asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in the harmonisation of energy costs for horticultural and glasshouse production amongst countries of the European Economic Community.

I am not aware of any current move among the countries of the European Economic Community to harmonise energy costs in horticulture.

Given that the question of artificially low Dutch gas prices will not be resolved by the European Court for some time, will my hon. Friend confirm that our Government are prepared to take positive action to ensure the survival of our horticulture industry through the 1981 season? Will the Government consider some form of national assistance similar to that being given by the French, Belgian and German Governments to home growers?

The Commission issued a formal warning to the Dutch Government on 7 November and stated that it would take action in the European Court of Justice unless a satisfactory response was made within six weeks. I understand that the Dutch Government's reply is being considered by the Commission. I can assure my hon. Friend that this matter will be raised at the next meeting of Agriculture Ministers and that my right hon. Friend will press the case. We believe that that is the right way of dealing with the matter.

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in considering measures to restore confidence in the future of fishing.

My right hon. Friend and I met representatives of the fishing industry on Tuesday this week at our request to receive information from them about the present financial situation in the industry. We also agreed the membership of the joint team of industry representatives and officials which is to investigate allegations about unfair and illegal imports.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the immediate action that he has taken in consultation with the industry. Can he say whether equal immediate action will be taken to provide temporary financial help? What is being done in the EEC and in Britain to prevent the dumping of cheap fish on our market?

The alleged dumping is a matter for investigation. The team is expected to meet early next week. We look forward to receiving its report as soon as possible. Representatives of the industry presented their case for financial aid to us on Tuesday. The documentary evidence was presented to us only on Tuesday, although we received one paper on Monday. We are analysing the evidence and as soon as we have done so we shall discuss the matter further with the industry.

Is the Minister aware that a recent edition of Fishing News indicated that he was prepared to stand out for a 12-mile limit from Flamborough Head to the North Foreland? Will he confirm that he is equally determined to do that for the South Coast of England?

Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend knows, no conclusion has yet been reached on a common fisheries" policy. Access is one of the issues central to the policy. The Government believe that we need an adequate zone of exclusive access. Equally, however, we must consider matters of historic rights where they are vital to other countries.

Is the Minister aware of the growing despair in the industry and the appalling number of redundancies now being created in the fish processing industry? What initiative does he intend to take to give fishermen the confidence to return to sea?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the initiative that the Government have taken. In addition to the £17 million of aid that we gave last year, we brought forward the review of the industry's finances, which was to take place at the end of March. The first review neeting took place at the Government's request during the earlier part of the week. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my original reply.

They are still on strike.

I regret that the fishermen are still on strike. The hon. Gentleman sounds almost as if he takes pleasure from it. I hope that he knows that the fishermen who are remaining in port are doing so against the advice of their own leaders.

Is it not the case that, whatever historic rights existed hitherto, the whole thing, to use the common phrase, is now up for grabs? Whatever the Minister is prepared to concede, should not at least he and his right hon. Friend stand out for a 12-mile exclusive limit for United Kingdom fishermen?

In the negotiations in Brussels, which have not yet reached a conclusion, we always consult the representatives of the fishing industry who are with us. We shall continue to do so in the forthcoming negotiations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the situation is growing more desperate day by day in all parts of the fishing industry in the North-East of Scotland? Is he aware that fish processers have already had to lay off about 500 men this week? If positive action is not taken quickly, that could run into thousands. Is he aware that fish merchants are being told that if they cannot meet their supplies next week major contracts will have to be cancelled and will be sent abroad? Will my hon. Friend give us the names of those who will serve on the committee to investigate allegations of fish dumping?

The Government have already taken action on two fronts. First, they have brought forward a review of the industry's finances. Secondly, they have set up the team of representatives of the industry and officials to investigate allegations about imports. We have asked for nominations from the three main fishing organisations, two nominations from producer organisations and one from Northern Ireland. The Department is ready to start work on the investigation immediately.

