asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the drop in food consumption from United Kingdom production over the last four years.

Agricultural production, at constant prices, has increased by about 12 per cent. over the last four years. During the same period home-produced food has maintained its share of a static domestic market but exports have increased significantly.

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, but is it not true that there has been a considerable drop in the consumption of certain products? Is that not a serious matter for British agriculture? Will my hon. Friend be careful not to over-react in company with the health lobby, which is always saying that certain products are bad for us? Finally, is it not the height of folly to seek to do away with the beef premium, which encourages people to consume beef rather than to put it into intervention?

There is no question of over-reacting. The report represents the best scientific and medical advice available to the Government, and the nation's health is of vital importance. My hon. Friend is right to say that the beef variable premium plays an important role in maintaining the consumption of beef in this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in attempts to prevent the Dutch Government from subsidising its horticulture industry through cheap gas prices.

The Commission is now considering what action to take in the light of comments received from member states and other interested parties since it instituted proceedings under article 93(2) of the treaty of Rome.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply, but will he accept that the reintroduction of preferential gas prices for Dutch growers has been a matter of concern to United Kingdom glasshouse growers? Even if it is halted now, a competitive advantage, particularly against the long-season protected crop producer, will have been gained by the Dutch during the winter months because of lower energy costs for produce to be marketed now and in the coming months. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it seems to be a calculated policy of the Dutch Government to create an unfair advantage so that our producers simply cannot compete?

I have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend in her forthright and clear views. That is why the Government have put the strongest possible pressure on the Commission to require the Dutch to suspend the preferential gas price while considering whether the practice is compatible with the terms of the treaty.

In view of the struggle that our horticulture industry will have when Spain and Portugal join the EEC, and as this is the second time recently that the Dutch have kicked the question of fuel prices, thus seriously affecting the United Kingdom industry, does the Minister agree that it is time for concerted action by the Government, without waiting for the EEC to agree, to police the Dutch, otherwise the industry will go bang?

We have raised this matter at every meeting of the Council of Ministers since it became apparent. The hon. Gentleman is right, in that in 1981 the Commission decided that the practice of a state controlled company operating a preferential gas price for horticulturists was incompatible with the treaty of Rome. I am not aware that matters are at all different now. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep up the pressure.

As the Dutch Government are providing comparable assistance for the poultrymeat and egg sectors, what representations does my right hon. Friend intend to make to combat this form of unfair competition?

If I can be provided with firm evidence of unfair competition by the Dutch in those sectors, I shall be glad to take the matter up with the Commission.

As the Dutch Government have been found guilty of subsidising their growers, why is it not possible to impose a levy on their products? They are swamping our growers. Growers in my area pay 10p a gallon more for their diesel fuel than anyone else on the mainland. They are going to the wall.

At the most recent meeting of the Council of Ministers I proposed to the Commission that it ought to take steps to recover the unfair advantage that Dutch growers have had through what we regard as an illegal subsidy.

In view of that reply from the Minister may I ask whether, if the Government do not get a satisfactory answer from the Commission, the right hon. Gentleman will take unilateral action to protect our growers?

We shall be prepared to do whatever we can, within the law, to ensure that Dutch growers do not get this type of unfair advantage. We shall press the Commission hard to ensure that the Dutch enact the law.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the beef premium and the sheepmeat regime.

In its proposals for the 1985 common agricultural policy price fixing the Commission has made no provision for keeping the beef variable premium scheme. I believe that the scheme has served producers and consumers well and, in the current market situation for beef, should be maintained. As in previous years, we shall be pressing for its continuation. As to the sheepmeat regime, it has worked reasonably well but we shall continue to seek changes which will make it easier for our lamb to be exported to the rest of the Community and which will improve the stability of the home market.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the crucial importance of these two subsidies to the livestock areas of the west and north? Is he further aware that, without those subsidies, income from the hills of the west and north will be affected disastrously and that he must make every conceivable effort to ensure that the subsidies are maintained this year and in the future?

We had a tremendous struggle last year on the beef variable premium scheme, but my hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Minister was highly successful in maintaining that scheme, albeit in a somewhat changed form. We shall do everything that we can to persuade other member states of the merits of the scheme, which we believe benefits both producers and consumers and reduces the need for costly intervention. We shall resist any changes to the sheepmeat regime that discriminate against our producers.

