asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek the use of European Economic Community common agricultural policy funds for integrated schemes with environmental as well as agricultural benefits in the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will adopt the policy that European Economic Community funds can also be used by his Department for integrated and balanced development on farms and not just for purely agricultural ends.

Capital grants are already payable in the United Kingdom on farm investment which would have some environmental rather than purely agricultural benefit. To the extent that this is possible under present European Community legislation, the cost of such measures is partly reimbursed by the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does it mean that the British Government are now willing to follow the Dutch example and take full advantage of article 3.5 of the EC less-favoured areas directive and apply for further assistance for integrated schemes, which will benefit the environment and promote conservation, as well as promote agricultural prosperity generally?

As I hope I made clear to my hon. Friend, in so far as it is possible we already take advantage of reimbursement from that fund, and we intend to help to strengthen the safeguards in the new structures regulations.

Does my hon. Friend accept that her reply is encouraging? Does she agree that it is nonsense to use funds available from the Common Market for agriculture just to add to embarassing surpluses? Does it not make sense to use those funds to achieve a proper balance between agriculture and the conservation of wildlife so that we can maintain a good balance of wildlife and agriculture in our countryside?

Yes, and I understand my hon. Friend's great concern. It is especially welcome that he, a fanner, expresses in the House the concern of farmers for the environment. We have pressed for specific reference to the third action programme on the environment; more importantly, we have pressed for a new provision requiring member states to safeguard the environment when they implement farm structure policies. I trust that that will achieve what my hon. Friend is seeking.

Is it not typical of the double standards of the Government that, as a result of the common agricultural policy, the average British farmer receives a subsidy of about £2,000 a year, yet the Government refuse to give enough subsidy to the coal industry to stop the closure of pits with workable coal reserves?

rose—

Order. Before the hon. Lady answers, may I appeal to the House to keep to the subjects on the Order Paper.

I am in your hands, Mr. Speaker, but my only comment to the hon. Gentleman is that he should direct questions of that sort to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, it is my knowledge that the industry receives very good subsidies indeed.

Have riot events over the last couple of years demonstrated that there is an institutionalised conflict between the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment? Does the Minister accept that we cannot continue using public funds to subsidise the destruction of the environment merely to create food surpluses for which we must then use public funds to dispose of them? Are any discussions taking place between the Ministry and the Department of the Environment to resolve this conflict?

Many years of discussions have taken place between my Department and the Department of the Environment, specifically on the preparation of what is now the Wildlife and Countryside Act—an extremely successful measure. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is a conflict between my Ministry and the Department of the Environment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the president of the National Farmers Union about easing the burden on dairy farmers arising out of the introduction of milk quotas.

I have met the president of the NFU on several occasions during recent weeks. At our most recent formal meeting on 20 June we discussed a number of matters relating to milk quotas and the outgoers scheme.

Did my right hon. Friend's discussions with my distinguished constituent cover the case of hardship where the farmer is complaining that the inputs he made prior to the introduction of the quota scheme mean that he will suffer severe financial loss, as he will now not expect to be recompensed, with the possibility of endangering his whole livelihood and the viability of his operation?

It is my belief that the huge majority of farmers will be able to adapt their businesses. The milk industry has already shown remarkable flexibility and adaptibility. While there will be serious problems for milk producers, I believe that their ingenuity will get them through most of the difficulties.

Is it correct that the Minister has decided not to go to the Royal Welsh Show? Would it not be better if he were to go so that he could meet representatives of farmers in Wales, who are deeply concerned about the tragic situation facing the dairy industry?

I should have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, above anyone else, would know that I am not responsible for agriculture in Wales. That is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that recently I paid an enjoyable visit to a western part of Wales, where I was extremely well entertained by Welsh farmers and enjoyed bottled beer and pork pies. While I should very much welcome visiting Wales again, I am afraid that it will not be possible to fit in a visit to the Royal Welsh Show. However, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be there.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he had a friendly and warm reception at the Royal Show? Is he further aware that the section of the industry facing the greatest difficulty is probably that of the producer retailer, and has he given further thought to the transferability of quota, which is essential to the survival of that section?

I had an extremely pleasant day on Monday at the Royal Show at Stoneleigh. I am very much bothered by the problems of the producer retailer. I have explained to my hon. Friend—and I did so to the House in the debate on Tuesday—the difficulties that we face because of Community rules which make it extremely difficult to make switches between direct sale quotas and wholesale quotas. This matter needs a good deal of attention by the Commission, and I intend to continue to pursue it.

