate, but, given the national inspectorate and the additional inspectors, can he give an assurance that adequate supervision of British waters will be fully secured?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I pay tribute to those who work in our protection fleets and aircraft. Recent weeks have shown the effectiveness of their coverage. If there is no adequate supervision at international level, my right hon. Friend and I will press for an increase in resources. However, let us get the inspectorate going, as it is something that we have not had before.

Is the Minister aware that this morning Madame Simone Veil informed the Legal Affairs Committee that the European Parliament had written to the British Government reminding them, in the case of Captain Kent Kirk, that all Members of the European Parliament are entitled to immunities and privileges under the protocols of the treaty? Have the Government yet received that information and have they responded to it? Will the right hon. Gentleman rebuff such an intolerable attempt to interfere in British legal procedures?

Matters speak for themselves. The way in which our protection forces and courts have responded speaks for itself.

With respect, that does not answer the question. Until today the British legal processes spoke for themselves. What will the Government do to reject any attempt to interfere in those legal processes?

The hon. Gentleman apparently regrets the way in which we dealt with the breaking of our law. If he wishes to ask questions about our processes of law, he should address them to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the percentage of full-time hired agricultural workers whose weekly earnings are less than £93.

It is not possible to give a precise estimate of the number of full-time hired adult agricultural workers earning less than £93 per week. The latest figures from the wages and employment inquiry, which relate to the third quarter of 1982, show that in England and Wales 24 per cent. of such workers earned less than £90 and 31 per cent. less than £95 per week.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that 40 per cent. of farm workers with families of two—that is four out of every 10—earn less than £90 per week and therefore fall below the poverty line? Does he further accept that that happens in a highly productive and rich industry? As more farm workers than any other groups of workers draw family income supplement, does the Minister agree that that is subsidising the wages bill of rich farmers? Does the right hon. Gentleman further agree that in such circumstances the last pay award of £5 per week was a scandal?

I know that the hon. Lady takes an immense interest in this subject. However, perhaps she would bear in mind three basic facts. In the last two years of the Labour Government, agricultural wages fell in real terms compared with 1975. During every year under this Government, agricultural wages have increased in real terms. Perhaps the hon. Lady will recall that, under the Labour Government, between 1975 and 1978 agricultural wages increased by less than £19. Since the Conservative party took office, wages have increased by £45. If the hon. Lady wants to know which Government treated agricultural workers better, she should bear in mind that the gap between agricultural and manufacturing wages has been smaller in every year of this Government than it was during all the years of the Labour Government.

Is it not true that farmers' incomes were 40 per cent. higher last year? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, by their efforts, all agricultural workers deserve to be paid wages in the upper quartile of average industrial earnings?

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that agricultural wages should be linked to farm incomes, I must ask him whether when, in previous years, agricultural incomes fell by nearly 50 per cent. and agricultural wages increased in real terms, that process should have been reversed. During this Government's term of office agricultural wages have done better than agricultural and farming incomes.

rose—

Order. I shall call two hon. Members from each side to ask supplementary questions.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he has given refer only to cash incomes and do not include other benefits, such as the housing at less than economic prices which many farm workers rightly receive?

Yes, Sir. In fairness, one must point out that not all agricultural workers receive the benefits of no or low rents. Of course, for some it is an important factor.

My right hon. Friend will recognise that there has been great concern about the purchasing power of the lower-paid agricultural workers. Will he confirm that the purchasing power of an agricultural worker's wages has never been higher than it is today?

Yes, Sir. I also confirm that in every year of this Government the purchasing power has improved.

Is the Minister aware that for the past three and a half years he and his Government colleagues have been defending not the wages of farm workers but the conditions in which Mr. Gordiano can pick up a £500,000 a year salary and Mr. Bill Fieldhouse can get a golden handshake of £700,000? That is the society that the Government are protecting. At the same time, they are the people who—

Order. Are they farm workers?

No, Sir.

The question relates to agricultural workers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had representations to revalue the green pound; and from which organisations.