I acknowledge the problem that is facing processers. I hope that the fishermen who are not going to sea will bear in mind the wider interests of the industry—for example, processers and those employed in processing firms—as well as their own interests.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that neither my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Robertson) nor I take any pleasure from the continued action by some fishermen in Scottish ports? Is he further aware that, although we welcome the setting up of the anti-fish dumping committee, we think that the committee is no substitute for Government action to tackle the crisis in the industry? Has he studied the figures published this morning by Associated Fisheries, which detail the effect of the reduced catch on fish processing? How many more hundreds of jobs will be lost in the industry before the Government take action? May we have a statement next week?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has recognised the substantial aid that the Government have given to the industry. Secondly, the Government have responded immediately to the industry's economic plight. I am aware of the difficulties that are being faced. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the problem of the fishermen staying in the port. I ask him to realise that it was only on Tuesday that we received the fishermen's final representations. We have agreed to deal with them urgently. It is significant that the leaders of the industry have accepted the Government's assurances.

Order. This issue arises again on question No. 4.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he expects will be the change in the level of beef production in the coming marketing year.

Under present trends I expect beef production to be somewhat lower in the coming year.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in being worried about the fact that this is the sixth successive year when there has been a drop in beef production. Will he consider urgently those of my West Midland and Warwickshire farmers who consider that a realistic settlement for farm prices, the need to maintain the green pound and a further reduction in interest rates should form part of his negotiations in the near future?

I acknowledge what my hon. Friend says. The White Paper indiccated that agricultural incomes declined during the past year. The figures for the beef sector gave us especial cause for concern. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that in the price review negotiations we shall need to examine carefully what is happening in that sector. That applies to livestock generally, but particularly to beef. We acknowledge that matters are difficult.

Is the Minister aware that in my part of the United Kingdom beef prices are consistently a long way below the level of prices that persists elsewhere? What changes does he propoes to make in the beef marketing system so that a more unified pricing arrangement will be arrived at throughout the United Kingdom.

Beef prices must be negotiated in the coming price review with our European colleagues. I acknowledge that even greater difficulties are faced by Northern Ireland producers. However, through intervention, the beef premium scheme, the suckler cow subsidy and hill livestock compensatory amounts, large sums are being paid into the beef industry. I acknowledge that there are problems, but we shall be dealing with them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that large numbers of Irish store cattle that would normally find their way on to the British market are now being exported direct to Libya and attracting large headage payments? Will he examine the difficulty that this trade is causing to beef farmers in the North of England, with a view to ascertaining whether anything can be done to put matters right?

Yes. I willingly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the variable premium scheme will continue to be the main price support mechanism for the coming year?

We believe that it should be. We consider it to be a good investment in terms of funds. It is good for the consumer as well as for the producer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with representatives of the United Kingdom fishing industries on a common fisheries policy.

On 4 February in London and again during the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Brussels on 9 to 11 February.

Will my right hon. and hon. Friends do all that they can to promote unity within the United Kingdom fishing industry—unity with the catchers, the salesmen, the wholesalers, the processers, the retailers and, indeed, the consumers, so that we may have a strong, united industry to get a better agreement in Brussels?

My hon. Friend is right. One of the strengths of Ministers in both the last Labour Government and this Government in the negotiations in Europe has been to have a united industry behind them. That relates to uniting not only the sections of the catching industry but the entire industry.

Although fishermen cannot make a living because of the poor prices that they receive at the quayside and because of the flood of cheap imported fish, how is it that the consumer cannot discern any reduction in the price of fish in the shop?

I understand that in some areas there have been reductions in the price of fish. I remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend has asked three of his marketing advisers to examine fish marketing. I look forward to whatever recommendations they may make. The hon. Gentleman has touched on a serious issue.

While I am sure that the House will continue to support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the efforts that the Government are making to reach agreement on the common fisheries policy, may I ask at what stage the Government will give some thought to a form of unilateral action if we cannot persuade our partners in Europe to come to a decision? Does my hon. Friend agree that the French Government are opposed to a solution?

I am sure that it has not escaped my hon. Friend's notice that, unlike 18 months ago, the United Kingdom's case for a properly renegotiated fisheries policy has received support from a wide range of Governments in Europe. That is a change from the: position a number of years ago. Let us pursue that course towards a proper policy. If that is not possible we shall consider the position further.

In view of the problem on imports, has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of introducing a blue pound to help to deal with the exchange rate and the fact that prices, although disastrous for the fishermen, are higher than in continental ports?

We have to approach the question of prices in the Community through the existing mechanism. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a system of minimum withdrawal prices. I believe that that level of prices is unrealistic. We have made that view clear in the Community. We shall work to improve that and to improve the reference price system which governs the price at which imports come in from third countries.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money has been paid out by the European Economic Community in the last three years to British farmers to enable them to cease producing milk.

