asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in his Department's survey of marginal land in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

As announced in the House on 4 December, a full survey on marginal land is to be carried out for the whole of the United Kingdom. It will be confined to the original hill counties and will take in land contiguous to the existing less favoured areas together with nearby island sites of substantial area.

I am grateful to the Minister for that information. Will he appreciate, however, that there is a real urgency for the survey to be undertaken as quickly as possible and for the scheme to be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity, because this section of the farming community is probably at a major disadvantage, compared with other sectors? It needs the help of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. It is because of that urgency that the Government have proceeded. The previous Government were prepared to say that they would, but they devoted neither funds nor resources to that purpose, as we did.

As it is the timing of the survey in England and Wales that is holding up consideration of marginal land in Northern Ireland, where the facts are already established, will the Government do their best to accelerate the completion of the United Kingdom operation?

I am conscious of that problem, but it was felt that it would not be tactically wise to put the case for Northern Ireland on its own, particularly as negotiations are in progress for an agricultural development programme there. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern, which is similar to that of my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister bear it in mind that it is important to give further encouragement in this area, from the point of view of producers and consumers, and, above all, from a national point of view? I say that because we are losing 45,000 acres of land a year. We need to bring that marginal land into full production, and that means encouragement and aid.

That is one of the factors which we took into consideration when setting out along this course. The initial problem is to establish the line and then negotiate the details with Brussels, because without that we would not qualify for the contribution from the Commission.

Is the Minister aware that many hill farmers in Cumbria, while welcoming this survey, will see little point in extending the less favoured area land acreage unless additional resources are made available? If additional resources are not made available, the result will be to spread resources more thinly, and in some cases less effectively.

I do not wish to commit the Government, who will want to consider the matter when the survey is completed. It seems unlikely that the dilution about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned would be acceptable. Rather, the Government should be ready, within the availability of funds, to find the area and agree the matter with Brussels.

Will the Minister note the problems of marginal land farmers in the North-West, who mainly farm beef and lamb? They lack the advantage of fell land or hill gracing and are currently excluded from much assistance. The problem of small dairy farmers is equally important. Because they have a small dairy herd which fulfils the local need, they are also excluded from the assistance of the EEC directives.

The first categories that my hon. Friend mentions will obviously come into the survey, but the problem of the small dairy farmer on what is really marginal land, as both she and I know, is one of the definitions of the directive. That is one of the things on which we hope to convince Brussels that we have a good case, because those farmers need assistance, as do the beef and sheep farmers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he intends to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the co-responsibility levy.

I meet the president of the National Farmers Union frequently and the co-responsibility levy is amongst the topics discussed.

Will my right hon. Friend further discuss with the president his efforts to secure fair treatment as between EEC partners? How can we get such treatment with a flat-rate contribution system which encourages the increased Continental output which remains at the root of this problem? How will my right hon. Friend negotiate on this?

As in the past, we have rejected forms of co-responsibility levy which operate unfairly against British producers. Another important factor to be taken into consideration in this year's price review is the impact on milk production of a number of countries introducing substantial national aids. Those aids increase the production and the Community shares the cost of disposing of the surpluses.

When next the Minister meets the president of the NFU, will he discuss the legislation which refers to tenant farmers? I have in mind the farmer about whom I have written to the Minister—James Clegg, who, after 40 years of working on that land, has now been thrown off the farm by the land owner. Will the Minister discuss with the union any alterations in the legislation?

Certainly land tenure is something discussed between myself and the leaders of the NFU. The hon. Gentleman knows, I think, that among the members of the union are a substantial number of the tenants involved. Talks are going on at present. The objective is a sensible system of landlord and tenure and one which may give young people opportunities to obtain tenancies of farms.

Will my right hon, Friend confirm that he wants to see an increase in United Kingdom dairy production? If so, why have we been encouraging dairy farmers, even efficient ones, to leave the industry? How can we justify any co-responsibility levy in those circumstances?

The incentive for dairy farmers is a Community incentive. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, partly as a result of this Government's initiative, that incentive is being eradicated. For many months of last year, dairy production was up. The main way of improving dairy production in this country, in terms of what can be used, is an improvement in our manufactured products, both cheese and butter and others. There are encouraging signs that that is happening.

