asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, by how much agricultural prices have risen since May 1979.

The latest available information shows that the index of producer prices in May was 4·1 per cent. above the level a year earlier.

Is it not true that the Minister, after repeatedly denying that he would do so, has devalued the green pound on three occasions? As a result of the summit agreement he has now abandoned the right to control prices for at least the next two years, and, therefore, by increasing prices through the common agricultural policy he has abandoned the British housewife. Does not he accept that in a balance between the interests of the consumer and the farmer he is likely to come down on the side of the farmer, because he is one?

Obviously the hon. Gentleman did not hear my reply. I said that in one year, prices to the producer had risen by 4·1 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that that is too much in the past year, he had better tell the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers that its claim for a 20 per cent. increase was unjustified.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has given indicate that a pat on the back is deserved by processors, producers and retailers? At the same time, should not recognition be given to the fact that margins are being badly squeezed, and that that might not be healthy in the long run?

The reply shows clearly that the food industry, particularly the producers, has been incredibly successful in a year of big inflationary costs and large, increased, input costs in keeping down inflation. It is a pity that Labour Members cannot pay tribute to them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since last June the price of a pint of milk has risen from 13½p to 16½p? If he gives way to the present pressures for an increase of another 1½p, is he aware that milk will have risen in price by 33 per cent. in about 13 or 14 months? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the high price of milk is causing consumption to fall? What is his attitude towards the demand for an increase of another 1½p?

I shall consider the application that has been made, but it was made by the Dairy Trade Federation, among others, with the support of the cooperative movement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with representatives of the fishing industry about the state of the industry; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is taking to restore the fortunes of the fishing industry.

My right hon. Friend and I, together with the Minister of State, Scottish Office, met representatives of the major fish catching organisations on 3 July to discuss papers which they had prepared regarding the financial position of the industry. We are considering the issues raised at that meeting.

Does not the Minister of State accept that, important as the negotions in Luxembourg next week will be, more crucial to the fishing industry at this time are the discussions that will take place in the British Cabinet on the industry's formal request for £35 million of temporary aid? Welcome as the £3 million was, will the Minister confirm that the industry is in desperate need of aid, and that the Government are seriously considering the figure of £35 million?

Both questions are crucial, but the common fisheries policy and the long-term future of the industry are probably the most crucial factors of all. The meeting that we had with the industry was at the invitation of Ministers, which demonstrates the concern of the Government about the current financial situation.

Is it not true to say that since the Tory Government came into office, allied with their sidekicks in the Common Market, the British trawling industry has had havoc wreaked upon it, with the result that a fortnight ago a statement was made that there was a "For sale" notice on nearly every trawler in the British fleet, including the one that the Prime Minister launched a couple of years ago, the "Boston Sea Stallion", which is now losing £2,000 a trip? So much for Tory expertise and efficiency. [Interruption.] Not only stallions but—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

If the hon. Gentleman understood the fishing industry, he would understand, first, that the problems of the deep-sea industry are related basically to the question of the extension to 200 miles and not to the Common Market. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman should also realise that the biggest handicap that could face the fishing industry would be stalemate concerning its future. We are determined to break that stalemate and ensure that there is a future for the industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is increasing concern among the fishermen on the north-east coast of Scotland about how they are to keep afloat pending settlement of the common fisheries policy? Will he accept that there are increasingly strong feelings that one solution would be the early injection of a fuel subsidy?

We had a meeting yesterday with representatives of the fishing industry. They demonstrated their concern that, while there were important financial difficulties being faced at the present time which require solution, equally it is the long-term solution—the framework to ensure a future for the industry—that matters most of all. It is to that end that we are negotiating a proper settlement under the common fisheries policy.

Who is it that would deny us the benefit of a 200-mile limit?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, fish do not know 200-mile limits. The most effective conservation we can have is that which is internationally agreed. Under whatever system we have, conservation has to be agreed internationally. In that respect, being a member of the EEC makes no difference whatever.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that members of crews are leaving vessels in all the ports around the coast, and that an immediate injection to carry the industry over until the common fisheries policy is settled—if it ever will be—is absolutely essential?

