asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present stage in the negotiations for a common fisheries policy.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House on 11 March.

While understanding the need for reticence on the part of my hon. Friend at this delicate stage in the negotiations, may I nevertheless ask him to confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that there is no question of reaching a settlement that would allow foreign vessels to fish right up to our beaches, as the French have recently demanded?

I give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. In any negotiation or in any agreement, we must ensure not only adequate exclusive access for our vessels, but preference beyond that zone of exclusive access.

Is the Minister aware that the present state of the talks is one of deadlock, and that what concerns the House and indeed the industry is not only the point that has just been raised, namely, that pressure is being brought to bear by the French for access to our inshore waters, but that pressure is being brought to bear to get the Canadian cod deal settled with the Germans? Will he give an assurance that at the talks in Maastricht next week the Prime Minister will not trade off any of these matters and that we shall maintain the talks on achieving a common fisheries policy on their merits alone?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am aware of all the pressures. I assure him also that there never has been any question of trading fish against any other issue. Fish is important to the United Kingdom and is a matter that must be dealt with on its merits.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether the alleged dumping of cheap foreign fish was discussed at the latest talks?

Order. I think that that matter arises on question 3.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the level of production from the areas in the United Kingdom which are covered by the less favoured areas directive in each of the past five years.

The main component of production in less favoured areas is young stock from hill and upland cattle and sheep. Stocking figures for these groups reveal a decline in cow numbers between 1976 and 1980 of nearly 5 per cent., but an increase of 6 per cent. over the same period in the number of ewes.

In view of that reply and the considerable encouragement that the Government have given to this sector of agriculture, will my hon. Friend ensure that short-term economic considerations will not prevent that encouragement from continuing to be given?

It is, of course, for economic reasons that these matters are considered in the first place. I think that it would be impossible at this time of the year to anticipate the consideration that my right hon. Friend will give to the matter in the autumn. I think that the fact that he has already given two record payments for hill grants and subsidies indicates the depth of our feeling on this subject.

The Highland farmers of Scotland greatly appreciate the help that has been given by the Government, but does my hon. Friend accept that I should be failing in my duty if I did not ask him to confirm that, whatever happens in the EEC negotiations, Scotland's hill farmers will still be recognised as an essential part of the agricultural community?

I do not have the slightest difficulty in giving that assurance. Indeed, the new sheep regime is one of the matters that will considerably help them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on developments in the common fisheries policy and on the dumping of foreign fish in the United Kingdom.

On the first part of the question, I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House on 11 March. The team of officials and industry representatives which is investigating the allegations of dumping has made good progress, but has not yet completed its work.

I thank my hon. Friend for standing firm against both the French and the Germans. Is he aware that fish merchants are complaining about a lack of fresh fish and that trawlermen are complaining that the prices are too low? How will he reconcile those two points of view before reaching agreement on a common fisheries policy?

It is precisely because of our concern over the marketing of fish that my right hon. Friend has asked his marketing advisers to look into the whole question of marketing. That they are now doing, and that is in addition to the work of the team of officials who are investigating the dumping of imports. Therefore, work is very much in hand on both those matters.

Have the Government received any fresh information from the Dutch Government about their inquiry into the possible illegal export of fish from Holland to this country?

We have been in touch with the Dutch Government. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will have noticed from press reports, the main problems about fish coming from Holland directly relate to the difference in the currencies between the two countries. That, more than anything else is causing these imports.

In view of the continuing and severe problems caused to the British fishing industry because of the dumping of cheap foreign fish, when does my hon. Friend hope to come forward with a financial aid package to the industry? Is the industry right in thinking that he is considering providing about £28 million?

I ask my right hon. Friend to have patience. As the industry knows, the Government understand its needs and have already shown by what they did last year that where action is needed they are prepared to take it. I must ask my hon. Friend to wait a little longer.