Does not the Minister agree that the co-responsibility system should be abolished in countries such as Britain which produce less than their own milk requirements?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the levy was originally a means of financing the promotion of increasing consumption throughout the Community, which was of benefit to us as well. However, if the levy is to be used as a system of buoying up the income of the CAP irrespective of the impact of the levy itself, or if it is going to be used in a discriminatory way against Britain, I will obviously oppose it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the position regarding conservation of fish stocks in international waters.

International waters, comprising those outside the fishery limits of coastal States, account for only a small proportion of catches of most species of fish.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that we can never relax in this area? Will he also look again at what is happening in the South-West, particularly with mackerel stocks, where there is evidence of much smaller fish and smaller catches? Will he please see what he can do to curb still further the fishing in that area, since otherwise stocks will be gone? Finally, will he also reconsider the problem of the fishing of bass around Eddystone rock, where it is being raped still?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We can never relax our efforts for proper fish conservation. The decimation of particular stocks, most of all of the herring, is an object lesson to us all. As for mackerel, we have had licensing now for about four years. Those restrictions are based on scientific evidence and we also specified for a considerable period of last year a large area in the South-West where no fishing for mackerel would take place at all. I assure him that I will watch this matter closely. As for bass, my hon. Friend will be glad to know that we are proposing an increase in the size of bass that can be caught from 26 cm to 38 cm. Those proposals will be discussed with the industry in a week or two.

How can the Minister be so complacent when he recalls the illegal French fishing which was allowed to carry on with impunity, when he recalls that he gave mackerel fishing the go-ahead in the North-West of Scotland, which will mean that that stock will go the way of the herring, and when he is making an agreement with our alleged partners, who had so little regard for conservation that they cleaned up all their own stocks?

I was not complacent. I said that we can never relax in this matter of conservation. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the facts. He says that other countries are not enforcing the regulations. I therefore hope that I have his support in the negotiations in Europe, where there are proposals that other countries will be supervised by the Commission, for the first time in the history of the waters of Northern Europe, thus achieving proper objective supervision of conservation measures. I look forward, as those negotiations progress, to having the right hon. Gentleman's support in all those matters.

Will my hon. Friend undertake that the Government will use all their good offices to try to break the deadlock between the Canadian Government and the American Government, which is making it impossible to secure agreement on an international convention for salmon—an agreement which is essential for the conservation of salmon stocks in the North Atlantic?

Yes, I give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on that. The proposed convention is very important, if not even vital, for the preservation and conservation of salmon stocks. We shall do everything we can in relation to that convention.

Since the Minister accepts that there are too many vessels catching too few fish and since he is in favour of a licensing system, what chance does he think he has of persuading our sister States in the EEC to adopt a licensing system—particularly France and Denmark?

Licensing is simply one tool for fishery conservation. The important thing is first of all to agree total allowable catches and then to agree the proper division between the different countries concerned. We have obtained agreement in Europe on the total allowable catch. Now, we must achieve the proper division of that, as well as the important measure that I mentioned for proper objective policing.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from the poultry industry about unfair competition from producers in other European Economic Community States.

Representations have been received from a number of organisations and firms in the industry.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that brief reply. What action has the EEC Commission taken over the Danish Government's intention to pay the charges relating to the EEC regulation on poultrymeat hygiene? I know the importance that my right hon. Friends place on the poultrymeat industry. Do the British Government intend to give the British industry the same sort of assistance?

As my hon. Friend knows, the last time that he asked a similar question, we had demanded an inquiry by the Commission, which had taken place. It said that, as a result, there was unfair competition and a dissimilarity of practice throughout the Community and that it would be tabling measures—I trusted that they would appear at the January Council meeting—to meet that point. Obviously, I do not know at present, because of the sad death, which both sides of the House will regret, of Mr. Gundelach, whether there will be any delay in bringing forward those proposals, but this is a matter of urgency for our poultry industry, which is operating under a disadvantage. I hope that action will be taken during this month.

Does the Minister accept that part of the unfair competition in our poultry industry is subsidisation of feeding stuffs in other countries? Does he appreciate that the importing of poultry meat is destroying jobs in rural areas of this country where there are already too few jobs, and that, although dairy farmers are compensated when they go out of business, dairy workers and poultry workers are not compensated?

