asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Community's proposals for changes in the agri-marketing system for the Community's agricultural policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in reducing the costs of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

In the Government's view the vital need is to contain agricultural expenditure by action on farm prices and by other means.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but assuming that he supports measures that would remove tedious and bureaucratic proposals such as compelling honey producers to indentify on the labels the flowers on which the bees feed, may I have his reassurance, particularly on poultry and dairy produce, that he will uphold the necessary traditional standards of health regulations in this country and not allow them to be reduced on the ground of freer trade?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I can tell him that the bees are constantly on my mind. We have been discussing animal health in Brussels this week, and in particular we have been able to obtain a roll-over of the arrangements which give us protection from foot and mouth disease.

At the recent Athens summit, how many other member Governments agreed with Her Majesty's Government's proposition that cost increases in the CAP should be kept within the limits of own resources cost increases? Will that proposition remain the firm policy of the Government during the months of negotiation ahead?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that since July and the Stuggart summit we have continually been making clear our view that the best way to deal with the crisis in the Community is to tackle it through the device of price fixing. We shall continue to plead that cause. Within the Community, we have to bear in mind that we must get agreement. Therefore, as I said in my answer, we shall use every device available to us.

As an example of one such device, now that the Strasbourg comic opera has decided to confiscate £450 million of British taxpayers' money, will my right hon. Friend do the logical thing and get out of this whole wretched, rotten agri-marketing business known as the common agricultural policy and do something for British consumers as well as for the British farmer?

I am surprised that my hon. Friend said that. The answer to the main part of his question is no, it is not our intention to leave the Community and scrap the common agricultural policy. I am particularly surprised at what he said, because he seems to have forgotten that in recent years the price of food has gone up at a slower rate than the price of other things.

Does the Minister agree that it is because of the common agricultural policy that we are one of the two main contributors to Common Market funds? As the European Parliament has frozen the rebate of the £450 million which we oversubscribed to the fund, does he not think that there should be a fundamental reform of the CAP and that we should revert to the agriculture support system that we had before we joined the Common Market, which was better for the consumer and for the producer?

I cannot accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I reject the suggestion in the second part that we should revert to what I regard as one of the most disastrous policies for British agriculture, that of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments. If the hon. Gentleman were to pursue that line he would saddle the taxpayers of this country with an extra burden of about £2·25 billion.

Is it not true that the net cost to the United Kingdom of the CAP is £3·5 billion per annum? Is it not also true that food prices are now rising faster than the average RPI? Will the Minister at least acknowledge — as I acknowledge, and I should be grateful if he would admit — that he stands four-square behind the CAP, as a result of which the consumer gets ever dearer and dearer food?

We are trying very hard to get changes in the common agricultural policy. The hon. Gentleman knows — and he heard the speech that I made in the House the other day which demonstrated this—the ways in which we are trying to change it as best we can. He will recall that not many months ago there was a zero increase in the price of food. He should know that the price of food is seasonal and has a habit of going up and down.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to meet the Agriculture Committee of the Council of Europe to discuss the problems caused by the burning of straw and stubble waste.

We shall be happy to give due consideration to any views of the Agriculture Committee of the Council of Europe on straw and stubble burning which it may care to communicate to us.

I note the Minister's reply, but is she aware that the procedure followed in many European countries for the disposal of straw waste is very different from the procedures here and that that is why such discussions could be of benefit? Is she further aware that if there is to be an end next summer to the abuses that occurred in many parts of this country this year, the statements that the Government have been making about the actions that they intend to take will have to be implemented, with legislation to back them up?

Conditions vary in the different European countries. In some countries there is greater integration of livestock and arable production than happens in the major straw producing areas of the United Kingdom. The soil and weather conditions also differ. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last point, I assure him that we are in the process of discussing new model byelaws, which will be considerably tougher than the existing byelaws.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be helpful if she and her right hon. Friends, before next summer, were to introduce an entirely revised, very strict and quite voluntary code on straw burning, because the present system has not worked? Does she accept that a voluntary code, on an amended basis, should be introduced?