I acknowledge the problems that the industry is facing. It is precisely that point that we have under discussion at present, in consultation with the industry.

Since the meeting of 3 July to which my hon. Friend referred, has he received any revised figures from the representatives of the Scottish fishing industry indicating that there has been a yet further deterioration in the marketing of their fish up and down the east coast of Scotland?

At our meeting of 3 July we asked the industry for amplification of some of the figures it produced then. Those figures were received only last night and we are considering them urgently.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fishing industry has said that it cannot wait until September or November for the injection of aid, which now seems to be demanded even by his own Back Benchers? Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what prospects there are of meeting the subsidy that the industry requires?

For the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, we are considering it now.

Is there no way, under article 39 of the Treaty of Rome—which says that incomes in the industry ought to be kept up to a reasonable level—of restricting imports which are damaging those incomes so much?

That is precisely why we have taken action on two fronts, first, in relation to imports from third countries and, secondly, in relation to an interim aid scheme.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a rapid deterioration in the industry in the past few months? He keeps stressing the need for aid in the long term, that is to say, through the common fisheries policy. What will he do about the serious position in the industry now? Is he prepared to give some short-term aid—yes or no?

That is precisely the point that we are considering at present.

The hon. Gentleman said that this issue was under urgent consideration when he was asked the quetion on the last occasion. What will he tell the House now?

The right hon. Gentleman must have failed to hear me. I pointed out that the latest representations from the industry were received only last night.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria he adopts when considering applications for short fixed-term licences granted under section 2 of the Agriculture Holdings Act 1948.

In general terms, ministerial approval to a section 2 short-term letting or licence is given whenever it would be unreasonable to require a full agricultural tenancy to be entered into.

Will my hon. Friend state how many licences have been granted by the Government on land not owned by local councils, and for what reasons? Most particularly, will he agree that a more liberal use of the provisions of section 2 of the 1948 Act would release more land to enable young farmers to get on the ladder and eventually assume an agricultural tenancy?

I have not the figures for the last year, but in the last five years 6,797 such lettings have been given. My hon. Friend will realise that those tenants do not have security of tenure. This is a licence and a special issue that should not be treated as a way of getting round the main legislation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the increase in the co-responsibility levy to be paid by dairy farmers as part of the recently announced European Economic Community budget package.

I have received a number of representations from farmers and their representative organisations.

My right hon. Friend recently acknowledged the cash flow problems of farmers, particularly dairy farmers. Will he therefore explain to the House how he came to accept the package within the EEC which increases the co-responsibility levy? Is he aware that as a result, the dairy farmer with 100 milking cows will be paying an extra £1,000 a year?

My hon. Friend has left out one side of the equation. Although the farmer will be paying an extra £1,000 a year in co-responsibility levy, he will be receiving almost an extra £1,000 a year in an extra price increase as a result of that agreement, so the effect is virtually neutral. With regard to the co-responsibility levy, I agree with my hon. Friend that we would have preferred no increase in price.

Has the Minister any plans to restrict the retail sales of untreated milk in small quantities after 1983? Does he feel under any pressure from the EEC to do so?

No, we do not feel under any pressure from the EEC to do so. I can speak only for England and Wales, but we have made detailed announcements about green top milk. The position is different in Scotland.

Although the co-responsibility levy does not help the dairy farmers of this country, will the Minister agree that the totally irresponsible editorial in the Daily Mail—which stated that the Milk Marketing Board should be disbanded and that it was a quango—would do even more harm? Will he kindly ask his press officer to go round to the Daily Mail offices and explain the benefits of the Milk Marketing Board to the consumer and to the producer?

I cannot guarantee that my press officer will perform that particular task, but I can say that both sides in this House are agreed that the Milk Marketing Board has been both a stabilising and a progressive influence in terms of the dairy industry of this country.

In view of the fact that levies are supposed to reduce dairy herds, will the Minister please tell the House why the United Kingdom must reduce its dairy production when we do not produce enough milk for our own use, and have no surplus?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that last month milk production was 6 per cent. higher than last year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the current level of imports of tomatoes from Holland into the United Kingdom represents an increase over the level of imports at the same time in 1979.

