asked the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the proposed cuts in the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service funding outlined in the White Paper on public expenditure.

A small number of representations have been received expressing concern about the proposed cuts.

Does the Minister acknowledge that one of the reasons why the agriculture industry has had such success in increasing productivity is to the research and development work and advisory service of ADAS? Does he further acknowledge that the industry is under a great deal of pressure at the moment to try to conform to more environmental regimes of farming, to increase animal welfare and to deal with the whole question of high input, high output, farming? If the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges those things, does he agree that it is inapposite and inappropriate at this time to cut the ADAS budget in the way that he is proposing?

I gladly acknowledge the esteem in which ADAS is held and the quality of service for which ADAS is well known. I believe that it was right to ask Professor Bell to report. He recommended that the beneficiaries of services provided by ADAS should contribute to the cost of those services. I consider it only right that the industry should be given the opportunity to help to maintain the service that it requires.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the quality of the advice of ADAS is excellent and that, as a result, it has won the confidence of agriculture? Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that the similar advice that one can get on a commercial basis from companies with a financial interest is not of the same quality or value to the average farmer?

Many farmers prefer to get advice from ADAS, which they believe to be more likely to be independent than the advice that they can get from commercial sources.

Does the Minister agree that the chief advantage of ADAS is to the smaller farmer? Will not the scheme of charges that is now proposed inhibit the very people who benefit most from claiming such advice?

That is not necessarily so. I ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at Professor Bell's report, in which he suggested that the information technology of the latter part of this century should be brought into the service. We shall be investing a good deal of effort in finding modern ways of bringing advice to farmers, particularly small farmers.

Will the Minister explain why the proposed cut in Scotland, which, as he knows, operates under a tripartite arrangement with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the agricultural colleges, is almost twice that proposed for England and Wales? It is a cut of 41 per cent., at £3·5 million.

The hon. Gentleman ought to do his homework. The planned expenditure of £40 million by my Department on advisory services in 1987–88 will be reduced by £16·6 million, and the expenditure of £8·2 million by the Scottish Department will be cut by £3·4 million, which is the same percentage in each case.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is Her Majesty's Goverrment's policy towards the European Commission's latest agricultural price proposals and package; and if he will make a statement on the progress made to date by the Council of Agriculture Ministers in considering those proposals.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest position regarding the progress of the Common Market price negotiations.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall answer this question and question No. 5 together at the end of Question Time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to amend the guidelines governing the allocation of secondary milk quotas; and if he will make a statement.

I do not think it would be appropriate to change the guidelines now that the tribunal has virtually completed its work.

With a constituency case in mind, may I ask my right hon. Friend seriously and urgently to consider the familiar argument that dairy farmers who cannot economically diversify into other areas of production should receive more beneficial treatment than farmers who can diversify? Will he explain why, despite its compelling logic and natural justice, this principle has not been taken on board?

I am at a disadvantage in that I do not know the exact case to which my hon. Friend refers. However, I have been able to use the outgoers scheme. I hope that before long those small producers who experience the kind of difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred will have milk quotas returned to the level of production that applied in 1983 before milk quotas started.

Is the Minister able to tell the House why he has decided to remove himself from the capacity of providing a final review of appeals and tribunals which hand out secondary milk quotas? Is this not the Minister's own decision? Is it not a requirement which has been laid upon him by European legislation? Because of the number of anomalies now coming to light, which I grant are not many, would it not be better for the Minister to have the capacity to review those decisions?

I recognise that there may be certain categories of producers who do not fall within the provisions laid down by the regulations but who nevertheless are in need of an additional quota. With the help of the tribunal, I am attempting to identify those categories. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the problem is to find additional quota to give to them. There is only one place from which that could come — from other farmers who have a quota.

Where is the consistency for the smaller, exclusive dairy producer? On the one hand, he has been led to believe by my right hon. Friend that he will achieve a milk quota equivalent of at least a 40-cow herd; on the other hand, as a result of his appearance before the tribunal, he is being cut to less than that equivalent output.

Again, I do not know the case that my hon. Friend has in mind. If he is referring to those cases where the tribunal has cut the amount of secondary quota that was awarded by the panels, I should point out that the tribunal is a judicial body over which I have no control. Farmers were warned early on during the tribunal hearings that some secondary quotas were being cut. Therefore, they went to the tribunal with that risk in mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the areas where livelihoods and jobs are being hit hardest by the quota policy do not have much of an alternative but to grow grass? As the farms are relatively small, they cannot therefore earn a decent income from beef or sheepmeat. Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to protect those areas and bear that observation in mind, especially when considering the suggested free market in quotas?

Bearing in mind the answer that I gave a few moments ago, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that I have tried to help the smaller farmer because of the difficulties created by milk quotas. I have always made it clear, both in the House and outside, that I am sympathetic towards the possibility of getting more flexibility into the transfer of milk quotas. I have always been attracted by the possibility of leasing quotas. I intend at a very early date to push that possibility with the Council of Ministers and with the Commission in Brussels.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the doubts and lack of decision in the milk industry have gone on for too long and that it is time the tribunal and the quotas were finally clarified? Farmers cannot be expected to go on any longer not knowing their ultimate quota.