As the hon. Lady will know, our poultry industry has enjoyed a very good record of exports, and is probably one of the best and most efficient in the world. When there was unfair competition from the United States due to its not complying with our health regulations, we stopped those imports. We have now ascertained that there is similar competition in Europe. The Commission has promised to act speedily. If it acts speedily, in January, I believe that our poultry industry will, perfectly fairly and reasonably, compete and succeed.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny newspaper reports which allege that eggs are exported from this country to Europe and then reimported? If that were so, would not he consider it a patent absurdity from which the British housewife had a right to be protected?

Yes, but it is difficult to trace the identity, original location and final destination of an egg. I can only say that I have substantially increased the amount of inspection at the ports. If anyone can provide any evidence of such practices, we shall take immediate action.

Is it not the case that, before we went into the Common Market, we could, and did, do anything that we wanted to do to deal with matters such as this, but that now we cannot do as we want to do because we have to ask someone in Brussels? Did not the Euro-fanatics on both sides of the House promise that we would lose no sovereignty at all? Can we not now be honest and admit that we sold the people down the river and that the sooner we get out, the better?

While respecting the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the river, I personally believe that one thing that we should lose on a substantial scale if we pursued the policies he has suggested would be a great number of jobs, which would increase unemployment substantially.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take to help improve the marketing of fish.

The Fisheries Bill at present before Parliament provides for a new statutory authority for the sea fish industry whose powers will include that of promoting the marketing and consumption of fish in the United Kingdom. In addition, I announced on 12 January that I have asked two of the five marketing advisers whom I appointed some 12 months ago to make an examination of this sector to try to give advice as to how to increase and improve the marketing of fish in this country.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he realise that one of the marketing factors that has been most deleterious to the industry in the past 12 months has been the low price of fish on the quayside? While I welcome his efforts to increase the minimum price through Europe, will he continue to press those measures upon our colleagues in Europe?

I certainly will. I agree with my hon. Friend that the price as compared with the costs during the past year has put considerable pressure on our fishermen. I think that my hon. Friend knows that that is the reason why the Government decided to provide substantial aid to the fishing industry during the course of last year. But certainly, we want to see an improvement of the marketing and to collaborate in Europe to get the price at a sensible level.

I welcome any improvement in the marketing of fish, but does the Minister accept that the state of the industry is now so desperate that if action is not taken to provide further temporary financial aid or to control cheap imports, there will be scarcely any catching industry left to provide any fish to market? Will he give an assurance that, if there is no agreement in the negotiations next week for a common fisheries policy, the Government will bring forward further measures to help the industry?

Having seen that, in the course of last year, the Government provided more aid and assistance to the industry than for several years past, including the latter years of the previous Government, I think that the industry knows that the present Government are determined to sustain a viable and sensible fishing industry in this country.

Will my right hon. Friend say what discussions he has had with the frozen food industry about its need to import substantial quantities of manufacturing cod, which simply cannot be caught in British territorial waters? Will he consider the possibility of reducing reference levels to below the world price so that this fish can be bought in without threatening our own fishermen and can satisfy the enormous consumer demand for fish fingers?

What is important here is that our own fishing industry and our processors work in collaboration. There is no reason why they should not do that. Certainly, we have endeavoured to obtain a better understanding between the two sides of the industry so that we can pursue policies that are beneficial to both. Obviously, it is important for our fishermen that we sustain an important and viable processing industry in this country.

Would the Minister care to tell the House when the two marketeers are likely to report to him? Given the urgency of this matter, I hope that it will be soon.

Clearly, they will have to decide the timetable in the sense that they will have to decide whom they will consult. They will, of course, be consulting retailers, wholesalers and the fishing industry itself. However, one advantage of our system is that the marketing advisers do not wait to make their final report. Any ideas or suggestions that they think are sensible they make known to us immediately and we act upon them immediately.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the criteria used in the arbitration of rentals for tenanted agricultural holdings.