A number of hon. Members have forwarded to me letters from constituents advocating a revaluation of the green pound, and the Food Manufacturers Federation and Bakery Allied Traders Association wrote jointly to the Ministry in December. I have also had representations from the farmers unions against any revaluation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he make a forecast? How would a further loss of value in the pound sterling against the European currencies affect British food prices? In particular, how would it affect the pig industry in Yorkshire and elsewhere?

There is no doubt that positive MCAs have been of considerable advantage to the pig industry. The negative MCA policy of the Labour Government was a colossal disadvantage to the pig industry. Due to the change in the sterling exchange rate, there are neither positive nor negative MCAs now. If there had been positive MCAs, the Government would have opposed the revaluation of the green pound.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to seek to channel intervention grain stock to help the pig industry.

My Department and the European Commission have considered such a scheme for animal feed generally, but there are serious doubts about its cost effectiveness. Accordingly, for the present, the Commission has decided against it.

I accept the Minister's reply and that which his right hon. Friend gave to the previous question. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that British pig farmers have had a pretty thin time during the past few years? Will he agree to meet a deputation of pig fanners before they become a totally extinct species?

The hon. Gentleman must see the issue in perspective. Although pig farming has gone through a difficult time compared with other areas, there was a certain improvement in profitability last year. However, towards the end of the year things were more difficult, and that is shown in one way or another by the various costing figures. I am, as usual, happy to meet anyone who wishes to make representations. Indeed, I regularly meet members of the National Farmers Union on this issue.

I do not usually support the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), but I must ask my right hon. Friend to take this question very seriously. A thorough investigation might help our stock farmers and, in the long run, given the danger of exports to the Eastern bloc ceasing, cereal farmers as well.

I accept that, but my hon. Friend must remember that the scheme that has been put forward cannot be confined to a single area of livestock production, or it would create distortions. If such a scheme is to be effective, we must ensure that it leads to an increase in consumption and usage. We must be satisfied about that before we can take it further.

Is the Minister aware that if the Liberal party had not voted for the European Communities Act 1972, pig producers would now be able to buy their grain for about half the present price?

Yes, but there are many other advantages. One advantage, of which I hope our pig industry will increasingly take advantage, is that the pig farmers are members of the largest consuming market in Europe. There is tremendous scope, especially as pig prices in the United Kingdom are lower than prices in almost every other Community country, to be much more aggressive about exports to the rest of the Community.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the present position of the intensive pig industry continues for any length of time, there will inevitably be a substantial reduction in the size of the pig herd? If my right hon. Friend cannot help in this way, will he consider other methods to help the industry?

There is also considerable scope for the pig industry to help. It is significant that in recent weeks the price of British bacon has fallen, whereas the price of Danish bacon has remained the same. I hope that the industry will take advantage of a much bigger market. The fact that there is such a large differential means that, through the charter bacon scheme and other efforts, we should try to obtain a greater share of our market.

This is a series of intolerable answers. At present we have about 7·5 million tonnes of cereals in intervention in the EC, and last year we spent more than £1 billion on intervention in purchasing cereals in the United Kingdom. Are we saying that we cannot devise a method of getting the cereals to the hard-pressed pig producer? What does the right hon. Gentleman wish to do with this monstrous mountain of cereals—destroy it or make it inedible?

The hon. Gentleman should reflect on what I said to him previously. We know that there is a surplus of cereals in the Community. Under this system, would he rather have our relatively small surplus or the 50 million tonnes shortage in countries behind the Iron Curtain?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current average value per acre of class A agricultural land with vacant possession in England.

The average price of grade 1 agricultural land in England for the period January to November 1982, based on a sample of approximately 40 per cent. of vacant possession sales, was £2,689 per acre. The corresponding price for grade 2 land was £2,018 per acre.

I am grateful for that reply. Are my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Ministry as worried as I am about the rising price of agricultural land, especially to young farmers trying to get into the industry? What hope can my right hon. Friend offer them?

My hon. Friend will know that we could not find time for new proposals on landlord and tenant legislation. The decline of the tenanted sector has continued for many years, but it has been accelerated by the legislation that was enacted in 1976 by the Labour Administration.