I welcome the Minister's firm declaration in support of the beef variable premium scheme. I assure him that it has the support of farmers in Northern Ireland, who recognise the great need for it. In view of the continuing delay in the payment of the 1984–85 ewe premium, will he ensure that an interim payment is made to alleviate the hardship that is felt especially by hill livestock producers?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the schemes. As for the delay in payment, I think that he is talking about the rates of advance payment in less-favoured areas. I know that they are important to farmers at this time of year, but a new method of calculation, which we do not believe is quite right, has been introduced. It is important that we get it right. There have been discussions this week on the advance payment issue, and I hope that there will be progress on the matter before too long.

Does my hon. Friend accept that both the beef premium and the sheepmeat regime are vital to the continued viability of farming in hill areas, not merely around Ludlow, but elsewhere? Does he agree that if the two schemes were to be ended it would be a sad day, because many hill farms would cease to be viable?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. I am sure that he also welcomed the improvements in the hill livestock compensatory amounts last year for hill farmers, in that they are now also payable in marginal areas.

Is it not scandalous that yet again the variable premium is under threat? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that it continues and seek to establish it on a permanent basis, so that year in, year out we are not threatened with its removal?

The problem is that the scheme is not permanent and it was not this Government who negotiated the position of not making it a permanent scheme. It is difficult to get the beef variable premium on the table every year. As I said, we did it last year, and we continue to believe that it is not in the Community's interest to end the scheme.

In view of the speech of the president of the National Farmers Union on Tuesday, when he claimed that every success in agriculture, including the retention of the beef variable premium scheme, was due to the union and every failure was due to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, would my hon. Friend care to put the record straight?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was entirely due to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister, whom I was pleased to assist, and not to anyone else, that we managed to retain the beef variable premium scheme.

In addition to the threat emanating from the European Community Commission's proposals on the sheepmeat regime, will the Minister take careful account of the problem faced particularly by Scottish producers because they do not have access to the new qualifying group of animals?

I am not sure precisely what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. One or two points are worth taking up with the Commission, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that although most beef producers have received the beef premium for most of the weeks of the present year, beef has still been largely unprofitable and people are already leaving beef production? Will he do whatever he can to ensure that the scheme, which is so valuable, continues, otherwise, with the milk quota production, whole sections of the British countryside will change their character as people leave horn and find an alternative?

Both the variable premium scheme and the changes in the intervention system have had a beneficial effect on the market this year, in that the returns to the producers have been about 98 per cent. of the target price. I repeat that the variable premium scheme is beneficial to both producers and consumers and ensures that beef is consumed instead of going into intervention.

Since the schemes are justifiable on their own merits because they benefit producers and consumers, will the Minister resist any attempt to use the retention of the schemes as a lever to get unjust padding in other parts of the common agricultural policy, under which too much subsidy is already paid?

Our position on subsidies for products in surplus is extremely clear. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are to enter into negotiations, but these have not yet begun. Last year we had considerable difficulties with the schemes, and obviously we shall have to see how we get on in the negotiations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish his review of drainage.

We expect to issue the consultation paper on the financing and administration of land drainage, flood protection and coast defence in March.

I welcome that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware of the urgency of this issue? It is well illustrated by the proposals of the Anglian water authority for the River Stour, which will desecrate the world-famous landscape in Dedham Vale. Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way, ultimately, to prevent that from happening will be to use yet more taxpayers' money to persuade landowners to refrain from growing products which the country neither needs nor can afford?

I regret the delay in the publication of the paper, but I am confident that it will now be issued in March. It will not cover conservation issues as such. Its prime purpose is to seek views on financial and administrative issues.

Is the Minister aware that there is a firm in my constituency which makes pipes for land drainage? Will the Minister bear in mind what I have just said, because that firm has a marvellous record for exports, which are important to the economy, but it desperately needs some help with the home market?

The purpose of the paper is to consult interested parties on the present arrangements and to obtain their views on any improvements that are considered necessary. I do not believe that it will affect the hon. Gentleman's firm.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider the reply that she gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) and accept that conservation is of widespread interest and is extremely important?

Yes, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that conservation is important. I merely pointed out that that was not the purpose of the drainage paper.