The scarcity of farms to let as a result of legislation is undoubtedly making the task of arbitrators difficult, but I am satisfied that arbitrators are managing to cope with the problem.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and my right hon. Friend for his comments on this matter earlier. Does my hon. Friend agree that although talks are going on between those organisations concerning long-term improvements in the situation, the agricultural valuers profession and representatives of the tenant farmers have shown that there is real urgency and need for a solution to the problem? Does he not agree that a more appropriate criterion for these matters could result, and will he press for that?

I fully acknowledge that there are a number of matters wrong in the operation of the landlord and tenant legislation. This happens to be one, and it is becoming more severe. But throughout the passage of the 1976 Act, we warned that this would be an effect of legislation which takes off the market farms to let. Without that market in farms to let, the arbitrators cannot fix proper rents.

Is the Minister aware that the main criterion for fixing farm rents, namely, the capital value of land, is causing great concern nowadays because it is making life very difficult for new entrants to the industry? Is he further aware that in parts of England there is collusion among land agents to force up the level of farm rents, and what does he intend to do about it?

In all my time in farming, the price of land has always been too great to justify borrowing all the money to farm. That is why the tenanted sector represents such a very important part of the agriculture industry. That is why we so much regret the decline in farms to let. On the question of collusion, I do not have any evidence on that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to let me know about it, perhaps he will. But the fact is that all valuers, of course, get together to discuss these things. Indeed, the very process requires information to be passed between professional people of that kind.

Does my hon. Friend agree with the editorial in this week's Farmers Weekly that rents should be geared to farms' profitability rather than to land values. Does he further agree that one way round the landlord and tenant impasse might be to develop the system that obtains in France, perhaps with the introduction of an agricultural shorthold in which fixed term tenancies, willingly entered into between landlord and tenant, might provide a satisfactory solution?

I have no doubt that the various points put by my hon. Friend will be among the subjects considered by the NFU and the CLA. Historically, the rent was fixed by the demand for the farm. The legislation that we have been operating for the last 30 years took some recognition of that fact. There are now no farms to let and therefore no market. This is the problem that produced the original question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the United Kingdom fishing industry.

We are determined to secure a settlement of a common fisheries policy which meets the essential needs of the fishing industry in the United Kingdom.

Whatever may be agreed between the various parties concerning the future of the British fishing industry, can the Minister assure the House that he will use his best endeavours to ensure that our fisheries patrol capability is adequate and effective?

Yes. I assure my hon. Friend on that point. Reverting to the earlier question on conservation, we have to make sure that the protection effort is available to carry out the work effectively. I remind my hon. Friend and the House that it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government to carry out the policing of our fisheries limits up to 200 miles or the median line.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the odds are that there will be no agreement in the fishing talks in Brussels next week? With the hon. Gentleman having given up five-sevenths of the annual catch of £520 million in British waters, the French might as well try for the jackpot. With no agreement, Grimsby vessels that would ordinarily be fishing in Norwegian waters at this time of the year cannot go there. Will the hon. Gentleman next week either take steps to dissociate the internal and external agreements so that Grimsby vessels and vessels from other ports can resume fishing in Norwegian waters or, if that is not possible, make a direct approach to Norway to discuss a roll-over for British vessels given that the Norwegian reciprocal catch is in our waters?

The hon. Gentleman, as usual, displays his desire to have no settlement. What he says underlines the need for a settlement and also underlines the point that only a settlement that is agreed internationally can be properly effective and conserve fish stocks. The Norwegian Government have not been prepared to come to an agreement with other countries because of the absence of a properly negotiated international agreement. Like the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), I look forward to the support of the hon. Gentleman instead of the sniping.

Apart from the pessimism of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), I am sure that both sides of the House will give full support to my hon. Friend and to his right hon. Friend in their efforts to complete a common fisheries policy next week. We hope that they will come to the House with that policy successfully concluded. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that British Ministers, before going to Brussels next week, will have the usual talks with the fishing industry to discuss strategy.

I look forward to the day when I enjoy the full support of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in relation to fishing matters. We shall be having consultations with the fishing industry before the next meeting of the Council. Representatives of the fishing industry, will as usual be attending meetings of the Council

Is not the Minister aware that proposals that have come so far from the Commission on a common fisheries policy have not been accepted by the industry or by this House? As we are near the crunch of either success or a sell-out, will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House before next Tuesday's meeting, and preferably now, what are the minimum demands that he will make on behalf of United Kingdom fishermen at next week's Fisheries Council? Is it not time that we had laid down the minimum demands of the Government?

