asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the EEC surplus grain is held in the United Kingdom.

Some 11·9 million tonnes of cereals were held in intervention in the European Community on 4 January 1985, the latest date for which figures are available. Of this, 2·9 million tonnes were in the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister agree that it costs more to keep grain in Britain and the EEC than to give it to the northern region of Africa, to countries such as Ethiopia and to many others in that region, many of which are in dire need of that grain at present, and that to give that grain away is not only economic but humanitarian? What do the Government intend to do about the present need in that area?

Unfortunately, I cannot agree that the economic cost works out quite as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is more expensive. Nevertheless, I share his humanitarian objective. The United Kingdom Government are playing a major and leading part within the EC in the export of grain as emergency food aid. Substantial quantities of grain are supplied by the EC and the United Kingdom as food aid. The hon. Gentleman will know that the European Council meeting in Dublin agreed to provide 1·2 million tonnes of grain to the African countries before the next harvest, on top of substantial amounts that have already gone out this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that cereal farmers need more certainty and that either we should get the grain out of intervention by more restitution and export credits, particularly to the eastern bloc, or, failing that, that farmers should be told that we now have a low input and output economy for cereals and that over the next five years there will have to be a cut in real prices?

As my hon. Friend will know, we are exporting considerable quantities of grain. Indeed, exports of grain on the open market are cheaper than exports of grain in intervention. Therefore, there are limits to the extent to which one can increase export restitutions. But my hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the surplus and its cost. Everything that has happened this year supports the Government's objective in the forthcoming price review of severe restraint on prices, coupled with the full application of the guarantee threshold, which will have something of the effect that he suggests.

Has the Minister any plans to persuade his counterparts in Europe of the need to change the intervention system within the Community in the next few years?

The most important thing that we can do, in order to get down the potential cost of the surpluses that we now have that could go into intervention, is to have restraint on cereal prices. Most of the other suggestions, which are not on the table for negotiation in the Community, such as quotas, are impracticable and would be wrong. The right objective is to tackle the problem through restraint on support prices.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is precisely what we were doing and what was being advocated before the milk crisis burst and quotas had to be imposed? Are we not going down exactly the same road as before?

If the policy on milk prices that I have been advocating had been adopted, we might have avoided quotas. We made a significant difference in the price review last year in a variety of ways, which effectively brought cereal prices down in real terms, and we must build on that.

Does the Minister agree that the figures that he has given represent a rise of a third in the grain in intervention in the past year? Does he further agree that if we are to consider a cut in the price of grain—what he calls price restraint—3·1 per cent. is unlikely to take any grain farmer out of the production of grain? Should he not press for a higher figure as a real cut to signal to farmers—in the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—that there is a different situation and they will have to cut the production of grain in Britain?

We should certainly recognise that the amounts in intervention have gone up. To a considerable extent that is a feature of a remarkable harvest last year, for which we should pay great tribute to our farmers in the Community. Nevertheless, the price in real terms has come down quite a bit in the past year. We are arguing for price restraint, which will continue that policy. We should like it to continue for more than one year. I think that that will have its effect.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the names and location of abattoirs in the United Kingdom which are European Economic Community approved for the slaughter of equines; and if he will make a statement.

There are five such abattoirs. I shall write to my hon. Friend.

I look forward to receiving the letter. Is it not obvious that, with so few and such widely dispersed abattoirs approved for the slaughter of equines, horses and ponies are being driven long distances, often for days and, it is reported, frequently without water, exercise or feed on the way to slaughter? Is that not disgraceful? Will my hon. Friend urgently look into the transport of horses and ponies to slaughter and the ability of local authorities to monitor their welfare on the way, because under present legislation it is virtually impossible to do so as so many of them are involved?

I assure my hon. Friend that the welfare of animals is protected by comprehensive legislation. I have drawn to his attention before the fact that this is enforced by local authorities. Every local authority must, by law, appoint inspectors to enforce the transit legislation in its area. Those who see a potential welfare offence should report it immediately to the authority in that area. There may be scope for action by those authorities at loading or unloading points. I understand that the Farm Animal Welfare Council will be reviewing future activities and may wish to note my hon. Friend's comment about any future programme of investigation.