If the use of the word "dumping" in the question suggests that the fish are cheap, will the Minister inform consumers at which retail outlets they can buy that cheap fish?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to that body for which I know he has a great respect, the White Fish Authority, whose survey showed that there had been a reduction in the retail price of fish. I believe that that has been overlooked by those who are seeking to make headlines.

In his negotiations, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the particular problems facing the shellfish industry, which is an important industry in Kirkcudbright in my constituency?

I confirm that the shellfish industry is not only important to Kirkcudbright, but is an important source of foreign earnings. It is an industry with an extremely good export record. I assure my hon. Friend that, in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole, I shall do all that I can for that section of the industry.

May I take it that the inquiry taking place by the team of officials and industry representatives into the dumping of cheap fish will be carried on separately from the CFP talks, and that it will not be held up until the outcome of those talks? If that is so, when are we likely to know the outcome of the discussions with the industry?

The discussions with the industry about imports are continuing. A meeting was held yesterday at which I understand good progress was made. The two sides hope to meet again in the near future. I cannot anticipate the outcome. As to the broader meetings with the industry about financial aid, we shall come forward with proposals as soon as we are ready to do so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is making to improve the marketing of agricultural production.

I am discussing with several sectors the potential for improved marketing. I am particularly concerned to see producers, processors and distributors work more closely together. I am following with interest the discussions on a possible new central marketing body.

Whatever consideration my right hon. Friend may still have to give to the funding proposals contained in the marketing working party report of the BAC, will he publicly give his approval to the four principles on which it says that it is necessary to base a marketing strategy—namely, the establishment of consistent quality standards and continuity of product availability, awareness of the requirement of the final consumer, co-ordination of promotion, and priority to export activity?

Yes.

Does the Minister agree that if we are to survive we shall have to improve our selling methods within the Community, instead of selling our surpluses to the Russians at give-away prices?

There is terrific scope within the Community for British agriculture and food products. It is interesting to note that in a number of spheres considerable expansion is now taking place.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the marketing of frozen chickens by United Kingdom chicken processors is being hampered by the different standards of health inspection in this country and in other EEC countries? For example, is he prepared to recommend that one way of overcoming the problem is to have an international interchange of inspectors, so that our inspection standards are imposed on processing factories in other EEC countries?

I am not particularly determined to direct our inspectors to go to foreign parts. However, I am glad to say that the Commission has agreed to come forward in the near future with proposals so that, both in terms of the standard of enforcement and the method of payment for that enforcement, an identical system operates throughout the Community.

Will the Minister pay particular attention to the need to provide for any regional variation that might be required in any central purchasing organisation, or any central system, that he is helping to create, or perhaps even sponsoring? Will he have special regard to Northern Ireland?

There is a range of specific problems in Northern Ireland affecting both agriculture and horticulture. Primarily, those matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that he is reviewing them with the farming organisations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet made any agreement with other members of the European Economic Community to equalise the cost of energy used by glasshouse growers in different member countries; and, if not, if he will give special assistance to British producers.

The European Community Commission has repeatedly challenged the Dutch over their gas prices in the glasshouse sector and called on them to cease unfair practices. We are expecting the Dutch reply to the Commission by the end of this month. I cannot anticipate their response.

It is just not good enough to continue to wait. Is the Minister aware of the crippling disadvantage at which British growers have been placed as a result of higher interest charges, the high rate of sterling and the inordinate cost of energy compared with their Dutch counterparts? Would it not be cheaper to pay an £8 million subsidy, as has been proposed by United Kingdom producers, costing £400 per head, than to support people who will become unemployed at a cost of £2,000 per head? Does the Minister want the industry to survive, or is he prepared to see it go down the drain?

We are seeking to do all that we can within the legal framework of the Community. The fact that we are expecting an answer on this matter within a fortnight shows that my right hon. Friend has been pushing it continuously at every opportunity, and he will go on doing so.

What answer did the Secretary of State give to the large number of glasshouse growers and horticulturists, of whom I was one, although I had to leave early, when they demonstrated outside the Ministry on Friday? Things have surely come a long way when these people have to demonstrate against a Government for whom most of them voted.