Will the Minister also take time to meet representatives of the farm workers in the outgoers scheme, because we understand that a 40-year-old stockman will get only £900 redundancy pay if he loses his job, which compares ill with the amount provided for cow owners?

I had an extremely hospitable meeting with the farm workers at their stand at the Royal Show. It was a pleasant occasion. But let me disabuse the hon. Gentleman—

Was it just milk that the right hon. Gentleman was drinking?

We had something rather stronger than milk to drink. Comparisons between the statutory redundancy scheme and the outgoers scheme are false. The outgoers scheme is not a redundancy scheme. It is intended to help the industry to adjust to a new situation, by encouraging those who wish to go out of milk production to do so, thus making extra quota available for redistribution. Outgoers do not have to leave farming; only to give up dairying.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the implementation of milk quotas.

Draft regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act were laid before Parliament on 27 June. These regulations set out the detailed arrangements for implementing the quota system.

We were grateful for the opportunity to debate the matter ealier this week. My first question relates to better quota transfer and flexibility. Will my right hon. Friend get to Europe as quickly as he can—I appreciate that his hands are tied—and press for greater opportunities for transfer, perhaps by such means as leasing? There is uncertainty about the future. Now that we are stuck with milk quotas, for better or for worse, may we have a longer term plan for milk?

I am intrigued by the possibility of leasing in connection with quota transfers. Nothing within the Community rules allows us to do that, but we are giving urgent attention to it. There is uncertainty in the industry, for obvious reasons. I hope that shortly we can sort out many of the problems, particularly in relation to quotas, after we have dealt with the special cases. We cannot move further until we have passed the regulations to which I referred in my main answer. I am anxious to consider what has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House before we bring back the regulations for a final decision.

Will the Minister explain the French quotas? If the French do not implement their quotas—which are far less stringent than ours—as I think they will not, will the Minister undertake not to implement United Kingdom quotas, and so avoid making some of our farmers bankrupt and many farm workers redundant?

Yesterday the hon. Gentleman attended the Select Committee on Agriculture, which I also had the pleasure of attending. He will remember that I read to the Committee the words which I used in Luxembourg at the last Council, which were also used by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in his winding-up speech on Tuesday night. I told the Select Committee that I had decided to request the Commission to put on the agenda of the next Council in 10 days' time a report by the Commission on the progress which individual states are making to implement the milk quotas, so that we can see whether everyone is attempting to obey the rules.

Is the Minister aware of the fear among those hoping to make a case under the special case procedure that they will not know their final quota until this milk year is completed? Does he agree that they are in an impossible position and cannot adjust the output of their herds in relation to quota? May we have an assurance that that will not happen? Secondly, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, will he explain what will happen to the farmers and what fines will be imposed upon them if they have to face that incredible situation?

I hope very much that there will be no question of farmers not knowing what their quotas are before the end of this milk year. It is difficult for us to say when farmers will know precisely what their quota is, because we have no idea how many farmers will apply for consideration under the special case arrangements for a share of the 2½ per cent. of milk production which we have reserved.

Is my right hon. Friend confident that he can assemble quickly enough the administrative and appeal machinery to deal with what many of us fear may well be a bureaucratic nightmare?

I have always told the House that the implementation of quotas and super levies would be difficult in bureaucratic terms. There has never been any secret about that. However, I am confident that, immediately after Parliament has agreed to the regulations, we shall be able to ensure that applications are considered very rapidly indeed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to clarify the remarks of the Minister of State on Tuesday about hardship cases resulting from bad weather conditions? The wording in column 234 of Hansard suggests that no one can apply until a region is designated as having a 10 to 15 per cent. cut in production because of bad weather or "a natural setback". If that is so, it is a serious restriction on the consideration of hardship cases.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having drawn my attention to this matter as I entered the Chamber. Hardship cases based on weather will be dealt with on an individual basis, not a regional basis.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will reconsider his decision to cut back on resources devoted to research and development in the horticultural sector.