Is it not fair to say that cuts in local government budgets imposed by the Government restrict the ability of local authorities to monitor in the way that the Minister has suggested? Is it not nonsense to come to the Dispatch Box and say that the public interest and the interests of animals are safeguarded when everyone knows that it is patently true that the Government are preventing local authorities from carrying out their duties?

No, that is not true. The hon. Gentleman cannot claim that any public expenditure cuts cover the whole range. Local authorities have the duty to carry out this enforcement, as they have a number of other duties.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss the problems of milk producers.

I have frequent meetings with the president of the National Farmers Union, at which a wide range of subjects are discussed, including the problems of milk producers.

I am pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend has these meetings. Next time he meets the president, will he be prepared to discuss the maketing of quotas, by sale or by lease, so that next time he goes to Brussels for price fixing negotiations with our European partners we have firm proposals to put before them? As it seems, from estimates, that this country is likely to be the only one within its quota by the end of the year, are there not strong arguments for this country proceeding with its own scheme for the marketing of quotas, whatever our European partners may do?

I should not be so bold as to say that this country will be the only one within quotas by the end of the year, but I agree that there are strong arguments for greater mobility of quotas. Precisely how this should be achieved is the subject of detailed discussions which my Department is having with the milk industry, to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred last week. I shall certainly discuss this fully with the president of the NFU when I next meet him.

Has the Minister made any real progress in arrangements for making quotas surplus in one region available to other regions?

The right hon. Gentleman has no doubt spotted in the press that the Commission made proposals on Monday of this week which suggest that it is possible to make exchanges in this way between regions of a country. I ascertained from the commissioner that this was intended to embrace two regions of the country where one region is on formula A and the other is on formula B. The signs are hopeful, but I must stress that the arrangements are not yet finalised. We shall be returning to this in February.

Before the first anniversary of the quotas, does my right hon. Friend expect to have sorted out all the bureaucratic hassles?

I would be a great optimist if I thought that we had sorted out all the bureaucratic hassles. As I warned the House before we embarked on the matter, it was inevitable that such a situation would arise. I pay tribute to the commissioner, so soon after taking up his post, for having suggested a number of alterations to the scheme, some of which will, I hope, be of great assistance to this country.

When the Minister next meets the president of the National Farmers Union, will he also remember and consider the problems that face both the farm worker and the dairy distributive worker because of the milk quota system? Will he take action on those problems?

The hon. Gentleman has referred to this problem frequently in the past few months. We can find relatively few examples of redundancies among farm workers, but, as the hon. Gentleman and I both know, there are many redundancies in the milk processing industry. However, the Milk Marketing Board, for instance, has a redundancy scheme that is significantly better than the basic state scheme.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to re-read the report of our debate last week on the outgoers scheme? If so, will he now agree to an increase in the sum of £15 million allocated to that scheme, so that more quotas can be redistributed to needy cases?

The amount allocated to the scheme is £50 million, not £15 million. I am afraid that I have nothing to add to the guidance that I gave to the House last week when I said that the Government had no intention of increasing the amount of money available.

When the Minister next meets the president of the NFU, will he apologise not only to the NFU but to all those employed in the dairy industry for his ham-fisted approach to the imposition of quotas, which has led to turmoil in the industry and—because the cut in production has been 43 per cent. greater than was agreed by the Minister in his sell-out last March — to the ludicrous result of a milk shortage?

As a farmer, the hon. Gentleman should remember, before he produces such ingenious statistics, that there was a drought last summer. That was the principal reason why the reduction in production in this country was greater than in any other.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the totals of cereal exports to third countries in the 12 months to June 1984.

In the year ending June 1984 the United Kingdom exported 1 million tonnes of wheat and 1·2 million tonnes of barley to third countries. In addition, some of the grain exported to other Community member states will then have been exported outside the Community.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the present level of export credit guarantees? Does he agree that there is a need to take all possible steps to get the grain out of intervention—out of the huge stores—and into the hands of those who want to purchase it at reasonable prices?