Is the Minister aware of the importance to agriculture of capital grants for land drainage and reclamation schemes in maintaining the jobs of employees of agricultural contractors, quarry operators and those who supply stone and gravel for drainage schemes? Will the Minister advise the House of the estimated number of job losses that will arise from the proposal to cut £13 million from the allocation to Northern Ireland and £27 million from the funds allocated to the mainland for capital grants?

Land drainage has had an enhanced rate of grant for some time now, and it is only fair that it should take its share of public expenditure cuts. The paper will review the present grant-aid arrangements, not fix future levels of grant-aid.

Will the paper deal with the problem of Wakefield, which is in a most difficult position between the hon. Lady's Department and the Department of the Environment? Does she accept that there are major difficulties in balancing conservation and agriculture, and that her answer that conservation is not included is disturbing?

I have had a good deal of correspondence on this issue with the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison). I am aware of the problem. I note that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) is interested in conservation, and I share that interest. The paper is about financial and administrative arrangements and seeks consultation about changes or improvements.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the practice of Somerset and other counties in selling off their agricultural smallholdings.

It is the Government's policy to leave decisions on the sale of smallholdings to the smallholdings authorities concerned.

Is the Minister aware that such is the opposition of the National Farmers Union to Somerset's attempts to flog off its smallholdings for a little one-off help with the rates that the union is currently considering advice from a QC that there may be a reason to take Somerset to the courts to test the legality of the matter? In view of the Government's recent embarrassment over court decisions, will the Minister advise Somerset and other county councils which are considering agricultural asset stripping to stay their hand, at least until the legalities of the matter are established?

I note with interest the hon. Gentleman's statement about the NFU. There is no intention to reimpose any limitation on the freedom of local authorities to act in the way that they think best on smallholdings.

Has not hon. Member after hon. Member on the Conservative Benches in recent years prated about the need for young people to have an opportunity to enter farming? Is it not the case that those authorities which are selling their smallholdings are merely emulating the dogma of selfish and shortsighted privatisation which is so eagerly served by the same hon. Members who talk about opportunities?

On the contrary. Unfortunately, smallholdings have not generally proved effective in providing that first rung on the farming ladder, largely because of the absence of further rungs, which owes a great deal to the Labour party's Agricultural Land Holdings Act 1976. In the 10-year period to 1980–81 only about 14 tenants per year succeeded in making that transition.

Is the Minister aware that the Northfield report said that smallholdings should not be sold in view of the urgent need to retain farm holdings to let? As recent legislation has only too plainly failed to encurage private landlords to let more farming units, has the Government any policy to deal with that?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Act has hardly been in force for long enough to have made any considerable difference. It is our hope that it will in time, but that is no excuse for contending that smallholdings have provided that rung, when all the figures show that they have not.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government are taking to promote the output of protein crops such as peas and beans.

The Government have actively supported Community action to encourage the protein sector, which includes the payment of a subsidy on peas and field beans production. We fund research designed to produce improved varieties of these protein crops and advice to growers is available from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.

In view of the need to reduce cereal output next year, to what extent does my hon. Friend regard protein crops such as peas and beans as a viable alternative? As the yield is about 3 tonnes per hectare, but Rothamstead says it should be 8 tonnes, what is he doing to encourage that experimental station?

As I indicated, we are funding quite a lot of research into improving consistency of yield and uniform ripening of the crop, and also into high resistance to pests and diseases. On his first point, my hon. Friend will know that United Kingdom pea production increased by 60 per cent. between 1983 and 1984. He is right in saying that it provides an alternative to cereals and other surplus products. That is one of the two reasons why it is sensible to encourage it, the other being that we are still in substantial deficit in protein crops.

Has my hon. Friend made a careful assessment of the extent to which this could be a help to farmers to get out of grain, and thus to deal with the overall problem of surpluses?

Farmers must make up their own minds about what they wish to do, but we have been giving encouragement in this area.

What advice are the Government giving about lupins?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is quite a lot of discussion about lupins in the United Kingdom. There are still considerable difficulties in growing them successfully, but some day that may be an alternative crop. Some producers are certainly getting interested in it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the operation of the scheme for the sale of potato quotas.

This is a matter for the Potato Marketing Board. However, at my request the board has re-examined the operation of the quota system and has introduced greater flexibility.

Given that about half our potato consumption consists of imports, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be best to wind up the board? If the producers want the board, let them finance it out of their own resources, rather than making further calls on taxpayers' funds.