No. The Ministry's expenditure on externally commissioned horticultural research and development in 1983–84 showed a substantial increase over that in 1982–83; the expenditure planned for this year will merely restore the programme in real terms to the 1982–83 level.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is an urgent need for greater research into horticulture, particularly the top fruit and vegetable sectors, which could yield substantial dividends? The Minister has already half answered my question, but can he say what criteria will be used for considering how much research and development will be allocated to horticulture in future?

The increase last year was temporary. It was not intended to be continued. It was always planned that expenditure would be reduced in real terms to the earlier level. Priorities in horticultural research and development change, and a substantial and worthwhile programme of research and development in horticulture remains. Of our externally commissioned research, 20 per cent. is in horticulture. With regard to future priorities, Ministry scientists are discussing with the AFRC institutes possible changes in horticultural research and development to be commissioned next year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be no delay in drawing research funds away from high-input farming towards low-input farming, and that we should ensure that contributions from the farmers and horticulturists themselves increase?

Farmers and horticulturists—for instance, there is the research done by ADAS and the experimental farms—have always played an important part in contributing to research and in deciding priorities, as I have seen for myself. My hon. Friend refers to a move towards low-input farming. That will be among the matters to be considered. We must consider changing priorities in research expenditure—some of which is very long term—as conditions change. This year, for instance, we have switched more of the expenditure for research and development to the food industry. Such matters are monitored very closely.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a specific provision within the arrangements under the dairy quota provisions, in respect of quotas for dairy farms deliberately run down in the reference period so it could be sold free of livestock, to facilitate the resumption of milk production under new ownership; and if he will make a statement.

The rules provide for a quota to he issued provided that milk was actually being sold on 2 April 1984. It would not be appropriate to issue a quota to anybody who had given up production by that date.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer to my question, which was tabled before our recent debate. Will he accept the desirability of a speedy reduction in, or removal of, the co-responsibility levy, which is a great burden on the dairy industry? Will my right hon. Friend take on board the NFU's plea for such a reduction?

My hon. Friend will recall that the extra 1 per cent. which was put on for this year will be removed at the end of the next milk year—on 1 April 1985. He will be glad to hear that we have consistently argued for the abolition of the co-responsibility levy, which we believe is counter-productive.

Will the Minister confirm, in relation to the phasing out of cows, that if someone has a dairy herd of 60 he will get £195,000 in compensation? Is it riot disgraceful that such compensation should be paid to a farmer when less than £1,000 is to be given to a 40-year-old stockman who has looked after that herd for the previous 10 years?

The hon. Gentleman must not try to use figures in a way that does not demonstrate the facts. I have already explained that a comparison between the statutory redundancy scheme and the outgoers scheme is utterly false. The hon. Gentleman must realise that paying an outgoer with that number of cows will enable a great many small milk producers to be brought back to their 1983 production patterns, which is what we want to do.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of hours of training required to enable a farm warden to carry out his duties in a national emergency.

No specialised training would be needed beyond oral and written instructions, which could best be given at the time and should be completed in about one day.

I am glad to learn that it does not take long. Will my hon. Friend ensure that wardens are appointed and trained? Does she accept that in that training we must ensure that farm wardens are able to protect stock in the event of chemical warfare?

We consider it unnecessary to appoint wardens in peacetime, as training can be done quickly in a crisis. I hope my hon. Friend accepts that there are people who are experienced in what they will be asked to do and that one day will be enough to give them the necessary extra instruction.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the date of the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting at which a milk quota scheme on the lines of the one subsequently introduced was first discussed.

The Commission published its proposals on milk quotas and a supplementary levy on 28 July 1983 and this was first discussed at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 30 August 1983.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer shows that his Ministry was ill-prepared for the implementation of the quotas in April?

No, I do not accept that at all. The Commission was ill-prepared, in that it had not prepared its ground rules properly. We were not told of the Commission's final ground rules until a date in May, which was five, six or seven weeks after the agreement. Nor were we told until a date in June about the final arrangements for the direct sales arrangements, because the Commission did its sums wrong. Perhaps I might tell the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) that the £195,000 in compensation which he quoted is precisely five times what it should be.

When the milk quotas were first discussed, were the implications for beef prices resulting from increased slaughtering considered? As beef prices are showing softness, will the Minister assist farmers if that persists?

The hon. Gentleman might know that it is traditional at this time of year for beef prices to move downwards as beef comes off the grass. I see some hon. Members on the hon. Gentleman's left nodding agreement. The impact on the beef market has always been recognised as a consequence of running down milk production as cows are put on the market for slaughter.