Yes, I agree. The tribunal has virtually finished its work. We have almost reached the end of telling farmers what their secondary quotas are. As the House knows, there will be a cutback on wholesale awards in England and Wales, which we believe will be at least 35 per cent. I hope that we can get the matter tidied up shortly.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about helping small farmers. I remind him again that in Northern Ireland he has only 1 per cent. of what he required in the milk buy-out scheme, even after a second bite at the cherry to buy out further quota. How far along the road has he proceeded, and has he any solution to the problem?

It is true that the take-up of the outgoers scheme has been a good deal less in Northern Ireland, and that has made it more difficult to meet the problems of the small farms there. We are giving urgent attention to that matter.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is now a milk register in all the countries of the EC?

I should not like to answer for some countries in the Community. I sometimes think that the responsibility for dealing with these matters in one country is enough for any man.

What has been the good of running an elaborate scheme of appeal tribunals to assess the need for secondary quota if their recommendations have to be scaled down by 42·5 per cent. in Scotland and at least 35 per cent. in England and Wales? Will the Minister now accept the need for an expanded and more flexible outgoers scheme to provide a quota to satisfy the clearly proven need?

We would not have needed a cutback on wholesale awards if I had originally made a larger cut than 9 per cent. on milk production at 1983 levels. I had to make a judgment at that time as to how much it was fair to add to the 6·15 per cent. cutback. I took the view that 2·5 per cent. was right. When I asked the National Farmers Union if it had a better figure in mind, it was unable to give me a more suitable figure, so I acted on my judgment.

Does my right hon. Friend accept, at least in principle, the need for greater transferability of quota between one farm and another, including, if necessary, a more reasonable system for the allocation of ownership of quota between tenants and landowners?

I understand the problem to which my hon. Friend refers, and so did the NFU in its response to the consultation paper that we recently put out. But, in terms of what can be negotiated in Brussels, we are more likely to obtain progress on greater flexibility by moving towards leasing than by moving towards sale and purchase.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to monitor the Norwegian pout fishery in the North sea for the purpose of checking the percentage by-catch.

The fisheries protection service, under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, has conducted extensive sampling of catches in the Norway pout fishery since October. Up to the end of February, 64 vessels had been boarded at sea, and the catches from a further 15 vessels had been checked on landing. Of the 79 vessels checked, 80 per cent. had less than a 10 per cent. by-catch of the species concerned, mainly haddock and whiting. Only one was over the 18 per cent. limit, and a successful prosecution resulted.

The amount of monitoring that is going on will be recognised, but I am sure that the Minister will equally acknowledge that there is still a great sense of grievance in the fishing industry at the increased by-catch. I am sure he is aware that a boat, under the auspices of the Scottish Fishing Federation, is conducting its own monitoring exercise. If the result of that shows that damage is being done to white fish stocks by the current pout fishery, will he give due weight to that experiment and ensure that it increases his resolve to resist any extension of the present 18 per cent. by-catch rule beyond 31 May?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we secured substantial changes in the proposal last year without any support whatever. If the proposal for an extension is put forward—and that is not known at this stage—it will have to be considered in the light of the monitoring of fisheries under the present rules and in the light of the latest scientific advice. Obviously, we shall look at all the evidence. Our paramount consideration which is also the paramount interest of our fishermen, is to ensure that there is adequate protection of the juvenile component of the North sea white fish stocks.

I welcome the Minister's figures for current monitoring, but will he bear in mind that a 10 per cent. by-catch was presented to fishermen as the final settled common fisheries policy? The increase to 18 per cent. was regarded as a sell-out. It is therefore essential that no extension of that is permitted. If, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) suggests, there is any attempt to raise it, Scottish fishermen will make an unholy effort to obstruct that.

With regard to the common fisheries policy, I think that it has always been understood that changes can be made on conservation aspects. Last year I made it clear to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) that I thought that United Kingdom fishermen were unlikely to suffer any reduction in their effective fishing opportunities, particularly in the fishing of whiting — which is what people were concerned about—as a result of the change. I think that that has proved to be so, because we did not reach our full whiting quota last year. We have managed to obtain a substantially increased whiting quota this year, which suggests that the conservation effects are not as people originally suggested. However, I shall certainly monitor the position very carefully.

Does the Minister accept that it is vital that the edible fish stocks that have been reestablished, largely as a result of sacrifices made by British fishermen, should be protected? In the light of the evidence which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland obtain, and in the light of that secured following the exercise carried out by the Scottish Fishing Federation, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to do everything possible to protect those fish stocks from over-fishing?

Yes, and I agree that the adequate protection of our stocks is a key consideration. That is one of the points that we shall have most in mind in approaching any changes within the common fisheries policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the English Vineyards Association; and what subjects were discussed.

Ministers from this Department have not met the chairman of the English Vineyards Association, but this Department is in regular touch with the association.