As I have already said, our insistence on an answer within 14 days puts a deadline on this, which no one else wanted to do, and that is right and proper.

Is it not permissible within the rules of the Community for temporary assistance to be given, based on the difference in fuel prices since January 1978?

The Community rules contain guide lines for providing special assistance. The rules are not necessarily the only drawback.

Does the Minister not realise that another fortnight will make the problem of our glasshouse growers this season intolerable, and that unless the Government introduce special aid for them there will be an enormous number of bankruptcies, which no one will welcome?

Although I was not present, I am told that the growers, who were told that a decision would be forthcoming within weeks, were pleased to hear that a date had been fixed. Their interpretation of the delay was not that expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of these people have already gone out of business? Does he accept that knowing that an answer will come in two weeks, without knowing what it is to be, is not much comfort unless there is an absolute assurance that the Government will take the steps recommended if we do not get the answer that we hope for?

The Government will respond. We, too, are acutely aware of the difficulties.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom level of self-sufficiency in egg production.

United Kingdom self-sufficiency in egg production in 1980 is estimated to have been 99 per cent.

With the continuing fall in United Kingdom chick production and the rise in placings in Holland and France, what level of self-sufficiency does my hon. Friend expect the egg industry to achieve by the end of June? Is it likely to be satisfactory? If not, what does he intend to do?

Such matters depend on the level of demand and so on. On the figures available it appears that we shall be marginal net importers of eggs this year, but I emphasise that any change must be small when we are near 100 per cent. self-sufficiency.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's efforts to ensure that the United Kingdom's poultry industry does not continue to be at a disadvantage compared with other European Economic Community poultry producers.

The Commission is expected to make proposals very shortly to harmonise inspection standards and methods of charging. It is still considering certain information we sent it on State aids to processors of poultrymeat in France. As regards the recently announced income aids to French farmers, the Commission has now opened proceedings against France under the State aid provisions of the Treaty of Rome.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how disappointing that answer will be to the United Kingdom poultry industry, because it offers no help with interim problems? Is he aware that Midland Poultry Holdings in my constituency, one of the largest United Kingdom producers, has been offered French birds at well below the cost of production in this country? What does he intend to do to help the industry with its interim problems?

My hon. Friend will know that because of the problems only a few weeks ago I provided an additional £2 million of aid to the industry. The poultry industry will be pleased to know that the Commission is making proposals to standardise charges and standards of supervision.

Are poultry producers in other EEC countries receiving subsidies, direct or indirect? If so, why cannot our producers have the same subsidies so that they can compete on equal terms? Do European hygiene standards comply with our import standards? Will the Minister negotiate compensation for redundant poultry workers similar to that for dairy farmers?

The purpose of the so-called compensation for dairy farmers is to enable them to move to activities that are not in surplus in Europe. The Commission has proposals to standardise inspection standards and methods of charging. The Government gave additional aid to the industry before those decisions were taken. On the general question of national aids, one of the most important issues in the Community is the degree to which some countries—and one in particular—are giving substantial national aids, which pervert competition in Europe. That problem must be at the forefront of the Commission's activities in the coming months.

Will my right hon. Friend take action to ensure greater uniformity in the application of inspection standards by local authorities? Is he aware that some United Kingdom poultry producers are even more disadvantaged than others?

That is one reason for providing aid. Gradually, more conformity is being established in the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister accept that the arrangements for the poultry industry are disadvantageous to British producers? Unless he takes action urgently, many poultry producers, like glasshouse growers, will be forced out of business.

I did not approve the regulation. That was done by my predecessor. I have come forward with the additional money necessary to see the poultry industry through this phase. Obtaining standardised methods of enforcement and payment will be a big step forward. The previous Administration did not achieve that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the sheep industry; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The new sheepmeat regime has brought major benefits.

Does the Minister accept that the House will be glad to hear that? Is he aware that reports from the North of England suggest that in this lambing season the destructive worrying of sheep by uncontrolled dogs is worse than ever, which is perhaps not surprising in the present economic climate? In drawing the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he warn him of the valuable proposals of the report of the working party on dogs five years ago and ask him to implement them without delay?