Did not that legislation give rights to tenant farmers who could not otherwise have afforded to buy the land? Was it not a protection against greedy land speculators and institutions, which were buying and enhancing the value of agricultural land, as the Minister said? Is that not a much more potent factor in the cost of farming today than the trade union members and the farm workers whom the Government always blame for high wages? In fact, we know that farm workers are in the lowest section of wage earners in Britain.

No. Recent surveys by Savills and Reading university suggest that the influence of the institutions has been exaggerated. It is estimated that in recent times they have bought between 8 and 12 per cent. of farm land put up for sale, but their total holding is only about 2 per cent. of agricultural land in Great Britain.

I should like to revert to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins). Does my hon. Friend agree that generous and realistic facilities are available to young farmers who wish to get on the farming ladder through the Agricultural Credit Corporation? Will she do all that she can to ensure that those facilities are widely advertised?

I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is important that any amending legislation should improve the prospects for young people who wish to enter farming on their own account.

Does the Minister agree that the position described is a clear manifestation of the consequences of operating a free market economy? How can the young farmer, who may be extremely well equipped to take over a holding, afford land, even with the facility mentioned by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle)? Does the hon. Lady accept that most would-be young farmers could afford to buy only as much grade 1 agricultural land as would fill a window box?

I see a bleak future for them if the Labour party proceeds with any idea of nationalising agricultural land.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total agricultural support was given to horticulture in the last year for which complete figures are available; and how this has varied over the previous 10 years.

It is not possible to quantify the total support given to horticulture and other sectors of agriculture. I am in close and continuing touch with the industry on ways of helping growers. As my hon. Friend will know, since 1981, £10 million of aid has been given to glasshouse producers, and recently I announced important grants to the orchards sector.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that about one third of all the food that we consume and the flowers at which we look are produced by the horticulture industry, whereas the aid given to the horticulture section is much less than 30 per cent. of the total? Will he take steps, first, to congratulate the horticulture industry on standing on its own feet and, secondly, to ensure that, where help is given, it bites quickly?

Yes. Horticulture plays a very important part in our food production. From the interest shown by my hon. Friend in this matter, I know that he will recognise the considerable benefit to British horticulture of the Government's support for Food for Britain. The industry will benefit greatly from the marketing initiatives of that new organisation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the support given to horticulture in Britain compares unfavourably with that given in the Netherlands? His recent decision to wind up the Land Settlement Association in a cavalier manner represents an attitude towards horticulture that does not place sufficient importance on such an important sector of our economy. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that, for all those reasons, we must have a new attitude and put much more into horticulture, as the Select Committee report said?

The hon. Gentleman makes a comparison with Holland, but he knows full well that we have negotiated successfully to bring about, by March, the eradication of the major aid received by the Dutch horticulture industry. As someone who has been very much in contact with what has happened on the LSA estates, I can say that our proposals have been welcomed enthusiastically by the majority of people on those estates.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we have reduced our dependence on food imports as a whole, there is still scope for further improvement in meeting home demand from our resources in the horticulture sector? Does that not merit reserving a higher proportion of support for horticulture?

For the past three years I have been willing to consider suggestions from the horticulture industry, and the Government have acted on many of them. I agree about the domestic market opportunities. There are even wider opportunities for exporting food. Several of our major fruit and vegetable co-operatives, which have embarked upon substantial campaigns in the European Community, have had considerable success in the past 18 months.

The Minister mentioned the glasshouse sector of the industry. Does he recognise the predicament of that sector? If so, what steps does he propose to take, not only in the short term, but in the long term, to assist that sector?

We are currently having talks with the leaders of this sector of the industry. Perhaps the most important area to consider is how the energy and heating arrangements for the glasshouse industry will continue. For example, in conjunction with the National Coal Board, we are studying new systems of heating which would be helpful to the industry.

I compliment my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved with regard to the heating difference between the Netherlands and Britain. Is he of the opinion that later this year our growers will be competing on equal terms with the Dutch? If not, what further action does he propose?

With regard to energy, our growers will be competing on equal terms with the Dutch. We shall watch with close interest to see whether any other changes take place, either here or in Holland, in order to ensure that our people can compete on fair and reasonable terms.