Payments by the European Community to dairy farmers in the United Kingdom under the non-marketing and conversion premium scheme amounted to £47·9 million in the years 1978–80.

The non-marketing section of the scheme has now closed to new applicants and the conversion section is expected to do so on 31 March 1981.

Bearing in mind the confusion that no doubt exists in the minds of many people who see the price of their milk constantly rising, and then read those figures, will the Minister say whether an examination has ever been carried out into the number of people who received EEC grants to start producing milk, then received grants to stop producing milk, and then received further grants to switch to something else? Is the Minister aware that my examination of this is profound?

Studies have been made. In the main, there are few cases of that happening. That is the reason why the Government supported the ending of the schemes, which were started by a previous Administration.

Is it not the case that while the EEC has been making payments to farmers to stop producing milk, the French Government have recently made an enormous payment of £400 million to French farmers to encourage them to continue producing dairy products? Is that not an abuse of EEC rules'? Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

Yes, Sir. As a result of inquiries about recent French aid to the dairy sector the Commission is taking action against the French Government.

Does the Minister agree that the cost of the EEC milk regime, now running at £2,400 million per annum, is monstrous? Does he agree that the proposed Commission's price increase, announced this morning, of a two-stage 8 per cent. increase in the price of milk is both an affront to the British people and economic lunacy? Will the Minister fight to hold down the cost of the common agricultural policy to the British people and oppose the ridiculous price increases?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have done rather better at holding down price increases than the Government of which he was a member, under whom the average price increase was 7½ per cent. per annum. I gather that that is the average price increase suggested in the proposal. The Commission's proposals advocate price increases equal to the average that the Labour Government agreed to year after year.

Does my right hon. Friend still wish to see an expansion of the United Kingdom dairy production?

Yes, but it must be based on improving our performance in manufactured products. There is little, if any, scope for increasing consumption of liquid milk because it is already above the average consumption of any other country in the world. Therefore, production depends on improving the manufacturing and processing side. Our efforts in marketing and the current benefit of positive MCAs are having a helpful effect.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek to set up a special agricultural loans board to make finance more easily and cheaply available to farmers.

No, Sir. Farmers' organisations have always supported our system of capital grants in preference to other forms of support such as subsidised loans.

Does my hon. Friend agree that during the past two years fanners have found that there has been a considerable reduction in their income simply because of the high cost of borrowing due to the level of the minimum lending rate? Is my hon. Friend aware that if the farmers took a leaf out of the book of the miners and went on strike there would be no food and the miners would have to eat their coal instead of burning it? When the Chancellor provides special facilities for small businesses in the Budget, will my hon. Friend ask him to consider cutting in the farmers on that because, although their farms are worth a great deal of money, many are small businesses facing a difficult time with the high cost of borrowing money and of farm machinery?

I shall not get involved in arguing the merits of different sections of the community. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in saying that our farmers have nothing to be ashamed of about their productivity since the war years. Of course, they have had to bear the burden of high interest rates, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has dropped the minimum lending rate by 3 percentage points since the middle of the summer. It is his firm intention to make further reductions as soon as the monetary conditions and prospects allow that. The issue in the original question is one of method. I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that the farmers' organisations approve of what the Government are doing.

Will the Minister consider setting up a land bank so that financial aid can be given to young entrants?

As I said in my original answer, that is not the Government's intention. The fanner's organisations believe that the method of paying grant, which has been going on for many years under all Governments, is satisfactory. We do not close our minds to changes but we have no plans to alter the method at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer about the farmers preferring a grant to a loan was not borne out at the recent National Farmers Union general meeting? Will my hon. Friend comment on the Barclays Bank booklet—

Reading.

Only the title. The booklet is called "Farm Finance in the EEC", a copy of which has been sent to my hon. Friend. Will he comment on the unfair combination of grant and cheap credit that is available to the French, the Germans and the Dutch, and which is crucifying our farmers?

As my right hon. Friend said earlier, he has made that point to the Commission, which is investigating the matter. It is being dealt with in the way in which the EEC provisions allow. The question concerns the method of assistance. As I said in my last answer, we are prepared to look at changes, but when different methods are examined there are considerable benefits in capital grants because those who do not borrow can benefit as well as those who do.

Does the Minister agree that one useful way of reducing the credit crisis in agriculture is to encourage the industry to employ more youngsters as apprentices through the auspices of the Government's special employment schemes? Will he discuss that idea with his right hon. Friend?