Of course we wish to export as much as we can. We have had great success with our exports this year. There has been a doubling of wheat exports, and a near-doubling in barley exports, not just to third countries, but overall. Of course, there is still a considerable way to go. Most of the wheat comes not from intervention but direct from the open market, because open market prices are lower than intervention prices.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many grain merchants cannot get export credits for the lucrative grain markets of Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco in north Africa, where we are losing out badly to the French?

Bearing in mind the constraints imposed by, for instance, the credit-worthiness of the countries concerned, we have improved the export credit arrangements for such markets.

Will the Minister recognise that it is better for grain to be used usefully, at whatever price, than to rot in stores? How much of the 12 million tonnes currently in intervention will be used, and how much of it will simply rot?

I entirely agree that the grain should be used. We have substantial surpluses this year and we are fighting in world export markets, where there is also a surplus. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that there are considerable quantities of grain which we must still export or dispose of in other ways but which are not in intervention. All of that points to the correctness of our policies directed at trying to get overall support prices down. I am sure that we have the hon. Gentleman's support in that, as it would enable more consumers to use the product.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of imports of cereal substitutes into the United Kingdom from third countries.

United Kingdom imports from third countries of the products generally referred to as cereal substitutes totalled just under 700,000 tonnes for the period January to September 1984.

Can my hon. Friend list the principal cereal substitutes which are imported and give some idea of the price at which they enter the United Kingdom and the European Community, as paid by the compounder? Will he consider bringing them into a levy system so that they come within the cereal regime?

I have the list in front of me. The principal ones are perhaps manioc and maize gluten feed, followed by brewing and distilling dregs and citrus fruit waste. It would probably be better if my hon. Friend tabled a detailed question on that matter and on prices so that I can ensure that full information is given. As to further methods of controlling imports of substitutes, we must consider our livestock producers who would find feedstuffs expensive without the impact of cheaper imports on feed compounders. Technically, we sometimes need those imports for feed compounds. We must also have regard to the dangers of incurring further trade wars in Third world markets.

Will the Minister do his best to ensure that we do not do anything like putting a levy on cereal substitutes imported into the EEC, as most of them come from Third world countries which have already been hard hit by other agricultural export practices of the EEC? That is one way in which we can do our best to help them.

We have resisted, and will continue to resist, pressure for such controls. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have had to agree to engage in discussions with the United States, whence many substitutes come, on maize gluten feed. We believe that it is right to resist the overall approach of heavily controlling imports.

In view of my hon. Friend's answer, is there not a case for the ingredients to be listed on the compounds which are sold to farmers?

Answering off the top of my head, I suspect that it would be extremely difficult to do that, as feed compounders vary the mixtures substantially. I am not sure that such lists would be useful information for many people who buy the feed compounds. It is important to stress that, as part of the policy aimed at getting a better balance between cereals and livestock, we should not over-restrict the capacity of the livestock sector to get its feed compounds cheaply.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate what tonnage of wheat is likely to be carried over in United Kingdom intervention stores from the current year into the 1985–86 crop year.

There were 2·3 million tonnes of wheat in intervention in the United Kingdom on 16 January 1985 and a further 200,000 tonnes had been offered for intervention on that date. The quantity to be carried over into next season will depend on developments in the domestic and export markets, which it is not possible to forecast.

Is the Minister aware that reliable sources have recently forecast that there could be a carry-over of 8 million tonnes of wheat into the next crop year in the European Community, including about 3 million tonnes in the United Kingdom? What is the point of spending up to £60 million on keeping that portion of 1984's bumper harvest in store, apparently indefinitely? Is there not an overwhelming case for shifting most of that surplus wheat to famine areas as soon as possible?

As I have said, it is difficult to be certain at this stage about the forecasts. However, I have not disguised the fact that we are likely to have surpluses. Within the Community we have already committed ourselves to sending 1·2 million tonnes in this marketing year to Ethiopia and the other drought-stricken countries. That is a major contribution, and a sign that the Government are doing all that they can to make use of the cereals surplus in that direction.