As my right hon. Friend has just told the House that the outgoers scheme is not a compensation scheme but one to buy quota for reallocation, may I ask him on what date he told either the Commission or the Cabinet that he insisted on a compensation scheme — and I mean a compensation scheme — for those driven out of economic milk production which parallels that given to steel workers driven out of their occupation by the EEC quota on steel? When did he do that? If he has not done it, when will he do it?

Perhaps my hon. Friend did not appreciate what I said. I showed that a comparison between the statutory redundancy scheme and the outgoers scheme was false because outgoers do not have to leave farming; they are obliged only to give up dairying.

Did the right hon. Gentleman raise in the Council of Ministers the need for adequate redundancy for stockmen and others who lose their jobs as a result of milk quotas? Does he accept that while a redundant cow can attract £3,250 over five years, a redundant stockman, having been thrown on the scrapheap, will get less than £1,000?

The hon. Gentleman will know that the redundancy arrangements have been in operation for many years, including when the Labour party was last in office. He will also know that agricultural workers who are made redundant will be able to benefit from the existing statutory redundancy scheme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the access agreement for New Zealand butter over the next five years agreed at the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 18 and 19 June will have on British dairy producers' milk quotas.

The agreement in principle on imports of New Zealand butter is quite separate from the new arrangements for milk quotas. The quotas for milk were based on delivery and sales levels in member states and there is no specific provision for them to be adjusted to reflect changes in import levels.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I take it that we can reassure our farmers that the new New Zealand arrangements are not being taken by the EEC against the British quota for milk, something which is widely believed among farmers?

I assure my hon. Friend that, in the negotiations on the milk quotas, that point did not arise, and I do not see why it should have done. As I say, the milk quotas were assessed on a totally different basis.

Is one of the more unfortunate consequences of the mess into which the Minister and his predecessors have plunged the dairy industry likely to be that the long-standing support of the British Government, based on self-interest and fair play, for continued access for New Zealand butter may come under attack? May we have an assurance that the Minister will resist such pressures?

The best answer that I can give to that supplementary question is that previous Ministers have had to negotiate the New Zealand butter situation on a year-by-year basis. This year we have provisional approval for what is a five-year agreement, although only the first three years have specific quantities. The New Zealand Government have greatly welcomed that position, and it is an indication that the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes has not arisen and will not arise in the immediate future.

While I thank my hon. Friend for that statement, may I ask him to acknowledge that a continuing supply of competitive and high quality products from New Zealand will always be a salutary basis of comparison against which the efficiency of European agriculture can be measured?

I believe that the House in general feels that it is right that we should continue to give this support to New Zealand, not least because since 1973 the New Zealand butter quota has been almost halved, and therefore New Zealand has faced, in terms of the United Kingdom, much bigger cuts than have our producers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that only six exceptional events need be taken into account in varying a basic quota for milk production.

Under the Community rules there are only six exceptional events which entitle a producer to have his quota calculated from a different base year. Producers who have invested in facilities for expanding production may also be given additional quota if they meet certain conditions.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but may I ask whether he has had any evidence to suggest that these six conditions alone are too inflexible and insufficient in number? If I provide him with evidence that further exceptional conditions should be taken into account, will he take up the issue with the EC?

As I have explained, the six exceptional events are enshrined in the rules. I shall be anxious to hear from my hon. Friend if he has evidence of other special hard cases which he thinks are worthy of note. I have been made aware of a number by hon. Members and I am considering all of those. It seems that some Labour Members appear to believe that the outgoers' payment is £650 per cow per year, whereas it is £650 per cow to be paid over five years.

Has the Minister formed any estimate of the number of dairy farmers who will go out of business or have their livelihoods severely depleted? How many herdsmen will lose their livelihoods completely? How many of those employed in dairy processing will lose their livelihoods?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to make any estimates. I hope that relatively few farmers, farm workers and dairy workers will be made redundant and forced to leave their current activity. It is impossible to make assessments of the sort that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

In making representations on hardship to the Commission in Brussels, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind instances where herds have been split because of the buying up of a partner, or death, leading to a substantial reduction in output for the relevant year?

I shall take account of those factors and bear them closely in mind.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the six exceptional cases that he has listed are by and large those that might be ascribed to acts of God? The acts of man—for example, farmers who have invested under the FHDS scheme—are given second priority. Is it not ironic that the right hon. Gentleman should give greater priority to hardship cases arising from the act of God than to those arising from the act of man—himself?