We have been discussing with the National Farmers Union a stronger code for straw burning, but it will be backed by new model byelaws, which will be considerably tougher than the existing ones. We trust that that will be done in time for district councils to make their byelaws before the next season.

Will the Minister tell the House what encouragement she would give to industry to take up the surplus straw and stubble and manufacture it into briquettes, either for heating or for cattle food?

For some time my Ministry has involved industrialists in a group looking at ways of using surplus straw. There are a number of ways of doing so and we are contributing £2 million to research into those ways. I know the particular way that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, and I hope very much that all these ways can be made commercial. That is what is relevant.

Will my hon. Friend consider encouraging livestock production in corn-producing areas so that the straw that is produced from corn is consumed nearer to the farms?

My hon. Friend will be aware that over several years we have played our part in Europe in trying to redress the balance between cereals and livestock. He will be aware also that many of Britain's grasslands, by their very nature, are on the other side of the country from the main cereal-producing areas.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentagae of total liquid milk consumed in the United Kingdom is sold through producer retailers.

Information provided by the Milk Marketing Board indicates that producer retailer sales accounted for about 3·4 per cent. of total liquid milk sales in the United Kingdom in the year ended 31 March 1983.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the great concern in the dairy industry about EEC proposals for a super levy. What does he think will happen to the percentage of liquid milk sales by producer-retailers in the unlikely and possibly disastrous event of the Commission's super levy proposals being implemented?

If a super levy were introduced—my hon. Friend will know from the recent debate that there is no commitment to that—much would depend on the form in which it was brought in. If it were the original Commission proposal, which did not cover milk sold by producer-retailers, I expect that the sales of liquid milk by producer-retailers would rise. That would be a positive incentive to go into producer-retailing. We believe that if such a systen were introduced this would undermine the effectiveness of the levy and distort the market. That is why we have been pressing for producer-retailers to be included if a super levy is introduced.

The Minister has given the United Kingdom figure. Can he give the Northern Ireland component percentage?

I regret to say that I do not have the figures for Northern Ireland. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman and supply them. Producer-retailer sales are higher in certain other Community countries than in the United Kingdom. That is an additional reason for ensuring that any super levy covers them.

Is the Minister aware of the serious gloom and concern among milk producers and retailers as they face the prospect of being clobbered because of an uncontrollable surplus on the continent of Europe at a time when Britain is just about self-sufficient? Would not many of my hon. Friend's problems be solved if he proposed to the EEC that we should take milk out of the common agricultural policy?

We had a long debate recently on who was responsible for the surpluses. The United Kingdom is very nearly self-sufficient and contributes to some of the surpluses in stock. It would be dangerous to argue for exemptions for any individual country, because we would not come best out of that. To remove milk from the CAP is not a practical proposition.

Why?

Will the Minister assure the House that he will not allow a major distortion of the milk marketing schemes to occur due to an expansion of producer-retailing in Britain, which the levy scheme could produce? Secondly, where is the Newhaven consignment of UHT milk?

I have already said that we believe that if there were a super levy—I repeat "if'—officially it should cover producer-retailers. If it did not, it would undermine the system. As for the Newhaven consignment, the local authority concerned is examining that milk.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Economic Community on the continuance of the sheep regime.

The Commission, in its report to the Council on the functioning of the sheepmeat regime, expresses the view that the main features of the regime can remain in the future. It has, however, proposed a number of adjustments to the mechanisms of the regime and we are examining the implications of these proposals.

There is widespread concern in the industry in the sheep-rearing areas about the Commission's proposal to limit the variable premium to 25 per cent. of the guide price. As the variable premium scheme operates only in this country, would that not discriminate against the sheep industry in Britain?