Given that this is a most self-reliant and labour-intensive industry, is it not clear that, faced with the prospect of Spanish and Portuguese and potential Greek competition, the present level of Government and Community support for horticulture in Britain is wholly inadequate?

The hon. Gentleman should consider the impact on horticulture of Spain and Portugal. There are areas in which the competition could be increased, but there are other areas of horticultural production in Britain for which those countries will present important new markets.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the newly designated marginal land areas will be likely to be fully integrated into the less favoured areas schemes for the United Kingdom.

The European Council of Ministers has yet to consider the United Kingdom's proposals for extending our less favoured areas which, as my right hon. Friend told the House last month, were formally submitted to the European Commission on 13 December. It is too early to say when the Council of Ministers will consider our case or what the outcome will be.

Will my hon. Friend accept that the Government's policies for the less favoured areas have been of enormous assistance to livestock farming? How soon will the maps be available so that farmers can begin to plan for the future?

I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend in the first part of his supplementary question. Small-scale maps showing the approximate area of marginal land were made available last September, when the discussions opened in Brussels. Maps on the scale of about one inch to the mile are now available for inspection by directly interested parties at selected offices throughout the country.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government are committed to giving financial aid to those farmers included in the new marginal scheme now before the EC?

It was important for us to present the programme and the principle. I have repeated at the Dispatch Box that there is no Government commitment to finding new funds, but, naturally, it was important to investigate the possibility and place the proposals before the Community.

Surely the Minister must recognise that it is a waste of time if the Government will not provide additional money. Is the hon. Lady aware that her noble Friend, the Minister of State in another place, told a deputation this week that the Council of Ministers would not consider the matter until the summer? Will she ensure that there is a decision within the next two months?

I can only repeat what I have already said. I cannot say exactly when the Commission will place our case before the Council of Ministers or, indeed, when it will consider it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the Forestry Commission assesses the possibility of various tree species for differing climatic conditions.

The Forestry Commission assesses the possibilities of tree species for forestry throughout the range of climatic conditions experienced in Britain. Its assessments are principally made from experimental plantations of promising, mostly exotic species and varieties. The commission has been continuously testing species and varieties in this way since 1922 and currently has over 500 experiments, extending into severe climatic conditions at higher elevation and on exposed coasts and islands. It is internationally recognised as a leading authority on research of this kind and participates in international species trials when these are relevant to British forestry.

In view of all that expertise, what is the assessment of the cost of a cubic foot of prime timber produced in the area of Stoneyburn, Fauldhouse or Longridge in West Lothian compared with a cubic foot in the saline soils of the Roaring Forties of West Falkland? What are the assessments of the transport costs for taking the timber from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere? In 80 years' time when the trees mature, who is likely to be the owner of that afforestation? [HON.MEMBERS: "Answer"].

The hon. Gentleman will realise that I should need to have written notice of some of the details of the first part of his question. I can assure him—

The hon. Lady cannot see the wood for the trees.

I can assure the hon. Member that the cost of establishing trees on the islands to which he referred obviously depends on the size and shape of the woods established, but it is estimated at an average of £1,200 per hectare.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to have further discussions with the Council of Ministers about the milk co-responsibility levy.

My right hon. Friend has already made it clear to the Agriculture Council this week that he is opposed to the co-responsibility levy.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the levy is costing dairy farmers about £40 million a year? Does he agree that it discriminates strongly against British dairy farmers? Will he and his colleagues try to get rid of it?

Yes. It is bad, not only for dairy farmers, but for consumers. If action is needed in this direction it is much better taken with regard to price rather than through a co-responsibility levy.

Do I take it that the Minister is in favour of co-responsibility but not in favour of the levy?

Co-responsibility can be applied in a number of different ways and if it brings cooperation and non-discrimination, of course it will be considered.

Does my right hon. Friend even accept the concept of a European dairy structural surplus when Britain is far from self-sufficient in many dairy-related products?

I am glad to say that in recent years our dairy industry has responded well to make the United Kingdom more self-sufficient.

Have not producers any responsibility for the cost of disposing of surpluses, particularly in dairy products and other products? Does the Minister recognise no responsibility to the British taxpayer or the British consumer?