Just this morning in Committee we passed amendments relating to the Potato Marketing Board which have had thorough consideration and are supported by more than 97 per cent. of growers. If the proposals go through Parliament as a whole, the growers will be paying a higher levy and the Government's open-ended commitment on deficiency payments will be withdrawn.

Can the Minister give an assurance to potato producers that the Government have no plans to abolish the Potato Marketing Board?

As today, with the approval of the Committee, I have carried amendments in regard to the Potato Marketing Board which will last for five years. I think that the position is clear.

Now that we have a scheme for the sale of potato quotas, why can we not also have a perfectly controlled scheme for the sale of milk quotas, which is a form of marketing that is favoured by both the National Farmers Union and the Milk Marketing Board?

My hon. Friend will know that that was in response to a paper which we put out recently suggesting various alternatives for greater flexibility in the milk levy sytem. That is one possibility that we will consider in response to all the representations that we have received, but it will have to be negotiated in Brussels.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he is making for allocating secondary milk quotas in the year following 31 March 1985 and subsequent years in relation to the needs of farmers who are part way through development plans.

The Dairy Produce Quotas Regulations allow the tribunal to make awards of secondary quota only in respect of expansion plans giving rise to production in the 1984–85 milk year. If we had made provision for plans extending into later years, this would have necessitated a bigger reduction in calculating quotas for other producers, and I do not think this would have been the right course.

Is the Minister aware that many producers, particularly those undertaking development plans, will have a rude shock at the end of March when they find that their quota is 30 per cent. less than they had bargained for? Is not the answer for the Minister to extend the outgoers scheme so that there will be more money to provide a fairer quota for those engaged in milk production?

I think that we did immensely well to get £50 million for the outgoers scheme, and it has been a satisfactory sum. However, I am aware of the problems of producers who made firm plans before quotas were introduced, but who will not have finished the work until the end of 1984–85. I am prepared to give the matter further thought. The amount of quota available is very limited, and I would find it hard to justify going beyond 31 March 1985, when awards in respect of the current year will themselves be subject to scaling down.

Will the Minister comment on Mr. Andriessen's proposal that the regional quota be spread over the whole national territory so that this year Northern Ireland will be exempt from paying superlevy?

We have arrangements that are being discussed in Brussels at the moment, which would allow one to redistribute quota beyond the area of the dairies that were originally in the regulations. Those are still matters for discussion. However, I see that the amount of milk being produced in Northern Ireland is coming back towards the quota level.

In view of the fact that we now know that farm workers, dairy workers and some transport workers are losing their jobs because of the milk quotas, is the Minister prepared to go back to the EEC to get some money in compensation for workers who have lost their livelihood as a result of the milk quota scheme?

The hon. Lady, to whom I have answered a similar question before, will know that we have arrangements for redundancy payments in this country and that some firms, for instance the Milk Marketing Board, provide redundancy terms that are considerably more generous than those of the state scheme.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that producer-retailers are still unable to sell the full amount of their production quota direct to the public? Is he further aware that flexibility of wholesale quotas does little to alleviate that situation? Does my right hon. Friend remember that some nine months ago he committed himself to sort out the situation as soon as possible?

We have been raising that matter at every meeting of the Council of Ministers since the middle of last summer, and I am glad to say that one of the first things that the new Commissioner did was to introduce some proposals that sought to deal with the problem of inflexibility between a direct and a wholesale quota when they are on one farm. We are continuing to discuss that. I hope that we shall be able to sort it out and finalise it at the next meeting of the Council at the end of the month.

Does the facility that makes it possible to transfer quotas from one part of the United Kingdom to another apply to this year only?

We have limited arrangements, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, for transferring milk from one farm to another. He will also know that my Department recently issued a consultation paper to try to find ways in future of making that simpler.

Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), is he aware that there are a few farmers in my constituency who are halfway through a development scheme, who will have no quota at all from 1985 onwards? In addition to trying to bring the 200,000 litre men up to full strength, will my right hon. Friend change his mind and attempt to find some quota for those small farmers who will have no livelihood unless they get some quota for 1985–86?

I am not absolutely clear in my mind about the question that my hon. Friend asks because, as I understand it, the problem concerns quota being available for future expansion after 1 April this year. However, if my hon. Friend cares to send me details of specific problems, I shall have a look at them and see what can be done.