Yes, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend take note that Dutch tomato exports to this country over the last year are 51 per cent. above the figure for the previous year, bearing in mind that Dutch overall production is slightly down? This is the result of the subsidised price or the cheap price of energy that is available to Dutch growers. As our industry is in crisis, what action will my hon. Friend take at United Kingdom and at EEC level?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that this matter has to be dealt with by the Commission. It reported on 11 July on this and at the Council of Ministers meeting next Tuesday my right hon. Friend will be debating this matter in the hope that we can find some solution to this extremely difficult problem.

Is the Minister aware that more tomatoes are coming in not only from Holland but from Albania? Surely we can do something to stop those imports. May we take it as a certainty that next Tuesday the Government will make a stand and will do something for growers in this country who are going bankrupt? If Germany and France can do something, why cannot we?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully seized of the importance of this matter. My right hon. Friend certainly intends to make this country's views deeply felt. I have looked into the matter of Albanian imports. There is no substantive evidence that they are doing any harm to this market this year.

Will my hon. Friend try to persuade our mutual right hon. Friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to have a little talk to our further right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Energy, because the trouble lies in the lack of liaison between our two right hon. Friends and the Commission? As the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) rightly said, if the Germans and the French can do something about it, why cannot we?

I assure my hon. Friend that there is no lack of liaison. This matter has been and will continue to be dealt with at the highest possible level.

Is the Minister aware of the potentially serious crisis in the glasshouse industry? Do the Government take the view that Holland should be required by the European Community to raise its energy prices into line with those pervailing throughout the Community?

I am fully seized of the difficulties of the industry. We have always acknowledged the problems. We shall be doing what the hon. Gentleman suggested.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will withhold agreement from any proposal by the European Economic Community to include the Atlantic salmon in any common fisheries policy.

Fishing for Atlantic salmon in maritime waters is already covered by the EEC's existing fisheries policy.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is considerable concern lest countries with no salmon rivers should increase the fishing going on in the high seas to the detriment of the stock? Will he assure the House that the Government will give their utmost support to the North Atlantic salmon convention, which I believe is currently discussing matters relating to salmon in the high seas?

The Community proposes a ban on all high seas fishing for salmon beyond 12 miles. We wholly support the North Atlantic salmon convention.

Will my hon. Friend take note of the concern of the Tay salmon fishers who are worried that the netting of salmon outside the river is having an adverse effect on the stocks?

I shall be happy to pass that point on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on support arrangements for hill livestock producers.

The rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances will be reviewed in the autumn in consultation with the farmers' unions.

Is the Minister aware that it is essential that he should make a firm statement on support for hill sheep within the next week if hill farmers are not to face ruin because they do not get adequate returns from the store markets within the next month? If the EEC scheme is not to come into effect in time, will he at least give an undertaking that funds will be made available from national sources?

The announcement of the increase in the subsidies for sheep in this market was made by me some weeks ago when I increased all the guaranteed allowances by 11 per cent. Therefore, with 1 million extra lambs and an 11 per cent. increase in the last year on the guaranteed price, there should not be any case of starvation in the hills.

The Minister must be aware that 15 July was mentioned originally as the starting date for the sheepmeat regime. There is great uncertainty in hill sheep areas with the store sales coming up next month. When will the new starting date be announced?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is anxiety to obtain an additional 18 per cent. on what I have already announced, and I can understand that. The date of 15 July was convenient for us, but it has to wait for the completion of the negotiations with New Zealand, which are taking place now, and for the Commission to say when it can implement the scheme. As far as I am concerned, the sooner the better. I hope for an announcement at next week's meeting.

If we cannot get this agreement with the EEC before the store sheep sales, will my right hon. Friend consider raising the national guarantee to that level so that the store producers as well as the fatteners will benefit?

The degree to which we can do that will have to be considered and also the date, which is important. We have already increased the guarantee system by 11 per cent. after one of the best lambing seasons in recent times.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the survey of hill marginal land in Northern Ireland is complete but that it will not be completed in the rest of the United Kingdom until 1981? Therefore, will he make an immediate application for an extension for Northern Ireland so that it may reap the maximum benefit from the sums which are now available?