The Agriculture Council had a brief discussion on the sheep regime this week, but the question has been referred to a working party, which is currently examining the details. We have made it clear that if the regime is modified it must continue to take full account of our predominant interest and the need to restrain CAP expenditure. It must also take into account the Community's international obligations. The ceiling is one aspect of that, but the matter is complicated, because we are also concerned about the clawback, and a ceiling would help over that. Such details are being thoroughly examined.

I welcome my hon. Friend's comments. Does he realise that the retention of the sheepmeat regime at the highest possible level is vital to the confidence of the hill sheep farmers, who currently deserve all the help that we can give them?

I recognise the benefits that the regime has introduced. The Commission has described this as a transitional measure, but, as a major producer and consumer of sheepmeat, we see no reason why it should be transitional.

Sheep farmers receive as much money in subsidy per kilo as pig farmers receive for their total product. Is this fair, when the two meats are in direct competition?

My hon. Friend is aware of some of the difficulties created by a heavy pigmeat regime. However, the evidence suggests that there is no direct correlation between the prices and consumption of sheepmeat and other meat.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the Government are doing to prevent further damage to Atlantic salmon stocks both within the 12-mile limit and further afield.

Within 12 miles we are considering measures to reduce the numbers of salmon taken illegally, especially by organised gangs. In particular, we are examining the proposals for a salmon-tagging scheme made in the report "Salmon Conservation — A new Approach" to see whether they can be given practical application.

There continues to be grave concern about the effects of drift netting, both within United Kingdom waters and further afield, particularly off Greenland. I appreciate what my hon. Friend is doing and the consultations in which he is engaged, but is it not high time for more action?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest—he has been writing to me recently about one of the drift net salmon fisheries — and of the wider concern. The issue was discussed in our consultation paper and we have received many comments, often representing conflicting viewpoints. I hope to be able to announce proposals when we have completed a thorough reappraisal of the problems.

If salmon stocks are to be conserved, the salmon-tagging scheme should be introduced as a matter of urgency. The proposal has been before the Minister for some months. Secondly, the Minister ought to take steps to ban the use of nylon monofilament gill nets. Thirdly, he should restrict the increase in the number of licences issued to salmon netters, who are netting salmon off the coastline and in the estuaries of the salmon rivers. Why does the Minister not adopt those positive proposals?

I am aware of the concern and of the need for action, and I am anxious to do something as quickly as possible. My Department has examined the problem, and I am now having discussions with my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who has held a series of meetings with representatives of salmon interests north of the border. I shall endeavour to reach a conclusion as soon as possible.

I thank my hon. Friend for the interest that he is taking in the problems arising in salmon rivers. Will he bear in mind during his discussions and in the efforts that he is making that the Scottish salmon rivers are a vital part of the Scottish economy and that when people do not fish these rivers the impact is felt in many other sectors of the Scottish economy? Will he keep that firmly in mind?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's point. Indeed, I am spending part of the recess, around the new year, near a Scottish river. Therefore, I am fully aware of my hon. Friend's point, although I shall be on holiday on that occasion. I assure him that that is one of the matters that I am discussing and will continue to discuss with my noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office.

Will the Minister take care to distinguish between poaching and the properly regulated legal fishing at sea and in rivers which provides a livelihood for fishermen in areas such as Northumberland?

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is the poaching about which we are most worried.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce controls on the importation of paté de foie gras into the United Kingdom.

No. I know of no evidence to justify such controls.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the extreme cruelty involved in the production of such paté in France and eastern Europe? Is she further aware that anyone who attempted to produce it in the United Kingdom would almost certainly be prosecuted under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876? Therefore, is there not an excellent case for a total ban of that product?

I can only try to assure my hon. Friend by saying that in 1974 a special inquiry, under the auspices of the Council of Europe, was made by a group of experts into the practice in France. They concluded that although they did not find the method of production appealing, they saw no evidence of suffering or cruelty. I know of no new evidence which contradicts those findings.