I am sorry to have to remind the right hon. Gentleman again that the kind of proposals and the kind of deal available at the last Fisheries Council in December, as my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced to the House, had the broad support of the representatives of the fishing industry of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman cannot go on cavilling in the way he is simply because he appears not to want a settlement at all.

Is not the Minister aware that in "Fishing News", representing the whole of the fishing industry, this month, there are complaints about the Government's posturing in the House of Commons. It states:

"We fail to see how the Government can expect the industry to give continued support to the deal outlined in Brussels. There is a chill wind of feat blowing through the ports."

The right hon. Gentleman may prefer to rest for his advice on a journal which, I may say, is published weekly and not monthly. I prefer to rely on the advice of the industry and those who are actively practising fishing. Those are the people on whose advice I will rest.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the workings of the intervention system for cereals in the European Economic Community.

Intervention has played an important part in supporting returns to United Kingdom producers since the record harvest last year. We shall take full account of recent experience in this country and the rest of the Community when arrangements for 1981–82 come under discussion in the forthcoming common agricultural policy price review.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, will he say more about the disposal of surplus cereal and whether consideration has been given to disposing of surplus cereal in a manner that would benefit starving Third world countries, or, indeed, our own old-age pensioners and some of our unemployed?

The United Kingdom and the Community as a whole contribute to the food aid programme. Part of the surplus of cereals is used for that purpose. Our main surpluses in the United Kingdom are coarse grain and feed grain that are not necessarily appropriate for that purpose. I assure my hon. Friend that, through the food aid programme, we make sure that surpluses are used in a sensible and proper manner.

Is it true that over 600,000 tonnes of grain are now held in stock by the United Kingdom intervention board?

At the current moment, about 617,000 tonnes, to be precise, are held. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, who always loves to exaggerate these matters, that the figure represents 3½ per cent. of the total United Kingdom harvest. In simple terms of prudence in storing against a rainy day, I believe that it is a wholly sensible precaution.

If the common agricultural policy is to be reformed within the next two or three years, should not the top priority be to get rid of the intervention system now operating in Europe?

No. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. If we are to operate a sensible system which can ensure security of supplies to the consumer not only in the United Kingdom but throughout the rest of Europe for certain commodities, particularly those which can be stored, such as cereals, it may be appropriate to have an intervention system such as this, where a commodity can be stored from a period of plenty over to a period of scarcity. That makes sense. We should not be dogmatic in saying that one system of support or another is necessarily the best. We need to look at the system of support in relation to how appropriate it is to the commodity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present pH levels in soils in the United Kingdom especially in the hill and upland areas.

No, Sir. There is a long-term decline in the use of lime, particularly in hill and upland areas.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the fall in incomes, especially in grass land farming shown in the annual review White Paper yesterday, it would be in the long-term interests of the country for the Government to encourage the reintroduction of a lime subsidy or some encouragement for the increased use of lime?

My hon. Friend is right. It is a valuable prelude to proper fertiliser application, but we have to decide how to ration our scarce resources. It is not felt appropriate at the moment to reintroduce a lime subsidy as such, although some grant is available for the application of lime other than for normal husbandry operations.

Is the Minister aware that the collapse in the usage of lime in many parts of the United Kingdom and in particular in upland areas could cause long-term harm to the soil? Will he take urgent action to reintroduce a lime subsidy to make it possible for the hard-up farmers in those areas to start applying lime at proper levels again?

I do not wish to ascribe this to any national characteristic, but experience in Scotland suggests that the use of lime there may have declined to a greater extent than elsewhere. As I have just said, it is a matter that the Government keep under review.

Before my hon. Friend finally sets his face against the re-introduction of a lime subsidy, will he read a well-written pamphlet put together three years ago by my hon. Friends the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and the Minister of State, in which they persuasively and cogently argued for the reintroduction of a lime subsidy?

My hon. Friend is misreading what I have said if he believes that I have set my face against the reintroduction of a subsidy. It is simply a question of resources. It is one of a number of matters that the Government would like to deal with in the way that he suggests.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he is satisfied with the working of the Apple and Pear Development Council.