The hon. Gentleman's question makes me wonder whether he has even examined the way in which the European Community works and whether he has noticed the decline in real terms of the price of milk. Secondly, I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman said about the co-responsibility levy. He would appear to be in favour of that levy rather than in favour of price restraint.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average annual yield of milk from dairy cows in the United Kingdom compared with other European Community countries.

According to information published by the Milk Marketing Board, the average annual yield in 1981 in the United Kingdom was 4,908 kg per cow. This compares with a figure for all 10 member states of 4,127 kg per cow.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he ensure that no measures are taken at the EC price review that will penalise the advantages of the British milk producers that arise because we produce milk more efficiently?

The figures that I have mentioned show the way in which British dairy farmers have taken advantage of technical improvements and advances in breeding, feeding and so on. They are certainly counted among the most efficient producers in Europe. I assure my hon. Friend that in the price fixing negotiations we shall endeavour to ensure that there is no discrimination against our efficient industry.

If the British cow industry is so efficient compared with the rest of Europe, why does not the Minister advocate similar subsidies, compulsory planning agreements and protection for the British car industry?

I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would welcome this, because the way in which the British dairy industry has responded has meant not only that more of our dairy products come from British farms but that a successful export industry has been built up. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that as yields are so high—and we congratulate British farmers on that—the need for new markets in dairy products is essential? Will my right hon. Friend give even further encouragement to new types of cheeses, such as Lymeswold, so that there may be even greater varieties of cheeses and dairy products at home and for export?

One of the most encouraging developments in recent years is that, although we still import large quantities of butter, we now export considerable quantities. I support and praise the initiative of such organisations as the Milk Marketing Board and other bodies in developing new products. It means that there is scope for increased markets both at home and abroad.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what, for each of the past four years for which figures are available, was the European Community entry price expressed as a percentage of the third country offer price for common wheat and white sugar, respectively, using the definitions and methods of calculation previously used by the European Community Commission.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will publish the information in the Official Report.

Does the Minister accept that the last set of published figures showed that the EC price for wheat was 63 per cent. more than the world price, and that for sugar it was 31 per cent. dearer? Does he also accept that Britain pays far more for those goods inside the EC than it would if it were dealing in world markets? Why have the Government stopped publishing the figures?

In recent times the price of Community sugar has been well below the world price, so the position varies. It is important to ensure security of supply. During the time that the Government have been in office, farmgate prices have risen not only far less than retail prices in general, but far less than food prices. We have had both stability of prices and security of supply.

Will my right hon. Friend at least accept that we are doing a great deal of damage to some of the poorer countries by dumping substantial surpluses at prices well below those in the Common Market? Does he have any new plans to reduce large structural surpluses in the EC?

The messages that I have received from the poorer countries involved in sugar production show that they are concerned about sugar prices in the Community rising as little as is suggested for the coming year. They receive guaranteed prices for their major exports to the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been (a) the increases in the levels of public stocks and (b) the average increases in export restitutions in the third quarter of 1982 compared with the third quarter of 1981 in the European Community for butter and wheat.

At the end of the third quarter of 1982 public intervention stocks of butter and wheat were 41,364 tonnes and 1,391,000 tonnes respectively higher than at the same stage in 1981.

Is it true that the Commission expects surplus food stocks to rise in 1983 due to a downturn in consumption, itself attributable to escalating unemployment? Why does not the Secretary of State put it to his European colleagues that they should channel less money into support for agriculture and more into support for resolving problems of unemployment, both of which are in structural surplus?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Community has only one area in which it is responsible for marketing arrangements, and that is agriculture. If we add together the national investments of all the European countries in helping with the problem of unemployment, and injections into industry and energy and, in Britain, injections into the nationalised industries, we find that the sums are very great.

Will the Minister confirm that about 1½ million tonnes of surplus British grown wheat will be exported in the coming year, and that the export subsidy per tonne will be about £60 to £70?

Yes. I am pleased that a country which 10 years ago was a net importer of cereals, by about 10 million tonnes, is now a major exporter of 4 million tonnes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom's present level of self-sufficiency in temperate food that can be produced in the United Kingdom compared with 1972.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in ensuring that the United Kingdom is self-sufficient in the production of temperate foodstuffs.