Would not my hon. Friend be wiser to express that tonnage in store in terms of weeks' supplies, so that we knew exactly what we had in this country? In the past there have been serious difficulties for the consumer when we have run out. Of course overseas aid is right and proper, and this country—in particular British farmers—has been extremely generous in giving aid in the form of cereals to those in need.

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. Indeed, the NFU's "Send a million tonnes of wheat to Africa" campaign is to be warmly welcomed.

Does the Minister realise that the annual review of agriculture, published quite recently, showed that wheat farmers—many of whom are to be found in East Anglia—had a substantial rise in income, which was well above 20 per cent., while they produced uncontrolled surpluses? Does he realise that those two things together do not make any economic sense? What steps is the hon. Gentleman taking to restore a balance in the grain market? Does he recognise that such uncontrolled expansion in East Anglia is leading to serious environmental problems?

I believe that we are getting on top of the environmental problems. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will also pay tribute to the efforts of farmers, because most of the increases have resulted from productivity and technological improvements. It has been a great success story for the United Kingdom that, during the past 10 years, it has moved from being a major importer of cereals to being a major exporter. It is only right to pay tribute to that and to comment on its importance for the British economy. In real terms, the recently announced farm incomes remain about 8 per cent. below the 1982 level, while cereal prices are below what they were when we entered the Community. However, all that the hon. Gentleman says supports the view of the British Government that we should have major restraints on cereal prices, supported by the full application of the guaranteed thresholds. That is how we want to tackle it.

Will my hon. Friend note that in 1985 we need not apologise for the fact that this country has food surpluses? As we consider it economically sensible to have six months' supply of oil and 12 months' supply of coal against the present emergency, surely it is not to be deplored that we have three months' supply of meat or two months' supply of wheat in storage. Will he emphasise to the Britain housewife and to all the people in this country that food surpluses are essential and better than shortages, and that we could not feed the rest of the world if we did not create surpluses?

I have already paid tribute to our cereal farmers. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is a notable achievement, and much to be welcomed, that our self-sufficiency in the products that we grow has increased from 59 per cent. about 10 years ago to more than 80 per cent. today. I can just imagine what questions I would face if this country had a major deficiency in cereals, if prices soared and if the effect on the consumer was the opposite of what it is because of our success.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has plans to allow interchange between direct sellers and wholesalers under the milk quota scheme.

Complete interchangeability is not permitted by the existing Community legislation. I have been pressing strongly for this at meetings in Brussels for some time, and this week the Commission put forward proposals which go some way towards meeting our needs. I shall now seek certain improvements on the proposals. In the meantime, I have introduced arrangements whereby a producer who has more wholesale quota than he needs but not enough direct sales quota, or vice versa, can apply to the Milk Marketing Board to exchange quota with a producer in the opposite position.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and for his evident concern about the matter. Is he aware that many direct sellers are facing superlevy payments, not because they are producing too much milk, but because they are selling too much milk to the public? Does he agree that regulations designed to prevent cheating in Italy and elsewhere are having a damaging and perverse effect on the British market?

I am aware of those problems, which is why I have been raising this issue in the Agriculture Council since July, and why I was especially glad when the Commission appeared to be making some moves earlier this week to assist us in this matter.

Given the right of a producer who owns two holdings simultaneously to transfer a quota from one to another, what safeguards are there to stop producers, wholesalers or large companies from buying quotas, to the detriment of whole areas that may be in a disadvantageous position?

The hon. Gentleman's question is rather wide of the original question, which related to interchange of direct and wholesale quotas. However, I shall try to answer his question. If the hon. Gentleman reads the regulations, he will see that the quota is attached to the land and that the principal way in which it can pass from one person to another is if the ownership or tenancy of the land changes.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that because a direct seller can sell only what he produces, and produces only what he can sell, there is no merit in restricting him, and that the lifting of a restriction would not make a substantial increase in the surpluses? Will he, therefore, treat the removal of these quota restrictions as a major priority?