I understand from a considerable number of my farmer friends that they are taking advantage of the excellent schemes that the Government are producing to help young people with employment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the value and weight of sugar currently held in stockpiles in European Economic Community countries.

No sugar is currently held in public intervention stores anywhere in the Community.

The whole House will welcome that statement. I welcome it warmly. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the European Community and the United Kingdom historically have a responsibility to certain under-developed parts of the world? Are we not reducing the amount of cane sugar coming to Britain—

No.

Indeed we are. In doing so, are we not jeopardising the economy of many developing countries and, as we have heard in many debates, placing good workers in the North-West of England out of work?

I knew the delight with which my hon. Friend would greet my answer to his question. On the question of the cane sugar contracts traditionally placed in Britain, I am sure that he will welcome the announcement by Tate and Lyle that it has offered contracts for a further five years, and in the same volume, to all the countries mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the sugar beet industry that the Government are fully committed to a prosperous beet industry—bringing money to rural areas, both for the haulage industry and for farmers—without which the rural communities would suffer greatly?

I am well aware of the problems of the sugar beet industry. I regret the announcement this week of a number of closures. As my hon. Friend knows, I decided nearly two years ago to reduce the application of the sugar beet quota by 200,000 tonnes—as opposed to the quota we previously enjoyed—because that was in the interests of a tolerable balance in our market between cane and sugar beet. I have no intention of lowering the quota beyond that which I announced of 1·15 million tonnes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to increase the application of lime on farmland in England and Wales.

The application of lime qualifies for grant aid under the capital grant schemes when it is part of a grassland regeneration programme. Grants of up to 50 per cent. are available on hill land. We have no plans to introduce a further subsidy.

Will the Minister give consideration to the reintroduction of a lime subsidy, especially for the less favoured areas of Britain? Is he aware that there is clear evidence of a major reduction in the use of lime in those areas, which is increasing soil acidity, and could cause long-term damage? Is he further aware that farming in those areas has been especially badly hit by the collapse of farming income which has resulted from the Government's policies?

I share the hon. Gentleman's view that lime is an especially valuable fertiliser. I deplore the drop in its use, especially in Scotland. I do not know that it would be the best use of limited Government resources to give a subsidy to that cause, rather than to the many other attractive options. I cannot give him any assurances. He knows that the Government have done a great deal for the hill farmer, and it is on the hills that lime is most useful.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the marketing of British agricultural produce.

My marketing advisers have drawn my attention to many areas where there is a potential for improvement and I am pursuing these points with the interests concerned. I am following with interest the discussions within the industry on the possible need for a central body to encourage better marketing. I have instructed my Department, including the agricultural development and advisory service, to take full account of marketing considerations in all its work.

I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, especially the commitment to a professional marketing service throughout the country. Does he agree that professional marketing is as important as producing the goods? Because of the wide and diverse nature of agricultural products, will he speed up the introduction of that body, bearing in mind the comments of one of his marketing advisers at the recent Oxford farmers union conference?

The result of the speech by one of my advisers is that a diversity of interests in food and agriculture have got together and formed a joint committee to consider the possibility of preventing unnecessary duplication and achieving a more effective use of their resources. I have made it clear that I should be interested to discuss the results of their conclusions.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote fundamental changes in the agricultural policies of the European Economic Community.

I am continuing to press for action on prices and such other measures of reform of the common agricultural policy as are appropriate and negotiable.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the phrase "fundamental reform" has been around for many years, and we have yet to see any results? Are the Government really determined, on this occasion, to secure a fundamental change in the CAP or a replacement of the current policy? Is it not right for him to tell the House of his ideas about how the CAP should be reformed, perhaps in the form of a Green Paper?

As my hon. Friend knows, during the past year there have been substantial reductions in the number of what used to be referred to as mountains and lakes. There has been a better administration of the disposal policy. The new proposal for a super levy to stop the increase in milk surpluses is radical and important. Those matters will be fully discussed, as is traditional, in a major debate prior to the negotiations on the CAP.

Will the Minister say in what year the Labour Government agreed to an average price increase of 7·5 per cent? His reply to my earlier question on the EEC prices package may have been somewhat misleading. Will he address himself to the real issue, namely the cost to the British taxpayer of the proposed prices package? Is it a personal insult to the Prime Minister, or has he decided that the British taxpayers will make a contribution to the French President's election campaign?