One may blame the EEC for many things, but we cannot blame it for dogs worrying sheep. We certainly cannot blame the sheepmeat regime. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised a serious point at a timely moment. I hope that dog owners will pay attention to what has been said.

Is my hon. Friend aware that sheep production is the most flourishing and successful sector of agriculture? Is he further aware that every prediction of his right hon. Friend last autumn about future prices has been more than met? Will he ensure that nothing is done in the forthcoming negotiations in Europe to destroy the great confidence that is building up in the industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. The sheepmeat regime has considerably helped our sheep producers. However, some aspects, particularly exports, give us cause to worry. We hope to raise such matters in the price review.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the clawback in the EEC sheepmeat regime has brought to an end the lamb trade with the Continent, when it should be increasing? Will he make it clear that the Government do not accept that and are determined to reverse it in the present price negotiations?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in turn, will acknowledge that the clawback has been cancelled for third country exports. The language that he uses is out of place. A change has taken place in the pattern of trade with European countries, but I hope that he will not be disappointed to learn that the level of trade in 1980–81, between November and January, is similar to that of the previous year. It is a distortion to say that trade has been brought to a halt.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the rumour that the French intend to disrupt the entry of sheepmeat to France again this year? If that is correct, when he is in Brussels will he let the French know in no uncertain manner that he will not tolerate it?

If my hon. Friend has evidence of that, I should like to know of it. We have consistently defended the interests of our sheep producers, and we shall continue to do so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now in a position to make a statement on the outcome of the European Economic Community price review.

Last week, in the Council of Ministers, the Commission's proposals on farm prices were discussed and views were put by each member country. The main discussions will take place at the beginning of April. I hope that before then we shall have a debate in the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has much support in the attempt to restore prices to a realistic level for the British farmer? Will he communicate to his Treasury colleagues the necessity of looking after the countryside, which just about still supports the Conservative Party?

On farm prices and the green pound, the Government are determined to see that the position of British agriculture is protected in the current negotiations. We must also, naturally, have a degree of interest in the impact of the common agricultural policy as a whole and the cost of the budget. assure my hon. Friend that it is the intention of the Government to see that British agriculture continues to prosper.

In his discussions on the price review, will the Minister bear in mind the serious condition of the British poultry industry and its need to achieve some advantage from the review? This industry used to provide a great deal more employment than the glasshouse and fishing industries, which, under the right hon. Gentleman's control, are now in dire straits. There is considerable unemployment in the poultry industry, with a number of bankruptcies looming up. Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of the price review to remedy the situation?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in employment in the poultry industry. I wish that a similar interest could be shown by the party of which he is a member, instead of its making constant demands for large green pound revaluations, which would do great damage to British agriculture.

Will my right hon. Friend remain firm in his view that there should be no revaluation of the green pound and that there should be a fair return for British producers? More importantly perhaps, will he try to prise open the mind of the Shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, so that we know exactly where the Opposition stand? Rumours are circulating that the Opposition want a revaluation of the green pound and no increase in prices to the farmers, which would be disastrous for the producer, the consumer and those who work in the meat plants.

I find it extraordinary that when farm incomes, in real terms, have gone down by 24 per cent. a major political party should advocate that they should be reduced still further. The position of the Opposition will perhaps be revealed in next week's debate.

On the basis of a positive MCA of about 18 per cent., are we not denying our consumers cheaper food and, at the same time, swelling our contribution to the Common Marker budget? Based on a positive MCA of 18 per cent., are we not granting £500 million or £600 million a year to our farmers' incomes? On that basis, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that under no circumstances, in the present review, will he agree to a revaluation of the green pound?

I say clearly to the right hon. Gentleman that in the period when the Labour Government had negative MCAs of between 24 and 45 per cent. food prices in this country went up twice as fast as they have under this Government. Secondly, I am saying that the positive MCAs do not improve farm prices at the farm gate in this country. What the right hon. Gentleman seemingly advocates is that they should be reduced still further. That is a dangerous policy to pursue.