I forgot to say that that has been my major priority since the summer. If I may correct my hon. Friend, the restriction makes no alteration to the total amount produced. An interchange would take place in a mixed business between one type and another type of quota, within an overall amount, which stays constant. I am extremely pleased that, at last, with the new Commission we have a little movement on that important matter.

There is universal support for what the Minister seeks to do. Will he explain precisely how and when the proposals to which he referred in his written reply to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will be implemented?

The procedure which the Commission has proposed to deal with the matter is cumbersome, would only operate within a single 12-month period, and would have to be repeated each subsequent year. The details need to be examined carefully before we assume that it will be workable. The special committee on agriculture will consider this during the next few weeks. I hope that the matter will come back to the Council at its February meeting, and that we can settle it as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his definition of productive agricultural use land; and if such a definition includes upland heaths and undrained fenlands.

Land is considered to be in productive agricultural use when it is being farmed. Large areas of upland heaths and lowland fens are used for livestock grazing.

Land use statistics are gathered by the Department of the Environment and show, broadly speaking, that during the last 35 years we have lost a quarter of our upland heaths and that more than half of our fenlands have been drained. Does my hon. Friend agree that liaison between her Department and the Department of the Environment is essential if we are to strike a sensible balance between the needs of agriculture and conservation of the countryside? While I welcome the setting up of the environment co-ordination unit in her Department for just such a purpose, but will she assure the House that the coordination and liaising will be at ministerial as well as official level?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 took account of anxiety about natural habitat and landscape change. There is close co-ordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment. Regarding habitat and landscape, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Department of the Environment are funding projects on habitat and landscape change, and MAFF hopes to undertake a survey of trees and hedges on farms later this year. I know of my hon. Friend's particular interest in that part of country conservation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the highlands of Scotland the land is used extensively for sheep farming, which is supported by the positive steps on conservation being taken by the Scottish National Farmers Union?

Yes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be exercising the greatest care in considering the compatability of agriculture and conservation, as we do in the rest of the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the chairman of the Meat Promotion Executive relating to trends in meat consumption in the United Kingdom.

None direct, although there is continuing close contact at ministerial and official level with the Meat and Livestock Commission, which has overall responsibility for meat promotion matters.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a serious drop in meat consumption lately, and that the promotion of meat products and meat should be conducted strongly in the future? Does he also agree that it is a mistake to believe that convenience foods are cheaper than meat, such as shin beef, best end of lamb and other cheaper cuts which are of benefit to the consumer?

The overall consumption of meat is at about the same level as it was 10 years ago, but that hides the fact that there has been an increase in the consumption of white meat, especially poultry and pork, and frozen convenience meats. There has been a decline in the consumption of most carcase meats. My hon. Friend will know that considerable efforts go into the promotionn and marketing of meat, and I support those efforts. As to convenience foods, we must recognise that we are talking about consumer choice. Many consumers, especially the young, for a variety of reasons, buy convenience foods. That factor must be taken into account in the promotion of meat.

Does the Minister accept that the programme being organised by Food from Britain has an important part to play in increasing the consumption of meat? Will he ensure that the £15 million grant for that organisation is continued if the sponsoring organisations continue to be reluctant to take over the funding?

I wholly support the efforts of Food from Britain, which are an important factor in promotion. The hon. Gentleman will know that that organisation is backed by substantial Government funds. Its programme will run for some time, and it would be premature to take decisions now on the longer term. I hope that he also recognises that considerable funds, often from industry, are given for promotion through the Meat and Livestock Commission and the Meat Promotion Executive.

In relation to meat production, will my hon. Friend consider the annual review and agree that, although the statistics are obviously right, the narrative gives a false impression of the well-being of the livestock industry, which is not as healthy as the review seems to show?

Although some sectors of the intensive livestock industry did a little better last year than they did earlier, there has been a drop in income in other parts of the industry. I fully agree with my hon. Friend on that. I had hoped that the way in which we gave the figures had made that clear. There has been an increase, in farming terms generally, on 1983 levels, which means a reduction in real terms on 1982 levels. Within that, some sectors have done much worse than others.