Discussions are going on in Brussels about how we can speed up the classification of hill marginal land throughout the United Kingdom. There are obvious advantages in doing this throughout the United Kingdom at the same time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with progress which has been made towards reform of the common agricultural policy.

In both price fixings since we took office agricultural support has been reduced in real terms, and this represents progress towards reform. Added to that, the new sheepmeat regime is the first occasion on which the Community has decided to go in for a deficiency payments system. I believe that, too, is a welcome reform.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing anger in Australia and New Zealand about the effect of the EEC's farm policy on the economies of those countries from which we have had great support in the past? Is he further aware of the threats of retaliation from those two countries, not least on the export of uranium? Is not this yet another example of this crazy system? If he cannot change it fundamentally, is it not time that we withdrew from it completely?

The New Zealand and Australian positions are rather different. Australia has always negotiated toughly on all trade bases. It is not unknown for Australia to have protectionist policies for its own benefit. Therefore, it is understandable that it should have spoken out as it has in this sphere.

As there is a coefficient of 50:1 between retail prices in this country and their rate of rise and intervention price fixing in the CAP, is it not unfair to blame all our troubles on CAP price increases?

Over the past year inflation on non-food items has been 24 per cent., but on food items as a whole it has been only 14 per cent. and a minor part of that is the increase in CAP prices. Over the past two years CAP prices have been a stabilising influence.

Did the Minister note the remarks of his right hon Friend the Lord Privy Seal yesterday to the effect that the Government would be putting forward their own proposals for the financial restructuring of the Common Market's funds? What contributions will the Ministry of Agriculture make, what proposals will be made and will the right hon. Gentleman publish them?

They will be the usual lively, progressive sensible proposals that we make on all such occasions, and we shall be only too proud to publish them.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now that Germany is the largest paymaster in Europe, it will be his strongest ally in seeking further reform of the common argicultural policy?

Yes. The reform of the budget means that we do not have eight beneficiaries and one paymaster, and that brings about a considerable change in attitudes.

Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends told the people the truth about the financing of the Common Market—that 1981 is bound to be a crunch year, that the Common Market will be in a great financial crisis, and that, unless something is done about the CAP and the whole question of financing the Common Market, we shall be in trouble, and so will the Market?

I believe that the success that we have had in price restraint in the last two price fixings, coupled with going over to deficiency payment schemes, is a considerable contribution. Most important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) has just mentioned, now that the cost of the CAP is more equally borne by other countries that will enable us to make more rapid progress.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how it will be possible to reform the CAP in such a way as to reduce the Community budget, except by allowing farm prices to fall in real terms?

One of the important factors is the degree to which, for example, the problem of financing the Community's surpluses is borne, not on the CAP but by the national Governments responsible for producing those surpluses. A move towards that principle would be very helpful.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sheepmeat regime is creating uproar in the Commonwealth? He has already been made aware during Question Time that Australia is angered and talking of trade war, and that New Zealand is in the throes of concern, fearing a cutback in not only its lamb exports but butter exports. What exactly is the proposal that Gundelach has taken to New Zealand, with the right hon. Gentleman's agreement, that is causing so much anger in Australia and New Zealand?

The telegrams from New Zealand that I have seen, and the reports this morning, in no way vindicate what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. In fact, the Prime Minister of New Zealand welcomed Mr. Gundelach's visit and suggested that he had come with constructive proposals. The right hon. Gentleman is surely reporting only the remarks made by one Australian Minister, and not the New Zealand position. I hope that out of the negotiations a satisfactory arrangement for New Zealand will be made. If it is not, there is no sheep-meat regime. That is the strength of our position.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think, because of his alleged telegrams saying that the Prime Minister of New Zealand welcomed Mr. Gundelach, that next Tuesday at the Agriculture Council meeting he will secure agreement on a sheepmeat regime?