Is the Minister saying that under no circumstances, in the forthcoming agricultural price review, will he agree to any percentage revaluation of the green pound?

I am saying categorically that, on the Commission's proposals for the coming price review and its suggested increases, there will be no revaluation of the green pound.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament was right yesterday to emphasise the need to discourage the production of commodities in surplus and to encourage those that are not in surplus? Will he accept that I am delighted to hear him turn down suggestions for a green pound revaluation which would not help British housewives in regard to prices, and which would be damaging to our farmers?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I recognise the immense damage done to British agriculture, food manufacturers and food processors by the appalling policy of the previous Government of having negative MCAs.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the pig industry; and if he will make a statement.

The three devaluations of the green pound in 1979 removed one of the major problems and there was improvement in producers' returns in 1980.

That is true. Is the Minister not aware, however, of the assistance given to Irish exporters of pig and bacon meat in order to cover their health inspection charges? Will the Government consider giving similar aid to British slaughterers to enable them to compete against these imports on an equal basis?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that any national aids that lead to unfair competition have to be dealt with carefully. That is a point that we made to the Commission.

Is it not the case that during the period of office of the Labour Government the negative MCAs smashed the cooked pigmeat industry in this country? Is it not the case also that the retention of positive MCAs will extend the hope of the United Kingdom pigmeat industry that it will be restored to its proper position?

There is no doubt that if we did not have the positive MCAs conditions would be infinitely worse for the United Kingdom pig industry. It is an important section of our agriculture industry. I believe that in the coming price review we have to look closely at the balance between cereals and livestock. This is one sector of our industry that can suffer if we get that balance wrong.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of home produced beef was supplied from the dairy herd in the past year within the United Kingdom.

About two-thirds.

Many of my hon. Friends will be grateful for that answer. Will my hon. Friend consider making a change in the grading standards that will allow more dairy-bred beef to come within the area of premium payments?

One of the hallmarks of British beef is its high quality. It is important to do everything that we can to maintain that high quality. I assure my hon. Friend that we re-examine the standards from time to time. If he has a worry about this, I should be grateful if he would let me know. I must point out that of the animals presented for certification, over 92 per cent. are accepted. I do not believe that that indicates a great problem.

Has the Minister had an opportunity to study the figures released today by the Meat and Livestock Commission, which indicate a record increase in beef and veal exports? Can he say whether these exports have been swollen by a significant increase in the slaughtering of United Kingdom dairy cows? If that is so, is it a matter of concern to the Government?

The Government are, naturally, concerned if there is any effect on our breeding stock. I am concerned generally about beef production. There has been a small decline over the last 12 months. It is a decline that began before then. This is an area which, like the pig industry, requires a great deal of attention in the price review.

Will my hon. Friend consider the effect of the introduction of Holstein blood into the dairy herd on the beef that is produced? Does he consider that, because of the volume of beef coming from Holstein blood, there might have to be a change in the grading standard?

I hesitate to become involved in interbreed rivalry of any sort. I know that in certain areas the Holstein breed has proved successful in its contribution to our dairy industry.

asked. the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he satisfied with the present state of the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I believe that the United Kingdom dairy industry can continue to improve its structure and efficiency in response to prevailing economic circumstances. In view of a point raised by the Opposition Front Bench, I am pleased to say that slaughterings in January 1981 are 21 per cent. down on the high level of January 1980.

Would it not be beneficial to consumers and producers if the co-responsibility levy were abolished?

As a matter of principle, it is better to have a reduction in price than a co-responsibility levy. The super levy proposed by the Commission, which will prevent and stop increases in production, and therefore decrease surpluses, has considerable merit.

Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to remind the Opposition Front Bench that if the dairy industry is strangled by the debt carried over from the under-recruitment when the Labour Government were in office it will not be able to play its part in the recovery of the engineering industry in the Midlands, which used to provide such a large market?