I do not accept that all these events are acts of God. When I see that the sixth case is theft or loss of cattle, I hope that that is not so. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the other events are natural disasters, the destruction of fodder or buildings, epizootic diseases in animals, compulsory appropriation of land and serious illness of the producer. They are all serious matters and the rules of the Community dictate that they must be dealt with first before dealing with expanders.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question refers to exceptional events that need to be taken into account? Will he therefore give a much more satisfactory answer to the supplementary question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who asked what would happen if dairy farmers could no longer continue in dairying? My right hon. Friend responded by saying that they could go into other forms of farming. What if there is no other sort of fanning into which they can go? Will he change the outgoers scheme to ensure that it is tax-free, instead of giving nonsensical replies of the sort that lie gave to my hon. Friend?

My hon. Friend, who takes such a close interest in these matters, should recall that the basic purpose of the outgoers scheme is to get 2¼ per cent. of the total milk quota available for reallocation. The scheme is directed to the very people to whom my hon. Friend has referred, because the first 1¼ per cent. of the 2¼ per cent. will go to small fanners with fewer than 40 cows, who are 40 per cent. of all milk producers, to bring them back to their 1983 production patterns.

When can we expect an announcement on the special help that will be available to young farmers who have recently set up in business and are trying to build a viable home? I can see no sign of that in my reading of the 78 pages of draft regulations. Yet Mr. Poul Dalsager refers to that in article 3, page 18, which states:

"The Member States may grant additional reference quantities to young farmers setting up after 31 December 1980."

Young farmers who have set up in business and claim that they are on an expansionist course, and are committed to it, will have their cases considered by the tribunals once they are established.

The EC rules on hardship claims use the words "serious natural disaster". The Minister used the phrase "serious natural setback". What is the difference?

I do not think that there is any difference. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the first of the six events is described as a natural disaster.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on sugar beet quotas.

The current quotas for sugar were agreed in 1981 and run until the end of the 1985–86 season.

With British agriculture desperately needing new outlets, and one or more of the 13 British sugar factories in danger of closing, is it not nonsense for Britain, alone of all the EEC countries, to have a quota in sugar that does not cover consumption? In our case, it covers only 50 per cent. At the very least, will my hon. Friend press the Council of Ministers for restoration of the 200,000 tonne cut in quotas imposed in 1981?

The 1981 agreement was designed to secure a fair balance between United Kingdom beet growers and the ACP countries, to whom we also owe an obligation. The Commission has made it clear that it does not envisage changing the quotas that have been agreed to run until 1985–86. One problem is that if we were to try to unscramble the quotas now it would not necessarily be only British interests that would be taken into account. There is a danger that the question of other member states' interests would also be reopened.

Will the Minister assure the House that at the next knot of negotiations he will at least ensure that the farmers of this country retain the current sugar beet quotas?

We are talking about negotiations for the 1985–86 quotas. It is too early to decide our policy in detail. As for other commodities, we shall obviously wish to restrain Community surpluses, and that must be taken into account. We shall want a fair deal for United Kingdom producers. We must continue to ensure that there is a fair balance on the United Kingdom market between beet and cane sugar.

Can we take it from my hon. Friend's reply that he recognises that it is in the interests of the British consumer, and of the Commonwealth, that he should not impose any further penalties on sugar produced in the Caribbean countries?

I think I have indicated that, when the time comes, we shall endeavour to ensure a fair balance, such as we attempted to achieve for the United Kingdom beet growers and Commonwealth suppliers in 1981.

Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that he is not prepared to sell the cane sugar producers' quota to satisfy a temporary pressure on the beet sector?

We are talking about a period that is still some years ahead, and we must bear that in mind. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that what I have said shows that we shall endeavour to achieve a fair balance.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the members of the Potato Marketing Board; and what subjects were discussed.

I am in regular touch with the members of the Potato Marketing Board through its chairman, whom I last met on 9 May. On that occasion our discussions covered a wide range of potato issues.

Did the Minister's discussions include the price of potatoes, which is especially important as the price of fish and chips to take away has risen by 15 per cent. because of the Chancellor's intervention, which has raised the price of a basic food for the less well-off people in my constituency and throughout the country?