I estimate that we now produce 76 per cent. of all the temperate foodstuffs we consume. In 1972 the figure was only 63 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of that improvement has come from the massive achievements in productivity by British farmers? Does he accept that the application of such techniques to nationalised industries and their prices would be of benefit both to British farmers and to other British industries?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Not only have British farmers achieved considerable success, but it has been in the interests of the British economy as a whole, with more than £1 billion of imports saved compared with 1979.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that achievements have been made not only by British farmers but by the industries that are ancillary to, and help, the farming industry? Does he further agree that if the same level of increase in productivity had been sustained throughout the British economy we would be in a much better position today?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Not only are 650,000 jobs directly involved in agriculture, but many tens of thousands more are involved in the engineering and building industries and elsewhere. The benefits go widely through the economy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 January.

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, including one with Afghans who are resisting the Soviet occupation. Later today I shall be leaving for an official visit to Yorkshire.

Between those important meetings, will my right hon. Friend have time to consider the implications of strikes in essential monopoly public services, such as the Health Service and the water, gas and electricity industries, where disruption can cause serious health hazards and possible danger to life? Will she consider setting up a Royal Commission, or some other body, to draw up revised and fair terms and conditions of employment that would preclude the right to strike, such as we have for the police and armed services?

I note my hon. Friends remarks about a Royal Commission, but "no strike" agreements tend to be expensive. My hon. Friend mentioned the water industry. There is an agreement in that industry to solve disputes through arbitration, which is binding upon both sides. I understand that the employers and unions are negotiating through ACAS. I hope that the negotiations will be successful and that the threat to strike will be withdrawn.

The position in the water industry, with possible strike action, is serious. Will the Prime Minister, as a Government, do everything possible to ensure that the discussions at ACAS are allowed to succeed? Will she, as a Government, ensure that no steps are taken that would injure the possibility of successful negotiations? The unions have wanted that from the beginning, and they want it now. They want fair treatment from the Government.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is a threat to strike. I understand that that is in breach of the agreement, which is to resolve disputes through arbitration. I join him in hoping that the discussions through ACAS will be successful.

I would not invite the right hon. Lady to say anything that would make a settlement more difficult—I would not wish to do so. I am sure she will understand that there have been ballots throughout the industry. There is strong support among its workers, who feel that the proper negotiating machinery has been interfered with and that the Government have intervened. Will she encourage the discussions at ACAS to succeed through genuine negotiation? I am sure that a settlement could be reached on that basis.

I have already wished the negotiations well, and I repeat that.

Without in any way criticising the tribunal that sat in Liverpool yesterday, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of anxiety that Michael Fagan was released from hospital yesterday without any surveillance? Would she further agree that the Mental Health Act 1959 should be amended so that in future it should be possible for mental health tribunals to impose a supervision order on people leaving hospital, if that is thought to be necessary?

I recognise the deep feelings that my hon. Friend has expressed. I understand that the judge who presided in this case made a hospital order without also making a restriction order, which it was open to him to make. The hospital order put the decision on to the medical tribunal. Had the judge made a restriction order as well, the matter could have gone to the Home Secretary. At present we must obey the existing law, which was drawn up in 1959.

Has the Prime Minister seen the report of the Central Statistical Office, published yesterday, which showed that manufacturing output in November was the lowest since the mid-1960s? Is that not a remarkable achievement after four years of her economic policy?

The right hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says about manufacturing production. That is, of course, only part of production. The GDP over the same period is considerably up. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the middle 1960s. The index of manufacturing production is at its lowest since 1967. On the same basis, GDP is up 26 per cent. on the 1967 figure.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in seeing this afternoon the survivors of the Logar massacre in which 105 unarmed civilian Afghan people were massacred by Russians, she has earned the gratitude of the Afghan people and struck a blow for the self-determination of that country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. These people are brave and courageous resistance fighters. We must do everything that we can to support them.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 20 January.