One of the important arguments for keeping British agriculture in a position of some prosperity and expansion is that otherwise many jobs in manufacturing, in the agricultural machine industry and in food processing will be at stake.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will in no circumstances agree to any package deal with our partners in the EEC that involves accepting concessions in the dairy trade that are damaging to milk rounds in order to gain advantages in other spheres?

Yes, I can give that absolute assurance. One of the most important features for our dairy industry is the continuation of the doorstep delivery service. I shall not take action that undermines that service.

I recognise the difficult job that my right hon. Friend is seeking to do within the EEC to achieve reform, but is he aware of the dire plight of our dairy and livestock industries? Far from expanding, the dairy herd is being reduced and the incomes of dairy farmers are dropping dramatically. Will my right hon. Friend give some assurance to the industry that it has a future, following the negotiations that are taking place within the EEC?

Three positive green pound devaluations and a substantial increase in the price of liquid milk have helped. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that in January slaughterings were 21 per cent. down on the year before and the number of heifers in calf was up on the previous year. The price of a dairy cow is substantially higher now than a year ago. Those factors demonstrate that there is a degree of confidence in the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tenant farmers have lost their farms due to the Agricultural Holdings (Notices To Quit) Act 1977 during the last 12 months.

The agricultural land tribunals approved 17 notices to quit under the Agricultural Holdings (Notices to Quit) Act 1977 in the 12 months ending 31 December 1980.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is scandalous that tenant farmers can be turned off their land merely for monetary purposes? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to consider the case in my constituency involving James Clegg, who will increase the statistics this year by one because he will be turned off his land as a result of the 1977 Act? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time for the Act to be reconsidered?

The Act was put on the statute book when the Labour Government were in office. I do not wish to become involved in an argument about the rights and wrongs of the Act. We are satisfied that the proper procedures were followed in the case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We cannot have a replay in the House of all tribunal decisions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that measures taken by our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget will help to increase the availability of farms to rent?

Having been responsible for moving amendments to that effect when the Labour Government were in office, I am delighted with my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals. I agree with my hon. Friend that they will help the rented sector considerably.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the European Economic Community Commission's proposals for a co-responsibility levy will have on United Kingdom milk producers.

The Commission has proposed that the basic co-responsibility levy should remain unchanged, except that it has proposed that a 6 per cent. levy should apply to milk from farms using intensive production methods. I find this proposal totally unacceptable. It would discriminate against producers in the United Kingdom and I will not agree to it.

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. In looking to the future, will he ensure that any co-responsibility levy will not militate against milk that our producers have to sell for manufacture because of imports of liquid milk from other countries in the EEC?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has completed his inquiries into fish imports.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).

Does the hon. Gentleman realise the anxiety that exists in the industry about imports? Cod, which used to fetch £35 a box two years ago, is appearing on the market for less than half that price. Does he realise that the scale of cod imports is something that the industry has never previously experienced?

The hon. Gentleman might be interested to learn that in January 1981 less cod was imported than in the previous year. I agree with him about the problem of prices. It is precisely for that reason that we have set up an investigation into imports and why we are examining the financial state of the industry. We hope shortly to come to a conclusion following our examination.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the greatest contribution that he could make to the preservation of fish stocks would be to persuade the Northumberland river authority to abolish the 50 licences that it has issued for drift netting for salmon off the Northumberland coast?

I am sure that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will have noted my hon. Friend's observation.

asked, the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 19 March.

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. This evening I shall attend a banquet given by President Shagari of Nigeria.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some local authorities that are still opposed to the sale of council houses are regarding the Housing Act 1980 as a hurdle to be overcome rather than a law to be obeyed, and that some councillors and officials are harassing, bullying and flying to coerce tenants out of their rights? Will she please today condemn that activity and assure tenants who want to buy that the Government will stand firmly behind them and do everything that they can to help?