I should make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that, because of climatic and other conditions affecting the crop last year, there has been a shortage of supplies in recent months and weeks, which has led to the increased price of potatoes in shops. As the new potatoes come on to the market that shortage will end. The arrangements that we have announced for the Potato Marketing Board are designed to ensure reasonable continuity of supplies, and, therefore, reasonable prices for consumers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Potato Marketing Board's support mechanism price is way below the price that would be expected in the market place?

Broadly speaking, that is correct.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the present level of imports of New Zealand butter compares with the level of such receipts at their highest point since 1954.

Figures given in Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom show that the highest level of imports of New Zealand butter since 1954 was 192,170 tonnes in 1969. A quota of 83,000 tonnes has been agreed for 1984.

Do not those figures show that a substantial price has been paid by the New Zealand producer and the British consumer? When will the ugly-sounding principle of regressivity end?

It is certainly the case that there has been a considerable cut in New Zealand supplies to the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the way in which New Zealand has done this and dealt with the implications on the world market in an orderly manner. The new arrangement means that during the next three years the decline in supplies will be much less sharp.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

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.

As we have heard within the past half hour that the Secretary of State for the Environment is to make a statement on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill, following the Government's substantial defeat last week in another place, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to admit that the undemocratic provisions of that Bill are unprincipled? Will she, for once, show some humility and admit that her Government have been wrong?

The Government have decided to table an amendment to the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill on Report in another place, proposing that the present members of the GLC and of the metropolitan county councils should continue in office into 1986, but without elections next year. At the same time, further provisions will be introduced to prevent unreasonable actions by the outgoing authorities.

During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that the recent picketing activities in Yorkshire not only harm Yorkshire but draw attention to the Yorkshire work force, many of whom are hardworking? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those actions make it difficult for those of us who wish to attract new industry to replace the textile industry?

I agree very much with what my hon. Friend said. The strikes and picketing are not conducive to attracting new industry and new jobs to this country. As always, strikes destroy jobs.

Does the Prime Minister not think it is a pity that we had to gouge agreement from the Government at 2.30 pm to make a statement this afternoon? Was the original decision, which was made by the Cabinet this morning and announced to the press, by the Prime Minister's press secretary at 11.45 am, that the Secretary of State should not make a statement made because the right hon. Gentleman was afraid to come here, or because the right hon. Lady was afraid to let him?

That is absolute nonsense. The right hon. Gentleman should know that there are strict rules of order as between this House and the other place. That is a matter for Mr. Speaker, not for me.

The Prime Minister knows that she is misleading the House and the country. She is still dodging the question, just as she is dodging democracy by still running away from the ballot box. Who is afraid? Who is frit now?

We on the Government Benches are hardly afraid. I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands. I have already replied to his question, and that is just bad luck on him.

Of which is the Prime Minister more proud? Is it the report of the Wessex area Conservatives on her strident and uncaring style of government, or is it her constitutional achievement in turning the House of Lords into the conscience of the nation?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Government took cognisance of what the House of Lords said. I shall be interested to know whether all right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches—I know his view — are now fervently for the continuance of their Lordships' House.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the GLC has voted £6 million to clothe the wolf Livingstone in sheep's clothing? Will she take this opportunity—and do so continually—to explain to the country that the abolition of an insensitive and expensive tier of bureaucracy will increase local democracy and accountability?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It will mean that local government will be conducted at one tier nearer to the people. I note that many parties in the House have preferred unitary authorities to authorities where there is a second tier.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

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

The Prime Minister must be aware that her statement on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Bill will fall far short of meeting the expectations of the House. It is clear from developments during the past 24 hours that the Secretary of State for the Environment has lost his nerve over this issue and has had to be dragooned into making a statement to the House, which he promised less than a week ago. Why will the Prime Minister not put the wretched man out of his misery and sack him?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman knows, but, as far as I am aware, my right hon. Friend will be making a statement to the House.

Striking miners have said in a radio broadcast that they wish to return to work but that they dare not for fear of the closed shop arrangements. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend assure miners that they will not lose their jobs if they go back to work and that the National Coal Board is not one of those maverick employers—like, for example, Bolton council—which encourages their employees to stay out on strike?

The National Coal Board gave an undertaking some time ago that it would safeguard the jobs of any miners who lost their union membership. Therefore, there is no need for miners to fear going back to work on that account.