In those discussions, will the Minister consider the possibility of a change in the carcase specification for premium payments which takes into account low fat meat for dietary purposes? Will he especially consider giving farmers a premium for Welsh lamb with a low fat content, rather than the reverse at present, where the more fat there is on a lamb, the more money the farmer gets per pound?

The hon. Gentleman will know that one recommendation by COMA to the Government has been along those lines. No decision has been taken, but the views of the industry and other organisations on the recommendation have been sought and are currently being considered. I expect to make an announcement shortly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider the possibility of reopening the file on milk quota applicants who have accepted decisions handed down by his Department and from local panels and have subsequently discovered that different criteria have been applied for later decisions which could have enabled a successful appeal.

The system allowing for appeals against departmental and local panel decisions was devised to minimise variations and to be as fair as possible. It is also important to let producers know their secondary quotas as quickly as possible. Now that the local panels have virtually completed their work and the time alloted for appeals to the tribunal is past, I do not think it would be right to ask them to go over the ground again.

Will the Minister reconsider that decision? He has said that he wishes to see justice done. Does he think that it is just that many farmers have accepted their quotas, without reference to appeal, on the basis of information given to them by his officials which has subsequently proved to be wrong? Is he aware, for instance, that one of his officials wrote to my local farmers on 4 November saying that cow variation numbers could not be taken as the basis of appeal, yet every subsequent appeal on that precise basis has been successful? Does he believe that that is fair or just?

If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point that he would like us to consider, we shall do that. He should recall that the tribunal issued guidance to local panels on the criteria that were to be used in reaching decisions. It was recognised that, given the numbers involved, some variation in approach to different cases was inevitable. That is why the system of local panels with the right of appeal to the tribunal was devised.

If my right hon. Friend wishes to see justice done, will he remember that there are a large number of producers who feel aggrieved that the quota runs with the land, rather than with the producer, particularly when the producer has built up the business personally without the help of the landowner?

I am aware of that problem. It is a matter that is not appropriate to this question, but my hon. Friend will recall that we discussed it at considerable length in the House when I first announced the outgoers scheme last summer.

Is the Minister aware that there is unrest? In a reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) he referred to the fact that there was a proposal by the Commission for change. Could he be more forthcoming and tell the House wherein lies the problem so that we have to wait until February for a decision that could go a long way to ease the problem?

I do not think that I can add anything. Again, this is a question that does not follow the main question. This was a proposal that was put before the Council on Monday. It was discussed on Tuesday. It was generally recognised that there were many complications which should be studied by the special committee on agriculture. I hope that it will get on with its work as quickly as possible and that it will be possible — I cannot guarantee it — to have a conclusive and final discussion about the matter at the February Council.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates have been made on how European Economic Community milk production will compare with the aggregate quota for the current year; and what is the comparable position in the United Kingdom.

On current trends, deliveries to dairies would be close to the wholesale quota at the end of the present marketing year, both in the United Kingdom and in the Community as a whole. However, I would obviously not wish to make precise forecasts at this stage.

Are we not in danger of getting the worst of all worlds? On the one hand, hundreds of jobs in the United Kingdom may be destroyed as a result of the cutbacks here, while, on the other, because the scheme is not working sufficiently effectively throughout the Community, we shall continue to make a disproportionate budget contribution towards the huge EC surplus.

The hon. Gentleman may not have seen, but should study, what has already been done in other countries in the Community in getting production down to the quota for those countries. For instance, up to the end of December Germany had cut by 6 per cent. on last year, the Netherlands by 5 per cent., Denmark by 6 per cent. and Belgium by 5 per cent. Of course, the United Kingdom has cut by 8 per cent., largely because of the drought that we had last summer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the United Kingdom Agricultural Engineers Association to discuss farm machinery sales prospects.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met the president of the United Kingdom Agricultural Engineers Association to discuss farm machinery sales prospects on 30 October 1984. A further meeting has not been arranged.

Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable concern has been expressed within that sector of the agriculture industry because the changes in capital allowances, which will shortly come into effect, will have a distorting effect on machinery sales, which is likely to lead to a boom and then a bust? Will she bear in mind in her further discussions with the Treasury as well as with the Agricultural Engineers Association that this will not help the smaller farmers in the west and south-west who have suffered a squeeze?