I shall be delighted to table an official reply showing the list of price increases agreed by the Labour Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not find that too embarrassing. During the past three years, the average increase of food prices under the CAP was 2·7 per cent. per year—way below the input costs and way below the rate of inflation in any country in Europe.

As our friends on the Continent are providing heavy subsidies for their agriculture—both France and Germany through interest-reduced loans and subsidies—will my right hon. Friend consider, as a radical improvement in the CAP, that we should at once revalue the green pound by the full amount, and agree that at the same time a small proportion of that total amount of cost saving to the British consumer should be given as some subsidy to our farmers in view of their recent reduction in income?

I reject my hon. Friend's suggestion. Farm incomes in real terms have reduced by 24 per cent. during the past year. His suggestion would mean another massive reduction in farm incomes in Britain. I suggest that my hon. Friend carefully studies the reason why countries such as Germany have always struggled to maintain their positive MCAs. Germany did so because it considered it to be of benefit to the German economy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which organisations he is consulting on the recommendations of the two Binder Hamlyn reports on milk.

Comments on both reports were invited from a range of interested organisations, including the dairy trade federations, the milk marketing boards, the farmers unions, the trades unions representing the workers in the dairy industry and the major consumer organisations.

When will my right hon. Friend be in a position to implement the proposals of the second Binder Hamlyn report?

I hope that we shall have completed discussions and drawn conclusions on what action should be taken within the coming month.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that any undue delay could be harmful to the industry? Does he accept that there has been a serious drop in the income of milk producers—as evidenced by the recent agricultural review—which requires attention?

I agree that there has been a drop in the income of dairy producers. The Government can claim to have taken a number of steps to assist them during a period of considerable increases in input costs. The decisions set out in the Binder Hamlyn report are highly technical, and are important for the long-term future of the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the support that will be given for potato production in the coming season.

The guaranteed price for the 1981 crop will be announced shortly.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a continued need to improve marketing in the industry, and especially to match production with the needs of the processers?

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the views which he expressed were very much echoed by the report of my right hon. Friend's marketing advisers. That report is now being discussed between my Department and the Potato Marketing Board and producers generally. I hope that out of that we can get better marketing and in particular take into account the needs of the processers.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the industry needs a good shake-up, and that it needs to wake up and move into the 1980s with modern processing and marketing? Will he make it clear to the industry that if it does not do that some of the processers will be forced to buy abroad, which would be wrong for this country?

Again, the points that my hon. Friend makes were borne out in the report to which I referred. Another aspect which I think is of particular importance is that we maintain a high quality potato, well presented. It is only if we do that that we can keep up the consumption of potatoes in this country.

Will my hon. Friend give every encouragement to the Scottish Seed Potato Association which is doing a bit for itself in seed potato marketing?

Although I have some responsibilities for potatoes, I am glad to say that they do not extend to Scottish seed potatoes, although I have a constituency interest. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise the matter of African, Caribbean and Pacific imports of sugar into the European Economic Community at the next meeting of Community Agriculture Ministers.

No, Sir. These imports are fully safeguarded under the Lomé convention.

As the price of sugar on the world market from ACP countries over the past four years, with the exception of last year, has been half the price of European Community sugar, will my right hon. Friend impress upon the Community that it would be far better if we could have guaranteed arrangements for a greater supply of sugar from those countries, with which we should wish to trade, rather than expensive sugar from other European countries?

The question asked was about an agreement willingly made and a figure agreed to by the Lomé countries. My hon. Friend has just pointed out the immense advantage that the Lomé countries have had from the existence of a European sugar regime which in four of the last five years has brought them such benefit.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, so long as the access of those countries to the European Community market is quantitatively limited, their ability to increase their production and sell it on the world market is also inhibited by the sale of surplus sugar with a taxpayers' subsidy on that same market?

Yes, Sir. That is why the British Government have always followed suggestions in the Community which would enable the Community to become a participant in the International Sugar Agreement under which these things could be properly regulated.

Can my right hon. Friend give the House some indication as to why the EEC has not yet joined the ISA? Can he say when he thinks that the EEC might join that agreement?

I hope that if agreement can be reached on sensible quota levels this year, what is now a Commission proposal to join the ISA will be supported by other countries. As my hon. Friend knows, it has always had the support of the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to reduce food prices.