Yes, Sir. Since we reorganised the Apple and Pear Development Council last year under a new chairman, it has made a splendid start in improving the marketing of home-grown fruit and in helping to restore the confidence of our top fruit industry.

Will my right hon. Friend undertake to liaise with and act as a catalyst to the Apple and Pear Development Council to secure more aggressive marketing of the English Cox and Bramley apples.

Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows, with his interest in the subject, this past year the council launched the Kingdom pack for Cox apples and next year will go ahead with the Brantley apple. I am glad to say that, for example, during the peak of the season imports from a major exporter such as France were down about 40 per cent. on last year.

Will the Minister investigate the hardship occasioned to individual apple growers while there is a subsidy for co-operatives? Does he recognise that there is a great incentive due to his policies to grow inferior apples and pears at this moment? Would he like to tell the House how much Government money is spent on food produced for dumping?

We have given positive encouragement to building better co-operatives. An important factor about the Kingdom brand is that quality control will be carefully monitored. The customer will be guaranteed a very good quality apple when he purchases that brand in the pack. We are moving towards better packaging and better quality control. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is much overdue.

Does the Secretary of State believe that the Apple and Pear Development Council is properly titled, when twice this afternoon it has been referred to as a marketing organisation, and my right hon. Friend even used the phrase himself? Would it not be better titled either as a marketing council or a promotion council?

I am not over-keen on the title. I am, however, keen on the results, and the results this year have been very good.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that our apple and pear growers are being subjected to unfair competition within the Community even at this time, and, as a result, many good qualities of apples and pears could be driven out of existence by inferior brands from Europe?

That is why I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will applaud the fact that we provided the launching aid to the British apple industry this year of improving its marketing, packaging and delivery, which has achieved a good result in a short period. Having learnt from its mistakes and experience in the past year, next year it will make an even bigger impact.

While I recognise the major contribution made by my right hon. Friend to marketing, not least through such organisations as the Apple and Pear Development Council, is he aware that the income of horticultural producers and farmers in this country has dropped by some 33⅓per cent. in the past 10 years? What steps is he taking to ensure that those industries earn a proper income on their investment?

Yes, Sir. I regret that due to the substantial increase in input costs in real terms there was a further substantial drop in farm incomes last year. That is why I find it surprising that the Labour Party is constantly advocating that that income should fall still further.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his answer of 13 November 1980, Official Report, c. 407, to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), if any further action is proposed in regard to gaffkaemia.

The need for further action is being considered as part of a review of fish disease policies.

My hon. Friend is aware of the anxiety that the disease is causing to the fishermen of Bridlington, but is he aware that the Ministry has informed the fish producers organisation there that it does not have the power to ban the importation of live lobsters on health grounds? Will he therefore take the opportunity presented by the Fisheries Bill to introduce an amendment to take powers to ban the importation of live fish where it cannot be proved that it is not diseased?

My hon. Friend is correct that we do not have those powers. We are reviewing the matter. However, we have certain other powers, and I should be delighted to explain them to him. If necessary, we are ready to use them.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister satisfied when in their first six months her Government gave away according to the Treasury £650 million to the richest 1 per cent. of the population and then in the past 13 months, according to the latest unemployment indicators, have forced more than 1 million of the poorer members of society on to the dole? Is it not a symbol of Tory rule that this Government have engineered the biggest increase in means-tested poverty in 12 months in this country since 1932?

I fully endorse the policies of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reducing rates of income tax right up the income scale. He did that in 1979. It was necessary to get more incentives into the economy. It was apparent that people were fed up with being taxed more and more on the earnings in their pocket. With regard to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, it sits strangely alongside the figures that for the vast majority of people in this country—namely, the 90 per cent. who are working—the increase in their income last year in real terms was 4 per cent.

Will the Prime Minister find time during this Question Time to ask the Leader of the Opposition why it is that as Saturday approaches his statements regarding his attitude towards nuclear disarmament get more and more confused and confusing?

I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the task of the Leader of the Opposition is not to answer questions, and I hope that it never will be.