I would accept that the necessary contraction in the dairy industry has caused farmers to postpone new plant investment. I believe that some may even have over-reacted. In recent years there has been a general contraction in the industry, due to rationalisation and import penetration. I do not agree with my hon. Friend's views about next year's opportunities in agricultural engineering. They are a little pessimistic.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress his Department and the Agricultural Development Advisory Service have made towards further measures of conservation in agriculture.

My Department's aim will continue to be that of developing agricultural policies and encouraging farming practices which take due account of the desirability of conserving the countryside. As far as ADAS specifically is concerned, its contribution includes giving advice on conservation matters to individual farmers, promoting conservation awareness amongst farmers through exhibits and displays at agricultural shows and similar events, widespread participation in the farming and wildlife advisory groups and advising farmers and the statutory conservation agencies on the management of environmentally sensitive land.

I thank my hon. Friend for that commendably brief answer. Does she accept that many of my constituents are gravely concerned about conservation? Will she assure the House that everything possible will be done to ensure that farmers are given every facility to incorporate conservation measures in their future plans?

I earnestly assure my hon. Friend that all his points are uppermost in the mind of the Ministry. I am sure that they have been confirmed in practical terms by the setting up of the environmental co-ordination unit.

asked the Prime Minister what are her official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

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.

When will the Government act over the suffering and misery of so many elderly people who simply do not have enough money to keep their homes adequately heated during the harsh winter? What sort of Government are they who last November reduced by £1 the heating allowance to the poorest pensioners. who are those between 70 and 85? Does the Prime Minister understand how many of those people have put their health seriously at risk by having insufficient money to keep their homes heated? Can we take it that the Government are concerned only with giving help to the rich and the prosperous?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the changes in heating allowance enabled it to be given to more pensioners, and that was welcome. I note that the hon. Gentleman is quick to ask questions about heating allowance, but he is equally quick to support a strike deliberately aimed at cutting off heating to old people.

I ask my right hon. Friend a question with reference to the proposed commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the ending of the second world war. I remind her that the second world did not end in May 1945 and that tens of thousands of young people from this country and the Commonwealth, including members of my family, served and suffered in the campaign in the far east. If we commemorate the ending of the war, will it be said again that the 14th Army, which was the forgotten army, is to be forgotten once again?

We are very much aware of the victory in August 1945 in the war in the far east and of the important and brave part played by so many people in that war. We shall, of course, remember both occasions in the commemorations.

May I say, first, that I was glad to hear that last answer.

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking. He will be aware that in general heating allowances have gone up far more rapidly than the rate of inflation—something like 40 per cent. more than the increased cost of fuel—so that now some £400 million is spent on heating allowance of which £200 million goes to pensioners, so that is far better than anything previously. In addition, there is provision for single payments on the terms laid down in the order, which sets out a series of objective tests and leaves it to the chief adjudication officer. May I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that if he is really concerned he will tell the striking miners to go back to work so that we can have the future of heating assured, because people are out on strike to prevent heating from getting to old people and to industry.

Why does not the Prime Minister, just for once, answer the question on the subject raised?

The single payments order, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, does give different temperatures. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is looking into the matter, but for the time being the objective tests laid down there will continue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will now urge the coal miners to go back to work, for it is surely ridiculous to express sympathy but to support a strike deliberately aimed at making it cold for people in houses in bitter weather.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the allegations that The Observer has been paying large sums of money to encourage Whitehall leaks? Does she agree that leaks of this kind are frequently motivated, not by high-flown, but by misguided ideas of public information; nor, indeed, by baser party political motives, but by the oldest motive of all, greed on the part of both the newspaper and its informants?

Whatever the reason for leaks and whichever Government are in power, no Government can carry on effectively unless they can rely on the trust and confidence of those who work in the Civil Service, and in the overwhelming number of cases they can rely upon that trust and confidence.

In reflecting upon the commemoration, which has wide public support, of victory in Europe, will the Prime Minister direct her mind to the best way in which, in the framework of that commemoration, there can be a place for the representation of the Russian people, whose sufferings, whose fortitude and whose valour made our own survival and our victory possible?