Yes, gladly. The law on council tenants' rights must be obeyed. The Government have reserve powers. We are in touch with the 16 authorities in England that are dragging their feet over giving tenants those rights. We have acted with some speed. If need be, we shall not hesitate to use our reserve powers.

Does the right hon. Lady feel that her economic policies have produced the results that she intended?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait a little longer.

Will my right hon. Friend please confirm that to employ people on a discriminatory basis on grounds of race, colour or creed is illegal in Britain? If that is so, will she tell the House for how much longer she intends to allow the existence of employment on the discriminatory basis of whether of not an individual is a member of a trade union? The closed shop is blatantly unjust and blatantly against Britain's interests.

I agree with my hon. Friend that one or two recent cases have aroused the wrath of the British people. I think that the British people are wholly against the sacking of Joanna Harris by a municipal authority. They regard that as a disgrace to that authority. I hope that all those who feel as I do will contact my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and make their views clearly known on the consultative document, which envisages the possibility of further legislation.

As it is now clear that the Budget has added massive new burdens to British industry by raising the exchange rate by 4½ per cent. compared with its level at the beginning of the month and by increasing the price of energy for industry, will the right hon. Lady give industry the little psychological boost that she promised on television recently by cutting the minimum lending rate by at least a further 2 per cent. and tabling an amendment to the Finance Bill to cut the price of diesel fuel, which is now a third higher than the price in France and 50 per cent. higher than in Germany?

The answer is "No, Sir". If the level of public expenditure that the right hon. Gentleman had planned was in operation there would have to be even higher taxes and far higher interest rates than those that prevail now.

The Prime Minister cannot continue to attack the Labour Government on the level of public expenditure—

She can.

She cannot attack that Government for failing to cut public expenditure when she occasionally poses as the Prime Minister.

We have brought public expenditure down to well below the level at which the right hon. Gentleman left it—[Interruption.] It is well below what he had planned. Had we continued on his course—[Interruption.] It is well below what the right hon. Gentleman had planned. Had this Government been on the right hon. Gentleman's course, we should have been on the way to the IMF by now.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me in commending the sense of realism that was displayed yesterday by the work force at the Talbot factory at Linwood in rejecting the extremist and irresponsible course of action urged upon it by the Labour and Scottish National Parties, which would have damaged the image of industrial relations in the West of Scotland?

Yes. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming that wise action.

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

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

Has the Prime Minister seen the reports in today's newspapers that Shell intends to increase petrol prices by 5p, in addition to the 20p that has already been imposed by the Budget? In view of the right hon. Lady's known concern for the welfare of rural communities, is she determined to retain the 20p increase in the Budget, as well as the 5p that is threatened by Shell and other oil companies?

The hon. Gentleman and many others are only too anxious to increase public expenditure. We have to meet the public expenditure that is already agreed, and even the taxes that the Chancellor has proposed are not sufficient for that purpose and we have to raise a further £10½ billion. We took the view that the top priority for industry was to get down interest rates. They are now down by 5 per cent from their peak.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity during her busy day to look at the comments that are attributed to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), which suggest that we in Britain are conducting a battle similar to that in Zimbabwe for independence from the European Economic Community? Will she condemn that and confirm that Government policy is to arrange for matters within the EEC to work for the benefit of this country and all the other members of the EEC?

If those remarks really represent what the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) thinks, they are not worthy of comment.

Does the right hon. Lady believe that her Government have played their proper part at the Madrid conference? If so, can she tell us of any concrete, constructive proposal that has been put forward by the British delegation to assist disarmament in Europe and the building of confidence between the nations that were represented at that conference?

One main element is needed to build confidence, both at the Madrid conference and in other international relationships, and that is the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to look at the worrying situation that has arisen in connection with American textile exports to Britain, particularly synthetic textiles, and the deplorable fact that apparently President Reagan has taken no action about subsidised gas prices in America? Is my right hon. Friend aware that 100,000 jobs were lost in the textile industry last year, and that a similar calamitous decline is possible this year?