Perhaps we could get the right hon. Lady to answer this one. On Tuesday she said that a question about the possible sale of Times Newspapers Limited—The Times and The Sunday Times—to Mr. Rupert Murdoch was premature. I understand that there is to be a statement this afternoon on the matter. Has she now had time to reconsider? Will she immediately and properly refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a direct answer, as I did on Tuesday. No application for transfer has yet been received, and I will not be driven into a premature reply.

If the right hon. Lady is so diffident about making a reply, will she give an undertaking that before a final decision is made the House will have a chance to give its view?

The only undertaking that I can give to the right hon. Gentleman is that, if and when an application is received, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider it in accordance with the law, which is the 1973 Act.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the nationalised industries over the past 12 months had kept prices down, as the private sector has, we should probably now be enjoying inflation rates in single figures? Does not that give strength to the argument that this country does not need more nationalisation, but less?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely vital that the nationalised industries become as expert at cutting costs and increasing efficiency as the private sector is and has to be.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.

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

Does the Prime Minister realise that this afternoon the leaders of Northumberland county council are meeting to consider specific proposals to close the centre for training the mentally handicapped in Berwick, to close centres for physically handicapped, to scrap meals on wheels and to end school meals in primary schools? Are those the sort of things that she wants local authorities to do in order to achieve the cuts which she is asking for?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks not merely at what they are cutting but at what they are preferring to keep in existence. He should look carefully at the things which they are preferring to do and compare them with the things that they are preferring to close.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the number of pay settlements in the private sector which have been reported to the CBI which are now in single figures? In view of that will she now announce a review of the method of determining pay in the public sector, bearing in mind the substantial advantages of security of employment, pensions and not least Professor Clegg?

My hon. Friend is quite correct. Many pay settlements in the private sector are not only in single figures but well down into single figures, which augurs well for realism in the future. As to the determination of pay in the public sector, it is of course, subject to cash limits. Those cash limits are being fixed in accordance with what the Government feel the taxpayer and ratepayer can afford. I think that is the right way to do it.

How does the Prime Minister regard the recent bailing out of Massey Ferguson and others by the Bank of England and the other clearing banks over the past few weeks? Is she aware that it has taken the Government two years less than the previous Tory Government headed by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to set a lifeboat into operation? How does she explain to the thousands of ever smaller firms, which are being kicked to death by the Tory Government, that they must stand the test of market forces while these multinationals and others are rescued by her policy and the Bank of England?

I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been critical had the private enterprise banks

And the Bank of England.

—the clearing banks and many other banks not got together to do what they could for companies which find themselves in difficulty.

Will the Prime Minister remind the House that whatever the Leader of the Opposition does in harping about the future for The Times, it is Conservative Members who are most concerned about the freedom of the press, and that Conservative concern should be compared with the Labour Party policy for the press in "The People and The Media' which is part of the Opposition's specific adopted policy?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The policy in the Labour Party document "The People and The Media" would have been a policy for censorship of the press.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.

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

Before the Prime Minister visits Harlow tomorrow, will she study the disastrous results of her policies on the town? Is she aware of the damage that has been done to efficient industry not to mention the creation of unemployment, by the delay of her Ministers with regard to the settlement of a £10 million section 10 claim for housing maintenance costs, the loss of £2 million in housing subsidy, the addition of £1¼ million to the town's costs as a result of the rate support grant settlement and attempts to sell small business properties over the heads of the small businessmen? Is she aware that half the Conservative group have left the Conservative party?

Order. There are enough questions there to get on with.

rose—

Order.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked three questions already.

If my correspondence is anything to go by, the main complaint of small businessmen is the intolerable burden that has been put upon them by increased nationalised industry prices and the increased rates that are being charged. I am going to Harlow. I hope to visit a successful company. I am also going to a place in which under a Tory Government the people have the right to purchase their council or new town houses, which they never had under a Labour Government.

Will my right hon. Friend take a further opportunity today to remind the British press that rather than concentrating on the not inconsiderable constitutional problems of the Labour Party, it would be much better employed in underlining the Socialist statements which emanate from the Opposition Front Bench, not least the recent pronouncement by the Shadow Leader of the House calling for the use of pension and insurance funds, oil revenues and increased taxation in an orgy of State interference and nationalisation which this country can well do without?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Socialism is synonymous with total control by the Government and lack of liberty by the subject.