Bearing in mind the events of recent months, during which our French neighbours have pursued their national interests with remorseless consistency, would it not now be appropriate for Britain to make a suitable gesture and perhaps suggest that if there is to be any excessive stuffing it should not be of the goose?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that taking such action would have no effect on production methods in other countries. Supplies would simply be diverted to other markets. We work extremely hard to promote animal welfare through international agreement. I am sure that everyone who approves of the humane treatment of animals wants us to do that throughout the world.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if British farmers are now producing a food surplus.

No. Although production of certain commodities exceeds home consumption, overall, the United Kingdom is three quarters self-sufficient in the production of temperate foodstuffs.

Is it not a fact that farmers now receive massive subsidies which are bigger than those given to British industry and that, although food production is increasing, the price of food is also increasing? Does he agree that the prairieisation of our countryside is deplorable and that, because of the massive subsidies given to farmers, hedges, ditches, trees and bushes are being destroyed and massive fields upwards of 1,000 acres now litter the countryside in many areas?

I must reject what the hon. Gentleman says and ask him in future, before he asks such questions, to do a little homework. He might realise that, as I said a few moments ago, over the years food prices have risen less than prices in general. With regard to the horrific word "prairieisation", I draw his attention to the fact that a few weeks ago I announced the termination of capital grants for digging up hedges in the lowlands. I also announced new Government money to assist the rebuilding of hedges and walls in upland areas. I therefore utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's allegation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British public get far better value from the support that is given to agriculture than from the subsidies that are given to the railways and the Coal Board?

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely on the ball.

What plans has the Minister in mind for the time when British agriculture is overproducing food?

I do not see any prospect at present of British agriculture overall producing more temperate food than we can use. The hon. Gentleman will recall from last year's White Paper that we were producing 76 per cent. of temperate foodstuffs. We have a very long way to go in certain sectors of agricultural production, and I do not think that what he has in mind is a practical possibility at present.

Is the Minister agreeing with his hon. Friend that agriculture should be open to the same monetarist philosophy as is being applied to other parts of British industry?

I was merely agreeing with my hon. Friend that this country gets better value from the Government subsidies that go to agriculture than it does from the assistance given to many other industries up and down the country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will give the go-ahead for the Lincoln flood alleviation scheme.

A decision on the Anglian water authority's application for grant aid for the scheme can only be made following the confirmation of its proposed compulsory purchase order.

Will my hon. Friend accept that in Lincoln we shall be very disappointed that the answer is not today? Does she agree that the threat of a major flood in Lincoln once every 20 years is unacceptable and will she therefore ensure that the decision on the flood alleviation scheme is made rapidly?

I assure my hon. Friend that I have every wish to help to prevent flooding in Lincoln. However, I am not able in law to approve the present land drainage scheme until the compulsory purchase order has been published and confirmed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current gap between the world market price for sugar and the European Economic Community intervention price.

Expressing the common intervention price for white sugar in sterling terms using the representative rate of exchange and taking the price quoted on the London terminal market for white sugar as representing the world price, the difference between the two on 14 December was £177 per tonne.

As this staggering gap between Common Market prices and world prices is not unrepresentative of the CAP prices generally, does my hon. Friend agree that the Institute of Fiscal Studies may have made an under-estimate in stating last week that the average cost of the agricultural policy to the average British housewife is between £7 and £8 per week?

There are very wide variations in many of these calculations. That occurs because they are extremely difficult to calculate. There are many difficulties about my hon. Friend's first question. As he knows, I have had to use a number of different definitions in replying to him. One of the factors that have to be taken into account is the volatility of products on world markets as, for example, with sugar. It is very difficult to come to any single figure.

Is the Minister aware that the appalling price gap to which he has referred in conjunction with the minimum import price that the EEC has imposed on its dried fruit is guaranteed needlessly to make the price of our Christmas puddings and mince pies much more expensive than ever this year?