I do not know in detail what talks are going on today. I would very much hope so, because I believe that what is on offer to New Zealand safeguards its exports of lamb to Europe and gives it a dairy products quota which, as a result of the previous Government's renegotiation, it would not otherwise have had.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what factors he attributes the disparity in value between British agricultural produce sales to France and French sales to Great Britain; to what extent different marketing and sales promotion techniques are responsible; and if he will make a statement.

France's agricultural industry is much larger than ours. France is a traditional food exporter, and has climatic advantages for certain crops. Good marketing has no doubt contributed in some areas, and the illegal restrictions on United Kingdom sheep-meat exports prevented exploitation of our comparative advantage in that sector.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that official French Government support for, and involvement in, marketing in this country is extremely damaging to British national and agricultural interests? Does he agree that this extends much further than the fruit sector, and is becoming increasingly relevant to the egg trade?

There is also a range of marketing benefits, helps and subsidies available to British exporters, and they are substantially used by them. For example, my recent decision substantially to increase the grants for marketing cooperatives in this country will be a positive help to them.

On the question of French sales to Britain, has my right hon. Friend seen the report that the Office of Fair Trading may rule against the agreement between the growers and the trade to restrict imports of French Golden Delicious to top grades of fruit only? Does not he agree that it would be disgraceful if the Office of Fair Trading were to intervene in that way, and that what we need are more such agreements to protect British interests?

I do not know the detail of any such agreements. Judging by the pronouncements of the various organisations named, there is some doubt as to whether any specific agreement exists. It would be up to the Office of Fair Trading to decide upon the strength and nature of the agreement as to whether it was against the rules of fair competition.

To what extent do the French sales, both in relation to this question and intrusion into other markets, contribute to the statements that the right hon. Gentleman made at Warwick a week last Saturday, when he argued that throwing people out of work and creating a £7,000 million bill for the public sector borrowing requirement was too high a price for squeezing inflation out of the economy?

It was because of my anxiety about unemployment that I considered it so disastrous for the previous Government to pursue the green pound policy that they did, and lose many jobs in this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with the European Economic Community in an effort to reduce the present food stockpiles.

Structural surpluses can be reduced only by bringing production into better balance with demand. The reductions in farm support prices in real terms will help to achieve this.

Whilst I note that reply, is not the Minister aware of the anger of British people when they hear about the surpluses and the way in which they are disposed of? Is it not time we told the Community that we have had enough of this nonsense, which is what it is? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that some of the commodities that are in surplus—cereals and skimmed milk—could be better used to feed the hungry people of the world than lying in storage, as they do for many years? Will he use his best endeavours to bring that about?

First, it is important to get the surpluses into perspective. The hon. Gentleman mentioned cereals. The cereals currently in store in intervention in the Community amount to only 10 days' supply. Secondly, we share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the way in which the surpluses are disposed of. That is precisely why we have taken such a firm line in Europe in relation to exports to Eastern Europe.

What are the Government doing to transfer some of the surplus food to the starving people of East Africa, who might die without it?

Under the world food programme and other aid programmes, £30 million to £40 million a year is already being spent by the Community to do that. My hon. Friend must remember that we must do it in a way that does not disrupt normal trade or hinder development of agriculture in the countries concerned.

Is the Minister aware that it was said on the radio today that the people now in Moscow, attending the Games, are living like proverbial lords off the fat of the land, supplied at the British taxpayer's expense through the Common Market subsidies? Is that part of the Government's policy?

Our position on exports to Eastern Europe has been made absolutely plain. There is a later question on the Order Paper about the subject.

As the United Kingdom makes no overall net contribution to the surplus of dairy products and milk within the EEC, how does my hon. Friend think the co-responsibility levy will affect British dairy farmers? Does he think that it could well result in our having to import more dairy products?

My right hon. Friend has already answered my hon. Friend's question on the co-responsibility levy. I hope that my hon. Friend notices that in the course of the past 12 months the Government have removed the unfairness of the subsidies through MCAs on exports from Europe of milk products to Britain. Therefore, for the first time for many years, the British dairy farmer can compete on equal terms with his counterpart in Europe.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place on the agenda of the next European Economic Community Agriculture Ministers' meeting the sale of subsidised European Economic Community surplus foodstuffs to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

As a result of continued United Kingdom pressure, the Community's restrictions on subsidised exports to Russia have been tightened. We continue to be totally opposed to such sales, and we shall continue to make our views clear.