We have referred the matter to the European Commission. I am well aware of the problem. However, it should be pointed out that President Reagan has de-regulated oil prices. That was a courageous step, and I hope that it will be followed by further action on gas prices.

When the Prime Minister meets the President of Nigeria today, will she discuss the difficulties of African students who want to come to universities in this country?

We have already done that. We pointed out that those overseas students who were at university when the increased fees came in could carry on at the former fees. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has a budget to help overseas students to pay increased fees. It amounts to about £42 million a year, which is equal to 10,000 students. That is not ungenerous.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to look at The Daily Telegraph report that the level of redundancy payments to miners may well go up to £42,000? Is she not concerned that this and other payments by the nationalised industries compare badly with what private industry can afford because many firms can pay only the minimum statutory level of redundancy payment, which, at its best figure, is £3,900? Is she not concerned that that money can come only from the private sector, which is already hard pressed?

I understand the resentment that is felt about redundancy payments in nationalised industries, particularly that felt by small businesses. Nevertheless, it is to the benefit of the country that we reduce the number of mines that are loss-making so as to reduce the price of coal, which in turn would reduce the price of electricity. The increased redundancy payments are being made so that some of the mines that are producing coal at a very high cost can go out of action. That will be to our benefit. These are not wholly mineworkers' redundancy payments. They are the total payments available under some three Acts.

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

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

Can the Prime Minister spend some time today considering the announcement that GKN, our biggest engineering company, has lost £1·2 million in the past year, and in view of the fact that ICI, Britain's largest chemical company, has also made a loss this year, what can the Government do to prevent every industry from going bankrupt?

Certainly a number of engineering companies, including GKN, have reported bad results. They would be in a much better position if the 1·5 million cars that were sold in this country last year had included far more British cars. That would have had an effect on the steel and engineering industries. The best way to help other companies is for more people to buy British.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that, of the two Inland Revenue computer centres to be closed as a result of the Civil Service dispute, one is in my constituency. Is she aware that many of my constituents who work there are opposed to the strike? One of them wrote:

"We are delighted with the 7 per cent. on offer and trust the Government to see we are paid fairly in the future and in accordance with what our country can afford."

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I believe that the vast majority of people in the Civil Service, knowing that their pay this year is 50 per cent. higher than it was two years ago, and having been offered 7 per cent. on top of that, are of the opinion that this is a fair and honourable deal and are staying at work for that reason.

In view of the fact that the heads of both GKN and ICI attributed their appalling results largely to Government policy, interest rates and the exchange rate, will the Prime Minister take action to bring those down, since in real terms interest rates are still substantially higher than they were a year ago and, as a I said earlier, the exchange rate has risen 4½ per cent. in the past few weeks?

The right hon. Gentleman is not the right person to give advice about exchange rates, bearing in mind that he brought it to an all-time low of $1·56.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time this afternoon to remind the Opposition and some of her own hon. Friends that if we are to maintain and extend the reduction in the minimum lending rate we must curb Government borrowing, and that that means hard and unpopular measures in the Budget?

That is so. We have to persuade people to lend money to the Government. If we demand too much they will give it only at an unusually high interest rate, and that would spill over on to all those in industry who wish to borrow. It is vital to the future of investment and stockbuilding that the interest rate should be kept down, and that means putting up taxes higher than we should otherwise have wished and trying to keep down future expenditure.

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

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

Has the Prime Minister seen the report that the Civil Service unions have discovered the secret payments centres at Edinburgh and Leeds and are, in consequence, stepping up their action? Is she aware that they are doing this to demonstrate that they have a valuable function in the community—contrary to the continuing sneers of the Government and Members of the Conservative Party—and to demonstrate also that they have muscle? Is she aware that, following her settlement with the miners, all trade unionists now understand that the only language to which the Government will listen is that of trade union muscle? Is she aware that that is the language that the Civil Service is being forced to use?

I hardly think so. Before the Government came into office civil servants and others in the public service suffered grievously under the last Government's incomes policies. They did not have a fair deal then but they got a fair deal under this Government.