A few answers ago, the Prime Minister said that wage settlements which have been notified to the CBI have been in single figures. She went on to say that as a result of the settlements to which she referred, workers have accepted a 10 per cent. drop in their living standards. She added that this augured well for the future. What on earth did she mean?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what I meant. Until we get to a position where wages bear some relation to output, we shall not get competitive industry, secure job prospects or prosperity. I am only disappointed that I must explain that to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.

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

In the context of the previous question, will my right hon. Friend take time during her busy day to confirm that it is only by competitive and productive industry that employment and wages can be increased? In that context, will she point to the success of the BL Metro project, which has resulted in 1,000 additional workers being taken on since Christmas and bonus earnings at the rate of more than £12 a week?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. One must be competitive in order to improve one's standard of living in this world. It is astonishing just how much difficulty one has in getting that message across to certain quarters of this House. That is the only recipe for the future. I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has said about the Metro. We wish it every success. Perhaps I can take the opportunity to say that I believe that there will be a statement about British Leyland early next week.

Can the right hon. Lady help us on a matter for which she is directly responsible, namely, the announcement that is to be made next Tuesday on the fresh unemployment figures, which the Secretary of State for Employment has already said are likely to be appalling? That means that on Tuesday we shall be faced with appalling and unprecedented unemployment figures. We have seen recent announcements in Liverpool and elsewhere of fresh additions to that terrible total. Will the right hon. Lady give us the assurance for which we have asked on many occasions, namely, that the statement on this all-important matter will be made in the House on Tuesday, and that the Government will provide an immediate opportunity to debate the issue, for which they are primarily responsible?

The answer is "No". The statement about unemployment figures will be made in the way that it has been made year in and year out. As the right hon. Gentleman will have already observed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is top for questions that day.

Does not the right hon. Lady yet understand that we are faced month by month with the worst unemployment figures that we have had since the end of the war? If Conservative Members do not understand that, it shows how little they understand what is happening in the country. When will the right hon. Lady take responsibility for the affliction that she has brought upon Britain?

While the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Unemployment—Employment—[Interruption.]—while he was Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment rose by more than 100 per cent. At no time did he take the course that he is now advocating.

Before the right hon. Lady has the presumption to come to the House again and merely recite the Conservative central office handbook, will she look up the figures? Will she understand that when we were in office we fought against those figures, turned them, and were bringing them down? If she could say that she had brought down the unemployment figures by the same amount that we brought them down during our last 18 months in office, she would claim that it was the biggest miracle since the loaves and the fishes. Does she not understand that she is responsible for what is happening, and that it is high time that she came to the House and faced it?

I shall certainly accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to look at the figures. I took the precaution of bringing them with me. When he took over as Secretary of State for Employment the figures for unemployment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] But the right hon. Gentleman invited me to look at the figures—[Interruption.] He invited me to look at the figures and I took the precaution of having them with me. When he took over as Secretary of State for Employment, the unemployment figure was 618,413. By July 1976, it was 1½ million. By August 1977, it was 1,635,000. The following August they were the same. The following August they had fallen to 1½ million—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."] They have indeed risen, but during the right hon. Gentleman's time unemployment rose by more than 100 per cent. That was distressing. I share the right hon. Gentleman's distress, but I do not understand his synthetic anger about procedural matters.

We in the country are wondering when the right hon. Lady will show any signs of distress for what she has achieved. Will she now tell us, as she has all the figures with her, the figures for the increase in unemployment since she took office?

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that we took over with—[Interruption.]

Order. The Leader of the Opposition was allowed to ask his question, and the Prime Minister must be allowed to answer.

Of course I shall reply. I happen to have the figures with me. When we took over, the unemployment position was at a base figure of 1,340,595—almost twice as much as the base figure when the right hon. Gentleman took office. We began with 1·4 million. The December figure was 2,133,000. While the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Employment he witnessed an increase in unemployment of more than 100 per cent. We shared his distress at that. I hope that he will share ours. He is asking a procedural point. The unemployment figures will be announced in the way that they have been announced for a very long time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is answering questions that afternoon for something like three-quarters of an hour, which seems to be ample time to answer questions put to him by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.