As the Government, the Conservative Benches and the country are all against the supply of excess EEC foodstuffs at reduced prices to Russia, will my right hon. Friend make clear to the other EEC Agriculture Ministers that the Government will no longer co-operate with them until the supply of cheap foodstuffs is stopped?

No, Sir. I am sure that the correct method is the one that we have used—already with substantial success—of reductions in the volume of trade. That is the method which is legal.

If the right hon. Gentleman is against subsidised exports, how will he stop them—not reduce them?

That is our objective.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is unacceptable that the Russians should be sold cheap butter so that they can make more guns? Will he adopt the most belligerent stance possible and tell all his colleagues in the Council of Ministers that there will be no co-operation from Britain unless the Community stops sending subsidised foodstuffs to Russia?

Yes, Sir. We have made substantial progress in that sphere. We now have some allies in the Council of Ministers, and we shall continue our campaign.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what items will be on the agenda for the meeting of European Economic Community Agricultural Ministers on 22 July.

I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 1 July in response to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) on forthcoming business in the European Council of Ministers.

When the Minister next discusses New Zealand butter quotas with his colleagues, will he point out that New Zealand's failure to achieve some of those quotas is due to the unrealistically high levies imposed by the EEC? Will he confirm that New Zealand can sell butter at 27p a packet in Britain and that the EEC equivalent would cost 40p?

The volume of sales has not been affected by the level of the levy so much as by the manner in which it has been operated, namely against the volume of butter that comes in from New Zealand. The New Zealand Government would like to obtain better butter prices than they have done in the past.

Does the Minister recall that he has given repeated assurances from that Dispatch Box, including the assurance that he gave in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), to the effect that he would not increase the prices of goods in structural surplus? As he has now reneged on those assurances twice in succession, does he believe that his word has any credibility in this House?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman was absent when I answered an earlier question. I pointed out that food producers' prices had risen by only 4·1 per cent. in the past 12 months. The two smallest CAP price increases in the history of the Community have taken place under this Government.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of his European colleagues to the fact that the tax on im ported wheat is higher that it was under the Corn Laws?

The Government have constantly negotiated for reductions in the levies on imported goods that the Community cannot supply.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the basic efficiency of United Kingdom agriculture has fallen below that of other European countries.

No, Sir.

As we have more machinery, money and productivity per unit of output, why cannot British agriculture produce 100 per cent. of our requirements over the next few years?

There is substantial scope for expansion in several spheres. During the past decade we have become more self-sufficient. A recent report shows that, on any analysis, Britain still possesses the best performance and efficiency record in many areas.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how the basic efficiency of British agriculture can be judged?

I sympathise with my hon. Friend. He implies that it is difficult to find any criteria for comparing one country with another. However, if one considers the yields of certain crops in similar countries and if one looks at milk yields and the improvement in breeding among our herds, one can see a remarkable success story of efficiency and high investment.

What about ethyl-alcohol problems?

I hope that that problem will be discussed next week. The Commission has made statements on rebates for the whisky industry, and has decided to give greater priority to the alcohol regime. I shall keep the hon. Gentleman informed of when, and how, that subject comes on the agenda.

Given that my right hon. Friend says that efficiency is of paramount importance to the United Kingdom, why is a very efficient industry such as the pig industry slowly but surely disappearing from view? Is he not aware that our European competitors are being subsidised to such an extent that there will be no efficient pig industry left within a couple of years?

The facts about the pig industry, including the latest trends, show that the years in which our pig industry suffered from a 25 per cent. disadvantage as regards the MCAs, were disastrous and destructive to that industry. In one year, the Government have eliminated that disadvantage.

Does not the Minister accept that the efficiency of British agriculture has suffered greatly in recent months, because the Government's policies have led to ridiculous interest rates?

That is why I know that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the reduction announced last week.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any loss of efficiency in the agriculture industry has resulted from a failure to agree a CAP, despite the fact that he is earnestly trying to do so?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are (a) the principles and (b) the objectives of the common agricultural policy.