Since May 1979, retail food prices have already fallen significantly in relation to other retail prices and wages. In the forthcoming common agricultural policy price-fixing for 1981 I shall be pressing for price restraint and the continuation of other measures of benefit to the United Kingdom consumer.

Does the Minister of Agriculture accept that his position is absolutely intolerable in that he is probably the first Minister of Agriculture to countenance the introduction of a tax on food since the abolition of the Corn Laws?

I am also the Minister of Agriculture who has halved the rate of increase in food prices under the present Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with

Does the Minister accept that the ACP countries require trade more than aid, and that European farmers are capable of growing crops other than sugar beet? Does he agree that if we had additional imports of cane sugar this would provide work for the people of Merseyside in particular?

Yes, but that is why it must be a pleasure to those countries that want trade rather than aid to realise that in four out of the last five years they have had better prices than they would otherwise have had due to the Lomé agreements.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current holdings of cereals in intervention stocks in each of the countries of the European Economic Community.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall circulate the information in the Official Report.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply.

The Government would like to see the maximum use made of the Community subsidy on school milk in the United Kingdom, and have been discussing with the Commission the arrangements by which this can best be achieved. I hope that it will be possible to announce the details of these arrangements very shortly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great disquiet that exists in Cumbria about the lack of urgency in the Government's pursuit of this matter? Is he aware that farmers in Cumbria are now openly suggesting that the co-responsibility levy should be withheld?

As I stated in my reply, I think that the negotiations which have been held in detail between the industry, the education authorities and my Department, and also the Commission, are now near to completion and I believe that this will be of great assistance.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.

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

In view of the developments in the coal industry in the past 24 hours, will the Prime Minister take time today to confirm that the least efficient 10 per cent. of all British pits are currently losing money at the rate of £190 million per year, and that whatever may be the outcome of talks over the next few days, the most effective way of reducing the cost, and thereby restoring the competitiveness, of British coal lies in a planned and agreed schedule of pit closures?

I understand that those figures are broadly correct. I stress that it is the wish of us on this side of the House, and I believe on the other, to have a competitive coal industry because that puts the least burdens on other parts of the economy and would enable very many other industries which are big users of electricity, which is based on coal, to have that electricity more cheaply, and thereby to keep more jobs in their own industries.

May I, a little more generously than the right hon. Lady's hon. Friend, congratulate the right hon. Lady on what, certainly on the present evidence, appears to be a great victory for the miners and for the nation? We shall, of course, wish to have explicit undertakings from the Minister who was so vague two days ago, but so far it looks like a very good thing. I assure the right hon. Lady that every time she turns she will get a nice bouquet from me. I might even ask her to dinner—who can tell? Are the Government thinking of including the specific undertakings given to the miners of financial support in a new coal industry Bill? When will that Bill be introduced, and what figure does she set upon the the amount that the Government will give to enable the undertakings that have been made to be carried through?

The right hon. Gentleman referred to dinners. Doubtless he will not need reminding that on occasion it is a lady's prerogative to say "No".

Not to the miners.

That was precisely why I led in with my phrase relating to dinners. [Interruption.] I am not unaware of what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was saying. I thought that he said "congratulations" as I came in.

Not that.

Perhaps not. Such generosity would not become the hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the amount of money. I must stick to what my right hon. Friend said at the meeting yesterday. Two main points were raised at that meeting. It would be quite wrong to put any gloss on them, because the matters will continue to be negotiated next week. My right hon. Friend said that the Government were prepared to discuss the financial constraints with an open mind and also with a view to movement.

The chairman of the NCB said that, in the light of this, the board would withdraw its closure proposals and re-examine the position in consultation with the unions. I am not in a position to go any further. The consultations, discussions and negotiations will continue at the meeting next week, and there is nothing that I can usefully add.

I am eager to thank the right hon. Lady on every available occasion. I also thank her for turning yesterday's listening session into a talking session. That was an improvement as well. What would be worst of all would be if, after the Government had secured the apparent movement towards a settlement, there were to be any breach of faith—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question".] I am asking the same question to which I did not get an answer. What amount of money is involved? Will it be incorporated in a new coal industry Bill, because the last Coal Industry Act was part of the cause of the trouble?

It is precisely because there must be no breach of faith with what took place at the meeting that I have stuck to quoting the words that were heard and were the subject of the action taken at that meeting. Precisely for the reason given by the right hon. Gentleman, it would be most unwise to go any further when those words will be the subject of negotiation at the next meeting.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.