Yes, I shall of course bear that factor in mind. What we are planning is a commemoration in this country, but of course there will be many representatives in the country whom we shall expect, either as high commissioners or as ambassadors, to attend that commemoration.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

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

Is the right hon. Lady aware that the last shipyard in my constituency closes next month, that the last steel plant in my constituency closes at the end of the year, that the last pit in my constituency closed two years ago, and that one in three men in my constituency are out of work? When she ponders on the VE celebrations, will she bear in mind the fact that her Government's policies between 1979 and 1985 have stopped more industries than Hitler's bombers? What new year's message of hope has she for the 7,852 people in the Jarrow constituency who are out of work?

I am aware of what the hon. Gentleman says about the shipyards in his constituency. We naturally appreciate his anxiety about the future of the yards. The Government stand ready to help in the usual way to secure any viable order prospects put forward by British Shipbuilders, but we cannot create orders where they do not exist.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that two major unions representing the electricians and the engineers have decided to defy the TUC and apply for public cash assistance for secret ballots? Will the Prime Minister encourage other unions to follow that sensible and pragmatic decision?

I noticed that decision. It is welcome. The provision is made for people to have postal ballots to enable them more easily to express their democratic views on decisions by officials of their union.

If the Prime Minister wishes to give a constitutional safeguard to the people of the Falkland Islands, who are United Kingdom citizens, why does she not use the constitutionally proper form to do so by introducing a Bill in the House, as was done with the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973? Does the Prime Minister not recognise that this is a major issue of foreign policy which the House has not discussed, and that that runs counter to the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee?

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the discussions that we are now having with the Falkland Islands Council about its future constitution. The right hon. Gentleman looks angered that we have had them. He would have thought it strange had we made, or attempted to make, any decisions without fully consulting the people who are most deeply interested in their own future. Of course we have been consulting with them. When we have reached a conclusion, details of it will be placed in the Library for hon. Members. When the new constitution and texts are ready, they will be introduced by Orders in Council.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Orders will be made under the British Settlements Act, which provides for such orders then to be laid before Parliament so that they are in accordance with the constitution of the House.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 January.

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

Does the Prime Minister recall my intervention in the Chancellor's speech on Tuesday, when I took the liberty to put to him the serious point that the deutschmark was not under threat and that interest rates in Germany had not been raised in panic action similar to that into which her Government have been forced? His reply was that the deutschmark had a lower level of inflation than the pound. Will she come clean with the House and admit that the principal difference is that we are now seen as a one-product economy due to the fact that we have had the devastation of our manufacturing base and a deficit on manufactures in the past year of over £5 billion? Will she come clean with the House and, more importantly, tell us what she is going to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that oil constitutes about only 5 per cent. of the output of our economy, so no one should judge it a one-product economy. In regard to the deutschmark, I remind him that the Germans have been pursuing policies successfully to keep down inflation for many years and that it is now 2·5 per cent. They have also been pursuing policies to reduce public spending, and have cut their public spending in ways which I do not think would be acceptable to this House. They held up increasing pension provisions and managed to keep down their public sector pay for a long time, so much so that they are now able to have tax cuts. As the hon. Gentleman is talking about industry, he should remember that the Germans did not have the degree of restrictive practices and overmanning that we had for years.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to take note of the first report of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and its important proposals for the development of Stonehenge as a major tourist site, and will she welcome that report?

I welcome most reports in that guise. I cannot promise to look at that report today, but I promise to look at it at some time, though not this week.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Does it arise directly out of this question?

It arises out of Prime Minister's Question Time, Mr. Speaker, in that questions to the right hon. Lady began a few seconds before 3.17 as the result of a long answer that had previously been given by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. May we have 15 minutes of questions to the Prime Minister, and may I ask the right hon. Lady a question about the miners' dispute?

Order. The point to which the hon. Gentleman refers did not take up a full minute; I was watching the clock as carefully as the hon. Gentleman. That is why I called the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) to ask a question after 3.30 pm.