So far as the Government are concerned, the two are the same, and are the ones set out in article 39 of the Treaty of Rome.

Is the Minister aware that the two are not the same? Does he not accept that if he had studied the history of the CAP he would have realised that the principles are distinct from the objectives? The principles were enunciated at the Stresa conference and in a resolution of the Council in 1960. Those principles included market unity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am not reading. As the police say, I am just refreshing my memory. They included—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—market unity, Community preference and financial solidarity. Does not the Minister further accept that those principles will place the budget review in a straitjacket, that cannot lead to any fundamental reform of the CAP?

I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to look after historic principles, while I look after the future objectives.

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

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with Congressman John Anderson. Later today I shall be leaving for a visit to Wales.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider that many school leavers, who have been hit by recession, desire to give some service to the community? Does she recognise that that desire extends to keeping essential services, such as hospitals, running in the event of strike action by those who have jobs?

I very much agree that large numbers of school leavers are anxious to give service to the community, including voluntary work. They expect to see essential services kept going. If a time were to come when those services were not kept going, young people would be the first to lend a hand.

Has the Prime Minister seen the latest forecast of the Manpower Services Commission, to the effect that in the first quarter of next year 400,000 16 to 19-year-olds will be unemployed, with only 100,000 places on the youth opportunities scheme? Is it not time to bring in an education and training programme for the 16 to 19-year age group, with proper educational and training allowances?

My right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has expanded the youth opportunities scheme to up to 250,000 places. We hope that we shall be able to continue the pledge to give all school leavers a place on that scheme by Easter 1981, if they have not found a job by then.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to study the Order Paper and to send for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in order to draw his attention to the abuse of written questions? Will she also draw his attention to the proliferation of Select Committees by the other place, and the need for House of Commons expenditure to be subject to fixed cash limits? Will she give an assurance that there will be no revolutionary experiments in parliamentary procedure until we have digested the last revolutionary change made in October?

I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster heard much of that question. My hon. Friend is right to say that there are no specific cash limits for Parliament. Naturally, we all believe that we should be firmly accountable to those whom we represent, and sparing in the way in which we spend their money. As regards future changes of procedure, I note that my hon. Friend thinks that we have had as much as we can digest for the time being, and I shall communicate that to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for 17 July.

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

Does the Prime Minister know that my beleaguered constituency has been told today that it will lose another 300 Courtaulds' jobs? Given the appalling economic prospects for Wales, will she announce in Swansea on Saturday a policy for industrial expansion? Will she also tell us what Wales has done to deserve her pitiless offensive against steel workers, textile workers and coal miners?

I am aware that there are some textile factories in the hon. Member's constituency which are in considerable difficulty. I believe that he has asked to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about them. On the question of general measures, the hon. Member knows—because I have said it before—that we gave South Wales £48 million for remedial measures. We also gave £15 million for remedial measures to the Shotton area. A large number of advance factories were allocated last year to provide 5,000 jobs. This year so far they have provided a further 2,500 jobs. Expenditure per head is £919 in England, whereas in Wales it is very much higher, at £1,079 per head.

Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the report that the Indian Government are considering altering their intentions about buying Jaguar aircraft from British Aerospace in the numbers that they orginally stated? Is she aware that this is a matter of deep concern to those in my constituency who work for British Aerospace? Does she not agree that we can ill afford to lose orders of this magnitude through the Machiavellian pressures that are being applied by other nations on the Indian Government?

We were very concerned yesterday at the terms of the announcement by Mr. Menon. There was an understanding between India and the British Government that if there was to be any variation in the Jaguar contract, the matter would be raised in consultation. That clause has not yet been invoked and if there were any suggestions about changing the contract we would expect the Indian Government to invoke it.

Irrespective of whether press reports are correct about the Trident decision not being taken by the Cabinet as a whole, will the Prime Minister recognise that the Trident programme represents a major commitment, both in defence and public spending terms, which will last well beyond the lifetime of this Administration? As such, should it not have come to the House of Commons for discussion first?