Is the right hon. Lady aware of the decision of the British Medical Association in Manchester today by a two thirds majority — and I assume that she regards its members as rational and patriotic people — that the expenditure on armaments should be reduced drastically and that the money saved should be diverted to health purposes? Will she now take some initiative along those lines?

This Government have always been prepared to conduct disarmament talks, provided that the end result was that disarmament was on a balanced and verifiable basis. To do other than that would be to put the security of the country, which would include the doctors, at risk.

Will my right hon. Friend comment upon the agreed second section of the Fontainebleau communiqué, which states that the VAT contribution may be increased to 1·6 per cent. on 1 January 1988? Is that preparing the ground for a second increase in own resources?

As the communiqué made clear, such an increase could take place only with the unanimous consent of each Head of Government and also with the ratification of each and every national Parliament. Those are the safeguards.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that her Government's policy towards local government now resembles "Son of the Titanic"? Before she sacks the Secretary of State for the Environment, that poor bumbling wreckage at the end of the Front Bench, will she bear in mind that he was only carrying out her instruction to abolish the Greater London council, which was based on her own personal vindictiveness towards Ken Livingstone?

The GLC and the metropolitan county councils will be abolished in accordance with the provisions of our manifesto, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the electorate at the general election, and again during the Euro-elections.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the United Kingdom is one of the greatest contributors of aid to Zimbabwe? Therefore, will she, together with our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, make urgent representations to Mr. Mugabe and his Government about the unjustified detention of Bishop Muzorewa, who was a past Prime Minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and a great friend of the United Kingdom? He has been detained without trial for eight months now. Will my right hon. Friend do something about it, and will she make representations or withhold aid?

I do not think that it would be advisable to withhold aid. As my hon. Friend knows, Bishop Muzorewa has no British citizenship—he is a Zimbabwe citizen, and therefore it is a matter for Zimbabwe. I shall of course draw the attention of that Government to what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that her claim that the National Health Service is safe in her hands rings hollow on Merseyside, and similar places, where the number of hospital beds has been cut and waiting lists of people suffering from cancer have lengthened? Will she consider the petition which is being presented at No. 10 this afternoon, signed by 25,000 people in Liverpool, demanding an improvement in the Health Service in that part of the world?

Of course I shall look at that petition, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, since the Government came into office in 1979 spending on the NHS has increased in real terms by 7·5 per cent. More patients are being treated—there are more than 600,000 more inpatients and day cases, and 2·5 million more outpatient cases each year. Waiting lists have fallen by 50,000, after rising by 250,000 under Labour. There are 57,000 more nurses and midwives and 9,000 more dentists and doctors. I could go on relating other great increases in the NHS made by this Government, whose record is far superior to that of any other Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that attempts to persuade her to intervene directly in the miners' dispute were merely a device to trap the Government into providing additional subsidies for uneconomic effort? Will my right hon. Friend undertake to reject any such proposals in the future, as she has done so admirably in the past?

Yes, Sir. I welcome the talks that are now taking place between the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. Throughout the dispute the chairman of the NCB has expressed his willingness to discuss revision of the "Plan for Coal" with the unions. I hope that the NUM will approach the talks in the same spirit.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

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

As the Prime Minister has been unable to tell the House why her Secretary of State for the Environment is so frightened to tell the House what the Government's intentions are towards the GLC, will she instead take this opportunity to tell the House and the people of London why she and her Government are frightened of the ballot box, and why, as the overwhelming majority of Londoners wish, she should not face the electorate in the GLC elections at the ballot box next May, which is the democratic and decent thing to do?

The hon. Gentleman must be under an illusion. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement after Question Time. The district council elections will take place in the usual way. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Conservative party won handsomely the latest ballot for the European elections.

Will my right hon. Friend spare time today to consider the urgent matter of the loss to the country of "The Crucifixion" by Duccio? Is she aware that the Manchester city art gallery has raised £1·2 million from its own efforts, and that if another £600,000 is not forthcoming from the National Heritage Memorial Fund or the Exchequer the painting will leave the country in 10 days' time?

I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for The Arts would like to purchase even more works of art that we are able to. The decision was taken by the trustees of the British Museum and the National Heritage Memorial Fund. The export licence will be dealt with in the usual way. This country is rich in works of art, many of which are stored away and cannot be shown. Many people wish that they were on display in buildings that are properly maintained.