I should say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, both the Community producers and the ACP producers are guaranteed the same price for their raw sugar. This is not very different from the situation that existed before we joined the Community when United Kingdom consumers paid the weighted average of the price paid to United Kingdom producers and suppliers under the Commonwealth sugar agreement. Secondly, as he will know, in price reviews we have argued consistently for restraint on Community sugar prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what horticultural products produced in the United Kingdom are subject to a European Economic Community regime.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Select Committee on Agriculture and say in answer to her question that all horticultural products produced in the United Kingdom are subject to a Community regime, but the main price support measures apply to a limited range of items.

What steps will the British Government take to ensure that our horticulture is protected when Spain and Portugal join the Community?

I am sure that United Kingdom horticulture will show its customary resilience in responding to competition from Spain and Portugal. We shall ensure that the transitional period is adequate to allow a smooth adjustment. The Government have recently demonstrated their determination to help the industry to adapt and compete effectively by providing increased incentives for energy-saving facilities in the glasshouse sector.

Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable European funds are available for publicity for non-edible horticultural products? What intention does she have to assist our producers by providing not necessarily Government funds but a Government gesture of goodwill towards Food from Britain in its efforts to publicise non-edible products?

One of the priorities of Food from Britain is assistance in respect of pot plants. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be studying carefully, in consultation with the industry, the Commission's forthcoming report on the non-edible sector and any proposals that may be made on the regime for cut flowers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many dairy farmers have gone out of milk production as a result of the non-marketing and conversion scheme since it came into operation.

The final report by the Commission on the non-marketing and conversion premium schemes indicates that nearly 123,000 applications were approved under these schemes in the period July 1977 to December 1981. In addition, a small number of applications were approved after 1981. In the United Kingdom there were some 8,300 successful applications under the scheme.

Will my hon. Friend say how many of those farmers, having taken substantial compensation, are now back in dairying? Would it not have been a great deal better if the five-year limit had been a 10-year limit? Has the European Commission made any more acceptable proposals for limiting milk production, proposals which would stand a better chance of working and would be fair to British dairy farmers, who are the most efficient in the world?

I regret that no statistics are available about those who have come back in, as the scheme required producers only to give up milk production for a maximum period of five years. It is probable that a number have come back in, and that is one of the many criticisms that could be made of the scheme, which I do not think was cost-effective. The Commission has not come forward with proposals, but in view of our criticisms of the operation of the scheme we should look critically at any such proposals.

Will the Minister discover how many farmers have come back into dairying, as I understand that it is an accelerating process?

I shall certainly look into that. Because we do not have the information, we should have to send out further surveys. I shall have to look into that aspect. In view of what I said—that the scheme no longer exists and that we should be critical of any scheme in anything like that form—I hope that it becomes an academic question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the Council of Fisheries Ministers towards agreement for total overall catch in 1984.

I shall answer this question at the end of Question Time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now expects to get agreement in the Council of Ministers to extend the Community's less favoured areas directive to United Kingdom marginal land.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Spence) on his appointment to the Select Committee on Agriculture and assure him that we are continuing to press the Council of Ministers to approve the United Kingdom's case for designation of certain marginal areas as less favoured. I regret, however, that I cannot predict when we shall achieve this outcome.

I thank my hon. Friend for her congratulations on my appointment to the Committee. Will she bear in mind that we have been waiting for action in this matter since 1979, when the Government report on hill areas was produced — the Select Committee on Agriculture also reported on the uplands—and in the meantime conditions in the hills have worsened? Will she use her best endeavours to see that progress is made as quickly as possible?

I am aware that it has taken a while for the report to be implemented, but designation is not a simple formality. Extensive data were required on a wide range of economic and social factors, and the Commission needed time to consider them. There is concern, not about the technical merits of our case, but about the general question of extending the less favoured areas at a time when the whole structural policy is under review.