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

I know that my right hon. Friend is as concerned as any Conservative Member at the recent dismissal of Miss Joanna Harris by the Sandwell council. Is she aware that this is only the tip of the iceberg in that a number of my constituents who are placed in the same position have now received instructions from the Labour-controlled Bradford metropolitan council that only trade unionists will be transferred in their jobs or promoted? Is that not a disgraceful state of affairs which borders on blackmail? These people have every right to expect Parliament to help them.

I share my hon. Friend's use of the word "disgraceful" to describe the reported activities of the Bradford council, saying that only people who joined unions would be considered for promotion. That is repugnant and disgraceful. I believe that the vast majority of people in this country, as well as those in trade unions, are against the closed shop.

Ask Jim Prior.

I have not looked at the particular agreement of the Bradford council, but it is quite possible that it might be in breach of the Employment Act. If so, I hope that action will be taken. The Green Paper on trade union immunities makes further legislative proposals with regard to the closed shop. I hope that people who have particular examples, or strong feelings on the subject, will contact my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Why did the Prime Minister ignore the repeated explanations during all stages of the Coal Industry Act that it was, in fact, a pit closure measure? Who are the trimmers now? Is this slow motion Conservatism or the first note of the Limehouse Blues?

The action was swift, decisive and realistic.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the good news from Scotland in the form of 1,000 new jobs in electronics at the Timex factory in Dundee? Does she agree that it is sensible to back such new growth industries as a means of helping to create a new industrial base in Scotland?

Yes. I think that my hon. Friend is probably referring to the new Sinclair development—

Saved by the NEB.

—of the very small television sets which it is hoped to sell for about £50 each. I wish the project every success and agree that if we get the economic climate right these new growth industries will develop and provide jobs in Scotland and elsewhere in the country.

Does the right hon. Lady feel any concern about the continuing level of steel imports, notwithstanding the depression? Is she aware that the remaining 2,000 jobs at BSC Shotton depend for the next fortnight on imported steel from Holland? What will she do about that crazy situation?

The hon. Gentleman must take up such matters with the BSC. He knows that it is in charge and that only it can deal with matters of that kind. If ever a Government have to answer every detailed question about every industry we shall cease to have a democracy in this country. There will—I hope next week—be a statement on the future of the BSC's plan

While the Prime Minister is in her present constructive mood, will she turn her attention to lowering interest rates?

The right hon. Gentleman must realise that if mote money is to be found—perhaps the whole House will realise it—the only place from which it can come is the people of this country. It must either come out of the taxpayers' pocket or be borrowed, and that would lead to higher interest rates. When people constantly ask for more money, I hope that they will bear that in mind.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the lack of substantive questions tabled to her, she will seek to appoint a Select Committee to examine whether some form of priority could be established for those questions addressed to her requiring a substantive answer, above those requesting her to list her engagements for the day.

The arrangements for Prime Minister's questions have been reviewed twice by Select Committees in recent years, and I am not sure how much further progress we would make by appointing another Committee now. I am very willing to answer substantive questions if they are tabled, and I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to put down more of them.

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's willingness to answer any question from virtually anyone, but does not she agree that the plethora of open questions is making a monkey of our business? While we need a balance between admirable, spontaneous questions such as that from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Fox), we also need some specific questions to balance the Order Paper in respect of Prime Minister's Question Time.

I have never transferred a single oral question which has been put to me. I am wholly in favour of what my hon. Friend is saying. Substantive questions are the easiest to answer.

Has the Prime Minister seen the announcement today of new editors for Times Newspapers Limited—The Times and The Sunday Times?—

Order. This is not an open question.

If the Prime Minister is not in favour of setting up a Committee to examine Prime Minister's questions, can she set up a Committee to examine Prime Minister's answers? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the answer that she has given to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Lang) regarding the new jobs in Scotland is without foundation? Is she aware that a company is taking over people who are in jobs at present? It is wrong to mislead the House and to pretend that those are new jobs when they are existing jobs.

No one can be sure that a particular job will exist in X years' time. It is impossible to be sure. Many jobs now are concerned with products which did not exist 10 years ago, let alone 20 years ago. Opposition Members will be aware that from 1964 to 1970, while the Labour Government were in power, the average annual number of closures in the pits was 40.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) seems to have had question number 1 or 2—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a real point of order for me.