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

Has the Prime Minister had time to consider the case of the 7½-year-old child in my constituency who has become addicted to glue-sniffing? Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in view of the massive increase in solvent abuse, there is a desperate need for new legislation to prevent the sale of such solvents to young people, and to establish centres to help children who become addicted to glue-sniffing?

I know of that case and I am aware of how deeply we all feel about it, and how worried we all are that there is an outbreak—if that is the right word—of glue-sniffing in certain areas. The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not easy to stop such action by legislation. I doubt whether legislation would have much effect upon it. He will also be aware that in Liverpool and many other local authority areas voluntary bodies are working with the authorities to tackle solvent misuse and alert youngsters to the dangers so that they may be responsible for their own health. He will also have seen an announcement by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security to the effect that he is consulting the authorities, retailers and voluntary and statutory bodies to see what they can do to help.

In view of the interest being shown in Scottish seats by some Opposition Members, does my right Friend agree that that could constitute a good case for devolution, if not outright independence, for Scotland?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the ingenuity of his question. I am sure that whatever happens he will be returned for his seat in Wales.

During the Prime Minister's busy day, could she take the opportunity to ask for the relevant papers from the European Assembly, which has apparently passed a resolution condemning her and the British Government for saying that we should buy British whenever possible? The British Government representative made an abject apology and said that it was not the policy of the British Government that we should buy British, because that is against Common Market rules. Are we to be told by this bureaucratic "Jenkins" assembly that we cannot ask people to buy British?

I feel a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. We are free to choose what we buy. I hope that British goods will soon be better than those of any of our competitors. I believe that we should be free to buy British.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 January.

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

In view of the legitimate anxiety felt by the people involved, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm this afternoon that for the rest of this Parliament the Government will continue to maintain the real value of supplementary pensions and benefits?

We have done so until now. I confirm that we shall do so, at least for the rest of this Parliament.

Will the right hon. Lady consider today whether the cost of her electoral trip to the Falklands should be borne by the British taxpayer or whether the charges should more properly be put to Conservative Central Office?

The hon. Gentleman's question is both small-minded and typical.

Is it not a matter for profound regret that the Argentine forces possess Exocet missiles? In the light of the reports of possible Argentine attacks upon the Falkland Islands and dependencies, will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear to the Argentine regime that if any attacks were to take place we should have to consider our options for taking retaliatory action in the form of sanctions, or force if necessary?

My hon. Friend is correct to raise this matter. Bearing in mind that Argentina has not agreed to the permanent cessation of hostilities, let alone renounced the use of force, the possibility of further attacks has been ever present, and the troops are alert. I hope that if there are further attacks they will be firmly repulsed. If there were attacks we should have to consider very carefully what to do, apart from repulsing them.

Will the Prime Minister reflect upon the fact that although five major steel plants have been saved, decimation is taking place in practically every steel town, particularly in Lanarkshire? Will she be mindful also of the mass unemployment in Scotland and tell us that she will change her policies and get people back to work?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that world steel capacity is greatly in excess of world steel demand.—[interruption.] Hon. Gentleman may not like that. They never do like the facts, but they cannot overcome those facts. Our job is to try to achieve as big a share of the home and export markets as we can. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) reminded us a few moments ago, it helps steel output if people buy goods that are made substantially of British steel.

asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made during the Christmas Adjournment in correcting unsatisfactory trading imbalances with Japan, Spain and France respectively.

During the Christmas Adjournment the Japanese Government announced a number of tariff cuts on items where we have been pressing for reductions. They also said that they would review standards and testing procedures, and we hope that this will produce a relaxation of non-tariff barriers to trade. I told Foreign Minister Abe that changes of this nature were welcome and a positive step, though their impact was likely to be small in relation to the magnitude of the trade imbalance.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full and firm reply. Does she agree that the grotesque tariff and non-tariff imbalances with those countries have continued for far too long, that we have been far too patient and that, if something is not done soon, we should retaliate in kind?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the differences are grotesque—in some cases, such as Spain, due to tariff barriers, but in other cases due to non-tariff barriers. Because of this, we were very firm with the European Commission and have taken steps to speed up the negotiations, which were proceeding very slowly, with both Japan and Spain. I believe that our representations have had considerable effect. We shall continue to press them very hard.