If the Government's policy and intention are to look after and exploit all the marginal land to reduce the amount of food imports, why does the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food not pass a message to the rest of the Cabinet that what is good for marginal land should be good for marginal pits?

I made this point when I was last asked that question. I do not have at the tip of my tongue the figures for the losses of marginal pits, but the position of marginal land is certainly not the same.

When my hon. Friend addresses the issue of marginal land, will she remember that the rural areas of Scotland are as less favoured as those in the highlands and upland areas? Will she consider those areas when discussing allotting the status of less favoured areas?

The marginal lands which are being considered as additional to the less favoured areas have been drawn out, and the exact sites have been made public. Those are the areas to which the discussion in Europe is directed.

Does the Minister agree that this directive will not be implemented for at last least five years, if ever?

We are doing our best to have the directive implemented sooner than that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the level of ultra heat treated and sterilized milk imports since the regulations on these products were tabled.

I am aware of only two consignments, both of UHT milk. A consignment which arrived at Portsmouth in September has been re-exported.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on drafting those regulations in such a tough way that our dairy industry has obviously been protected until now. As we have obeyed the letter of Community law, does he agree that in spite of all the huff and puff of Opposition Members, it was they who sold the pass in 1977 by allowing in pasteurised frozen cream?

I hate to argue in view of my hon. Friend's warm words, but the fact is that the regulations were drafted to protect not the dairy industry but public health. My hon. Friend is right in saying that in the 1970s the Labour Government first allowed pasteurised cream to come into this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the United Kingdom is currently self-sufficient in dairy products.

We have for many years produced sufficient milk to supply the whole of our liquid market. Estimates prepared by the Milk Marketing Board indicate that in 1982 in respect of milk and milk products the United Kingdom was 91 per cent. self-sufficient in butterfat and 131 per cent. self-sufficient in solids-not-fat. Estimates for the level of self-sufficiency in future years are not available, but the trend has been for our self-sufficiency to increase.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming that Britain is not yet entirely self-sufficient in dairy products. Will he confirm that this year the incomes of dairy farmers have fallen by 41 per cent. in real terms from last year and that in those circumstances any EEC proposal that would seek to demand yet further sacrifices from British dairy farmers could only be regarded as highly unfair, to say the least?

I can confirm that farm incomes are likely to be down this year, although I cannot confirm the figure, partly because of seasonal factors. The costs of disposing of the surplus of dairy products throughout the Community are large, and we have quite a supply of those surpluses. We must face that problem. It would be unrealistic to seek exemptions for the United Kingdom, because that would encourage a host of other requests for special treatment and we would not come out better from that exchange.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to prevent farming and forestry interests from purchasing land within sites of special scientific interest in order to propose and to carry out operations which enable them to claim compensation from public funds.

It is not the Government's general policy to inhibit the right of individuals or companies to buy land.

Does the Minister agree that there are grounds for suspecting that projects will be supported by the business expansion scheme seeking funds from the Treasury in a manner of which society could not possibly approve? Does she agree that that approach seems to be based on the experience of Graig Meagaidh in Scotland, which, although outside the Minister's jurisdiction, reveals an unacceptable state of affairs?

I cannot comment on the latter point, but the Government regard the business expansion scheme as a useful means of encouraging investment in small businesses. It is not primarily aimed at agriculture, but agricultural ventures are welcome. Land of conservation interest is covered by exactly the same safeguards under countryside legislation as any other land not so involved.

asked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will seek to endow a chair of civil defence at a British university.

We have no plans to do so.

In view of increasing public concern in recent months about civil defence, will my right hon. Friend re-examine this matter? Does she agree that emergency planning officers have a difficult job to do, often in the face of bitter local opposition, and must have a policy to which to work? Does she agree that an independent review, through a university chair, seems one of the best ways to achieve that?