Since the tribunals' recommended allocations of secondary quota are being scaled down by 42·5 per cent. in Scotland and 35 per cent. in England and Wales, and since it is likely that Britain could be 200 million litres short of its national quota this year, which is equivalent to the production of about 40,000 cows, will the Minister now accept that he has made a shambles of this and do something about it by expanding the outgoers scheme and allowing the milk marketing boards to do something about transferring quota between producers?

The hon. Gentleman has the wrong end of the stick altogether. The awards of the panels and tribunals will have to be scaled down, but that is a function of the extra 2·5 per cent. by which we lowered the primary quotas of milk producers in order to deal with hardship cases. I took advice from the National Farmers Unions at the time on whether it had a better figure than 2·5 per cent. in mind. Of course, we could have helped if we had taken 3 or 3·5 per cent. off milk producers' primary quotas, but the unions told me that they did not have a better figure than 2·5 per cent. in mind.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the purpose of the official visit by a Minister in his Department to the Caribbean in late January; how many persons were in the official party; and what was the total cost to public funds.

For the purpose of my hon. Friend's official visit, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) on 4 February. The party comprised four persons and the total cost is now estimated at £9,900.

Was that extravagant jaunt approved by the Prime Minister, or was she on holiday at the time? Was the cost of the Minister's husband, who was in the party, paid for by the taxpayer, and did she bring back with her any banana skins for the use of Ministers?

I see that the hon. Gentleman is up to his usual rather snide form. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary embarked on that visit on my instructions to ensure that the promised steps were being taken to improve the quality of bananas coming to the United Kingdom—which enjoy preferential access—from the Windward Islands and Jamaica. We have in the past received many complaints from importers about the quality of imports, but I am glad to say that British housewives are already enjoying better quality fruit as a result of our pressures, not least those from my hon. Friend.

Was the visit perhaps with a view to setting up a banana regime within the enlarged EEC? If banana growers within the enlarged EEC were given what they would call an adequate rate of return, might it not be possible for the EEC to become self-sufficient in bananas? Would that not be in the finest traditions both of the Ministry of Agriculture and of the common agricultural policy?

There is no intention in my mind of having a banana regime. If my hon. Friend cannot do rather better than that, he would have done better to stay in the Whips' Office.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider reviewing the presentation of statistics about farmers' income in the Annual Review of Agriculture.

The tables on these matters have all undergone considerable changes during the last two years and now provide more detailed and better information about farming income than was previously available. But I am always willing to consider suggestions for improvements to these statistical tables.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the presentation in the White Paper insufficient weight and prominence are given to the many qualifications which the White Paper admits must be attached to the estimates of farm incomes?

We have gone to considerable lengths to try to get this right in this particular year, and I believe that that is reflected in the comments on the figures in the media and elsewhere. My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that we should not look at just one figure and that there are very considerable variations between different sectors of agriculture, which are very firmly brought out in tables 26 and 27. He is absolutely right to draw attention to that.

Will the Minister ignore the current cant of the National Farmers Union, which is only bleating on behalf of its membership? Is it not right that for the next 10 years the farmers have to face some pretty rough justice, because, increasingly, money must be transferred within the European Community's budgets from agriculture to industry and they will have to take their fair share of the cuts?

We have made it clear that we believe that change has to come in agriculture where we have surpluses in the Community and in this country. That is what we are doing in all the negotiations on price fixing. But it is a great mistake to concentrate on certain sectors of farming. It is very important to stress that there are many farmers with extremely modest incomes who work all hours of the day and night to achieve them.

Will my hon. Friend consider including, as well as income figures for the farming community, the capital value of their assets, which are rarely reflected when these matters are considered and reported?

Those figures also are contained in the White Paper. The difficulty is that so much information is contained that it is very important to get the balance right, and that is what we endeavour to do.

However the statistics are presented, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 22 per cent. rise in farmers' incomes must mean that the cereal sector, where we are already heavily into over-production, must have done very well indeed? Can he justify the continuance of that?

We have made it clear for some time now that we are endeavouring to get a better balance between the cereal and livestock sectors, and we shall continue to do so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present structure and balance of farm incomes.

I am concerned that broadly there continues to be an imbalance between the arable sectors and most livestock sectors. We will take account of this imbalance during the forthcoming CAP price fixing.