The decision was taken in the customary way that such decisions are taken. All these major programmes outlast the lifetime of any Parliament. The Tornado programme was of a similiar order of expenditure and that, too, outlasted the lifetime of one Parliament. That is the case with most defence decisions. We shall expect to have a debate on the matter when, doubtless, the right hon. Gentleman will raise any issue that he wishes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the pleas of Sir Michael Edwardes to buy British, and of the debates in the House last Thursday and Friday in which many hon. Members asked the House to send out the message to the nationalised industries and local authorities to buy British wherever -possible? Is this not a way in which the Government could help some of our industries?

We have a public purchasing policy that we should buy British wherever possible. Usually I add one rider to that—we buy British not only because it is British, but because we expect it to be of supreme value. We also believe that Government purchasing policy can assist firms to launch goods—particularly sophisticated technological goods—that they might not otherwise be able to launch on their own resources.

Why then did the Cabinet not take a decision yesterday to place the order for the PAYE computer with ICL?

This matter is still being considered—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because we are investigating it thoroughly, unlike previous Labour Governments.

Do not the criteria that the right hon. Lady has given apply to ICL? Why does not she stop dithering and get on with making the decision?

The matter is still under consideration. There are many computer firms here and we have to get the right computer for the job. The Cabinet is still considering the matter, and the Leader of the Opposition will not succeed in hustling me.

In order to encourage the creation of new jobs, which are more likely to come from small and medium-sized businesses, will the Prime Minister encourage the banks and financial institutions to apply a greater share of their resources to venture capital enterprises for small and growing businesses on advantageous terms?

I wholly accept my hon. Friend's assertion that we need greater sources of venture capital. I believe that the banks are trying to help and that a number of consortia under British commercial and industrial cham- bers of trade are similarly trying to help. I wholly accept my hon. Friend's wish that more should be available, particularly for small businesses.

Will the Prime Minister take time to study the statement on the tape by a prominent German politician who claims that the Government are preparing a further confrontation with a view to using it as an excuse to come out of the EEC? Is she aware that, apart from the obvious merits of that policy, if it is adopted, it will enable her to have at least one policy during her term of office which has the full-hearted consent of the British people?

I know of no such confrontation. We brought the budgetary matter to a satisfactory conclusion, and until we consider the future reform of the CAP and the fundamental change in budgetary policy, the next matter to consider is the common fisheries policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has that firmly in hand.

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

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

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that since May 1979 the Government have repaid $4.6 billion of overseas debt, including $1.8 billion, ahead of schedule? Is not this a repetition of the normal practice in this country whereby Labour Governments incur debt and Conservative Governments repay it?

A planted question!

The other day the Financial Secretary announced that we would make early repayment of a Eurodollar debt from 1977. The last Government increased this country's overseas indebtedness by $18 billion and this Government have already arranged to repay $4 billion of that.

Will the Prime Minister spend some time today considering the position of exporting industries in this country, particularly those in my constituency in Yorkshire which are being decimated by bankruptcies day after day because of Government policies which are putting small, medium and large firms out of business? When will she change Government policy to enable our exporting industries to survive?

Has not the hon. Member noticed that the figures for the last two months have been rather good?

Can my right hon. Friend help British manufacturing industry by ensuring that monopoly gas is provided to British industry at prices that are no greater than those paid by its competitors in Europe? Is she aware of the damaging effect of the recent price increases?

On the whole, gas prices to industry have provided the profit to the British gas industry. It has to explore for sources of gas to replace those that we have already used. I believe that our general policy is right—gas prices must follow oil prices and we must stick to the world price otherwise we shall be in great difficulty and run out of necessary supplies.

Will the Prime Minister find time today to consider the recent OECD report, which shows that, compared with any other advanced industrial country, Great Britain has a greater increase in youth unemployment and a faster decline in gross national product? Could that be said to be a tribute to one year of a Conservative Government?

There are countries in Europe where the level of unemployment is higher than in Britain. We are all very concerned about increasing unemployment, which is unfortunately, inevitable in a period of world recession, from which we are all suffering. The price of oil having increased by 100 per cent. in a year, some measure of world recession is inevitable.