I know that my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in civil defence matters, and I have read his excellent speech in the debate in March last year. As he knows, the Government have substantially increased the amount spent on civil defence. The figure is now about £69 million, which seems about right. A great deal of research takes place in the Home Office, but if my hon. Friend has further evidence to lay before us we shall, of course, reconsider the matter.

Will the Prime Minister publish the list prepared in 1980 by the scientific advisory branch of the Home Office showing which areas of the country would be threatened in the event of a nuclear attack? Does she agree that the people of London, Hertfordshire, the West Midlands, Merseyside, Tyneside and Strathclyde have the right to know the level of destruction that they would have to face if such an attack took place?

The answer is no, Sir. It seems to me, however, that the hon. Gentleman's question gives great support for having proper civil defence all over.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the contrast between the responsible line taken by Mr. Len Murray and a majority of the TUC general council on actions in breach of the law and the blanket statement of support for the NGA issued by the campaign group of Labour Members, one of whom is the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is a member of the Shadow Cabinet, and what conclusions does she draw from that?

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the courageous action of the TUC general secretary and those who supported him. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will unequivocally support the decision of the general council of the TUC.

In view of the provocative and prejudiced action of the European Parliament this morning, will the Prime Minister now withhold the £547 million from our contributions in lieu of the rebate that rightfully belongs to the British people?

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I was greatly disappointed by the vote in the European Parliament this morning. So far, the Community is not in default with Britain. The right hon. Gentleman may recall that at this time last year the European Parliament rejected a budget containing United Kingdom refunds, but the refunds were nevertheless paid by the end of March.

All that means is that we are 12 months nearer a crisis without resolving it. The condemnation and disappointment of the Prime Minister is nothing more than huffing and puffing. Does she not realise that lack of decisive action now will simply be read as further equivocation by her on this issue? Why is she so resolved to be irresolute? Why is she so wet about rebates? Will she take the lead on behalf of the British people and insist upon fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy so that we are no longer ruled by the convenience of others, not just next March or next autumn but at any time in the future?

The right hon. Gentleman repeatedly shows that I cannot rival him in huffing and puffing. At this time last year the European Assembly passed a similar resolution. Nevertheless, we got our full refunds on time. Therefore, we may on this occasion get our full refunds on time. If not, we shall have to take action to safeguard our position. I hope that that will not be necessary, but if it were we should have to take it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Cunarder QE2, after its major refit in Germany, is suffering engine difficulties in Southampton Water? Does that not reflect on the work carried out in Germany? Is that not a reason for re-emphasising the quality of British ship repairs carried out in Southampton?

From what I have seen of the detailed report, it is difficult to allocate the blame between countries, and it would be very unwise to do so, except to express the view that all work everywhere should be well done.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 December.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the massive campaign against pit closures being launched in my constituency tomorrow by the local authorities, the trade unions, the Labour party, and many other organisations which have no direct interest in the coal industry? When will the Prime Minister realise that the closure of a pit means the deliberate destruction of a whole community? In my part of the country, that leaves no alternative employment. If the right hon. Lady recites how much money the industry receives from the Government, why do the coal industries of countries in the EEC get much more?

Under the "Plan for Coal", which was published when the Labour party was in office, the scheme was for investment in good pits to produce at competitive prices good coal, for which there is a great future. There were also agreements for the closure of pits and for increased productivity. The programme for the closure of pits is behind schedule and the investment programme is well up to schedule and has been fully honoured. We hope that productivity will eventually reach the target. Coal has a great future in this country. We want competitive coal and to sell it at a reasonable price with productivity which does not require the enormous subsidies which are at present given to the industry.

Will my right hon. Friend, as a gesture to the British public at this time of goodwill, suggest to other Heads of State and the Prime Ministers that, in view of the problems of the EEC, next year's elections should be postponed until it is quite clear on what we are voting?