Will the Minister accept that the large cereal producers, many of whom are to be found on the Government Back Benches, have done extremely well and continue to do well despite the great difficulties the small farmer generally faces? May we take it that the Minister will acknowledge that the small farmer today is for the first time feeling the cold breath of the 1930s, and does the Minister still expect the small fanner to continue to support the Conservative party?

Again, one has to look at different types of small farmer and different areas, but I certainly accept that in some areas the small farmer is having a difficult time, and I have made that clear. It is precisely because of our anxiety to help farmers of this sort that we are seeking a better balance between cereals and livestock. After all, the drop in cereal prices this year has undoubtedly benefited the livestock sector, and we shall continue with that approach.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he expects will be the total percentage self-sufficiency in sheepmeat production in the United Kingdom for 1984–85; and what is the anticipated self-sufficiency of the European Economic Community.

Forecasts are not available for the 1984–85 marketing year. Self-sufficiency for the 1984 calendar year is now estimated at 77 per cent. for the United Kingdom and 75 per cent. for the European Community.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the profound changes now taking place in agriculture mean that sheepmeat production will assume ever-increasing importance in British agriculture? Is he aware that his commitment to resist strongly any change in the variable premium schemes will be well received? Will he especially resist the Community proposal whereby any loss of return from the operation of the limited gap in the variable premium is not compensated by an increase in the ewe premium?

The Commission has proposed this year to put a ceiling on the variable premium. As this would help our exporters and could save money, we shall need to examine it carefully. We shall not, however, accept any mechanism of the kind to which my hon. Friend has referred, which is known as a recovery bar and discriminates particularly against British interests.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has submitted to the European Economic Community Commission any proposals to introduce greater flexibility into the milk quota scheme; and if he will make a statement.

As a result of our repeated pressure the Commission has now made proposals designed to provide greater flexibility between wholesale and direct sale quotas. I shall be pressing for the urgent adoption of these necessary measures.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's efforts in this direction. Is he aware that many producer retailers find themselves in a ludicrous position and look to my right hon. Friend to improve the situation as quickly as possible?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment. We have been pressing for this since last summer and I am very glad that the new Commissioner, almost within the first week of his duties in Brussels, has put forward proposals to make these necessary changes.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 14 February.

This Morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the Prime Minister of Italy.

As the flaws in section 2 of the Official Secrets Act have come to a head in the Ponting trial this week, but were originally brought to the attention of the House by Lord Franks in 1972, and as the present Attorney-General and Home Secretary condemned the provisions of that section as long ago as 1978, will the Prime Minister find time in her busy schedule today to convene a meeting with the express and urgent purpose of planning the early repeal of that section so as to create greater freedom of information and reserve only explicitly stated matters which must be subject to confidentiality?

As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Franks report was produced in 1972 by three Privy Councillors and a number of other hon. Members. A White Paper was issued six years later in 1978. In 1979, when the Conservative Government which I led came to power, we introduced a Bill to implement the Franks recommendations, but that Bill did not find favour with Parliament and we have not tackled the matter since. Many people want section 2 changed, but there is precious little agreement on how to change it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 14 February.

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

In the light of the barrage of allegations following the Ponting trial, does my right hon. Friend agree that the disclosure of intelligence information is inevitably bound to be useful to potential enemies? Will she assure the House that if there is any conflict between disclosure to the House and national security she will give first priority to national security?

Yes, I agree wholly with my hon. Friend. There is no right to information which may imperil the safety of the armed forces. Indeed, the Government have a duty to prevent the release of such information, and it is a duty which I shall continue to discharge.

May I first say how completely I agree with that last answer on the matter of national security. The Prime Minister will know that I have today written to her, having received her assurances that she was not involved in the joint decision to prosecute made on 17 August 1984 by the Law Officers, and on that point I am prepared to accept her assurances. I have said this to the Prime Minister in my letter of reply, and I have also enclosed several other questions relating to the decision to prosecute Clive Ponting. I now want the right hon. Lady to answer the question which she avoided answering on Tuesday.

I have received the right hon. Gentleman's letter. It contained no trace of apology or withdrawal of anything which he said — no trace whatsoever. Indeed, in many respects he repeated the assertion. He quoted from a letter written by—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer the question.

Order. I say to the House that it is unseemly to shout.

In his letter, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a letter written by the former Labour Attorney-General. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from it, but what he did not say was what the former Labour Attorney-General said at the beginning of his letter. The letter was written to The Times on 26 September 1984. The former Labour Attorney-General, Mr. Sam Silkin, said:

"the Prime Minister emphatically asserted that 'the Law Officers did not seek the view of, or consult with, any other minister, nor was the view of any other minister conveyed to them, before they took their decision to prosecute Mr. Ponting.'"

"As a statement of fact I do not question this assertion."

I am more than content to have the whole of Sam Silkin's letter quoted, but unfortunately the right hon. Lady, with her selective tastes, still does not answer the question which I asked.

I notice that the right hon. Gentleman does not have the grace to agree with the former Labour Attorney-General.

Rubbish. Everyone knows it.

Order. This is a very serious matter, of very great interest to the House and to everybody. I ask the House to give the Prime Minister a fair hearing.

Where information has lost its operational significance, we have given a full account of the facts, which have been published in the Official Report and have not been challenged. Other information still has great operational and intelligence significance, especially in a situation where the Argentine has still not ceased permanent hostilities against this country.

Wherever the national security or the safety of our troops and sailors is concerned, or wherever they may be imperilled, this House should be at one. Where questions of the integrity of Ministers is concerned, this House should be at one. The knowledge of movements of the battleship Belgrano is now encyclopaedic and detailed, and has been for many, many months. There are now no longer any details that could conceivably be related to any possibility of imperilling our troops.

The right hon. Gentleman is going right off beam. What I said, and have made perfectly clear—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is right off beam. He clearly knows nothing about intelligence matters. Where information has lost its operational significance, we have given a full account of the facts. Indeed, I think that if there is a charge to be made against me, it is that I have given too many facts that might best not have been given.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the majority of people in this country feel that the action taken over the Belgrano — whether it was steaming away at 50 knots or sailing round in circles—was the right action to take? Does she further agree that the Leader of the Opposition is naive in thinking that we should disclose how we got the knowledge, when and where, when it still has great military significance for our armed forces?

My hon. Friend has it absolutely right. The interesting thing is that out of the whole Falklands affair, brilliantly conducted and carried out, the Opposition can find only a couple of little quibbles. That shows what sort of people they are.

The Prime Minister must be aware that the charge of misleading the House is not a quibble—it is a very serious charge. Therefore, is it not incumbent upon her to come to the House on Monday to defend the position that she adopted following November 1982, when she became aware of the fact that some of the statements that had been made in this House were incorrect? That is a simple thing. The Prime Minister is, quite rightly, intent on getting a proper apology out of the Leader of the Labour party because there is a convention in this House that we trust each other's word. That convention is also based on the understanding that the record in Hansard is corrected at the earliest opportunity. That the Prime Minister did not do. She, as the head of the Government, should explain why it is that civil servants and Ministers appear to have misled this House and a Select Committee. She should do that in debate on Monday.

The debate on Monday will be taken by the Ministry of Defence and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I have already told the right hon. Gentleman, had he listened — I understand that he might not have heard, because it was a bit noisy — that where information has lost its operational significance we have given a full account of the facts. That full account of the facts was published in several columns of Hansard on, I believe, 29 October. Not one single fact or figure there has been challenged.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Does it relate to Question Time?

Yes, Sir. You will no doubt be aware, Mr. Speaker, and the House will be interested to know, that a couple of hours ago Mr. Clive Ponting was sacked by the Ministry of Defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Quite right."] My point of order is that although Mr. Ponting was cleared by a jury—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I have anything to do with that. There is a debate on the matter on Monday, and I should have thought that that would provide an admirable opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman can only raise a point of order that I can answer, and I cannot answer the question that he is asking me.

My point of order is simply this, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Ministry of Defence for permission to make a statement that will clear up the question of how a man can be found not guilty in a court of law and then sacked for the same offence?

I have not.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In Question Time there are now so many leaders around us all over the place—[Interruption ]

Order. I got as far as "leaders".

There are now so many leaders that it is increasingly difficult for a Back-Bencher to be called. Interesting as the exchanges are, will you, Mr. Speaker, take note of that and question yourself about it?

The hon. Gentleman has raised a very fair point. Indeed, I mentioned it this week, last week and, I believe, the week before that. It would be a great pity if Question Time involved only exchanges between the Front Benches. However, I do my best where I can to ensure that Back Benchers have an equal share of the time.