I think that such a proposal would be far from welcome. I am not sure that to postpone the election to the European Assembly would be welcomed in the House. I think that it would be far better if it went ahead on time. I hope that Heads of Governments and States during their meetings before the election will make strenuous efforts to solve the problems which we did not solve at Athens.

Does the right hon. Lady recall that in a speech at a Conservative rally in Swansea just over three years ago, when unemployment was 1·5 million, she advised the unemployed to be mobile? What is her advice now that unemployment has gone up to 4 million? What would she say to my constituents who took her advice then, moved away from Jarrow and are now unemployed hundreds of miles away from their families and friends?

Since then, Swansea has become one of the successful enterprise zones which is meant to draw more jobs into that area. The hon. Gentleman will know that South Wales——

South Wales? I am from Jarrow.

—has been successful in attracting substantial inward investment into this country because we are a member of the European Community.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 December.

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

Was it with the right hon. Lady's approval that early this morning two Government Whips went into the Lobby to persuade Conservative Members not to vote for the recommendation on the Committee of Selection? Is she satisfied that parties that represent nearly 8 million votes should not be represented on the Select Committees for Defence and Welsh Affairs and that the Social Democratic party has no representation on any Departmental Select Committee?

Whatever my right hon. Friend did, I am absolutely sure that it was absolutely right.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that those who in the past have fought for personal freedom and opposed repression have been honoured accordingly? Will she therefore seek to give credit where credit is due and, in particular, note that the majority of the nation does not find acceptable the ennoblement of trade union leaders who have opposed personal freedom?

As my hon Friend will know, many people will stand up for personal freedom and the upholding of the law. It would be as well if we in the House did not go into questions relating to honours.

Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us are surprised that she has not informed herself about what happened in the early hours of the morning.

The right hon. Gentleman missed the vote.—[Interruption]

Order. I cannot even hear what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is saying.

You may, Mr. Speaker, not be aware of the fact that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suffers from a disease from which there is no cure—verbal diarrhoea.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover needs no encouragement.

Last night the Patronage Secretary and another Whip went into the No Lobby to take out——

Ask a question.

I am informing the Prime Minister, since she seems to be unaware of what the Patronage Secretary was doing. It was a gross abuse of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] I shall stay on my feet until I am heard. Is the Prime Minister aware that she has the responsibility to inform herself about what the Patronage Secretary was doing in the House and that it is an abuse of the power—[Interruption.]

Order. We have a very busy day ahead of us. Will the right hon. Gentleman please come to a conclusion?

I shall stay on my feet until I am heard, Mr. Speaker.

Sit down.

Order. I am sure the House wishes to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.

No.

There was a gross abuse of the House last night, of which the Prime Minister seems to be unaware. She comes to the House and jokes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I am asking the Prime Minister whether she is not aware of the abuse. She is the repository of a so-called landslide majority—[Interruption.] Twenty-six and a half per cent.—[Interruption.]

Order. Has the right hon. Gentleman finished?

Tell the right hon. Gentleman that he has finished.

rose——

Order. We may be getting very close to Christmas, but we must get through questions to the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. Gentleman bring his question to a conclusion?

I shall bring my question to a close when I am heard in the House, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister was asked a direct question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). She sought to make a joke of a serious question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down".] We are determined to be heard in the House and I shall remain on my feet until I am heard. In view of the conduct of the Patronage Secretary last night, will the Prime Minister bring a motion to the House to enlarge the Select Committee on Defence to allow proper representation of the views of 26 per cent. of the people?

This is a matter for the Leader of the House who, I understand, opened the debate with his usual silver-tongued eloquence. I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who has just complained, was present to hear my right hon. Friend's speech. I am sure that had he been here he would have found it very persuasive.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I call the attention of the House to question No. 9 to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Apparently according to the Order Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has been restored. to Scotland. We appreciate this very much because we miss him, but perhaps the mistake should be rectified.

That is a fair point. I missed it myself. Clearly, it is a misprint.