I hope that my hon. Friend will arrange to meet the chairman of the English Vineyards Association. Is she aware that English wine comes from English grapes grown in the 200 or so commercial vineyards in this country, whereas the only thing British about British wine is the water added to imported syrup or grape must? When she meets the chairman, will she tell him what she intends to do to ensure that the British public are not continually deceived into thinking that they are being patriotic by buying British wine, just because of misleading wine labelling?

I must disagree with my hon. Friend in that respect. It is for local authorities and the courts to decide whether the public are being misled and whether labels comply with food labelling regulations and the Trade Descriptions Act. My hon. Friend will know that the labelling of British wine is covered by a voluntary code of practice to prevent confusion with English wine from English vineyards. The labels on British wine are marked, "Made from imported grape juice."

Does my hon. Friend realise that there is no wine lake in Devon, and that the growing of grapes might prove to be a good alternative crop while we have surpluses in other things? Just as we in Devon produce the finest cider, we might also produce some Chateau Devon.

In 1984, English wine production was about 1,350,000 litres from 325 hectares. Another 106 hectares have been planted out but are not yet producing. Perhaps my hon. Friend should be sorry that there are not any in Devon.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total volume and value of surplus food stocks currently held (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the European Economic Community as a result of the common agricultural policy.

On 28 February intervention stocks of beef, breadwheat, butter and skimmed milk powder in the United Kingdom were 321,820 tonnes, valued at their purchase price at some £450 million. On 30 November 1984 intervention stocks of these products and sugar held in the Community as a whole were 7,847,000 tonnes, valued on the same basis at £4·2 billion.

Is it not an unforgivable crime against humanity for the British Government to support the policy of hoarding millions of tonnes of surplus food stocks while at the same time over 30 million people in more than 20 African countries are facing the threat of starvation? If the Government are too narrow-minded to give up membership of the Common Market rich man's club, will they at least consider taking emergency unilateral action to release more food stocks to help starving people in the Third world?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is as a result of the very successful and effective efforts of British farmers that we have moved in 10 years from being a major net grain importer to being a major grain exporter. It is only that that has enabled us to contribute substantially to the food aid programme. The hon. Gentleman will know that substantial quantities of grain are supplied both by the Community and by the United Kingdom and that the European Council agreed in Dublin to provide 1·2 million tonnes of grain to the drought-stricken African countries before the next harvest. We have also done a good deal this year. The United Kingdom is playing a big part in both respects.

Much as we may blame the common agricultural policy, does my hon. Friend agree that in this country we now have a whole range of national aids in the form of grants, subsidies and tax allowances, nearly all goading farmers into increasing output, whereas in the rest of the Common Market the national aids are directed in the main to other objectives, including helping smaller farmers and new entrants into farming?

My hon. Friend should consider the changes that have been made in the capital grants scheme in the United Kingdom in the last two or three years, where considerable reductions have been made in the areas where there has been a surplus. He will also note that we have geared those changes so that we are helping and protecting the smaller farmer as against the larger farmer.

Can my hon. Friend assure us that if all the Members of Parliament who received cotton seeds this morning were to plant them, we would not have over-production of cotton?

I suspect that not many Members of Parliament have yet got as far as realising that they were in their postbags this morning, so I think I can give that assurance.

Has the Minister had any consultation with his counterparts in Europe about abolishing the intervention scheme for beef? Is he in favour of introducing a deficiency payment scheme similar to the one operating within the sheep industry to help beef producers and housewives?

Of course, the variable premium scheme achieves precisely that. I think the hon. Gentleman will know that we have made it clear that we shall put up just as stern a fight as we did last year to ensure the continuance of that scheme if we can possibly achieve it.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is preferable in some respcts to have surpluses of food, as we have in Europe, as opposed to deficits, as there are in some of the countries which the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) associates with and supports?

It is a sensible safeguard to have some surpluses and to have a system which ensures supplies to the consumer of commodities where production can vary from year to year. As I am sure my hon. Friend recognises, the problem is that our farming industry has been so successful in some commodities that we are in danger of having regular surpluses well beyond our requirements. It is to deal with that problem that we have to try to achieve reforms within the Community.

Is the Minister aiming to increase or decrease cereal production in the Community in the coming year?

We are endeavouring to get a long-term realistic price policy so that producers can respond to market signals. That is why we have been arguing that we should go somewhat beyond what the Commission has been proposing this year and try to get a policy for a longer period than one year.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's tendency to try to help small farmers, but they do not receive the aids that small business men receive. Will my hon. Friend make more positive gestures to help small farmers whose difficulties in managing the grants—

Order. The question is about the EC.

Perhaps my hon. Friend will answer on that basis.

I have had some experience of both aspects of the question. Within the European Comunity system specific aids go to small farmers, and here at home there is considerable concentration on the small farmer which is as extensive as that on small businesses in general.

Has the Department made an estimate of the stocks of cereal and livestock which will be surplus at the end of the decade, since 50 per cent. more beef and between 60 and 200 per cent. more cereal is now in storage?

That is difficult to estimate, because we do not know what changes will take place in the price review An extensive review of policy generally is now taking place in the Commission. We shall have to await the outcome of that. It is clear that if we continue with the same policies that we have operated over recent years the stocks of both commodities will be too high.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce the 18 per cent. by-catch allowance to Danish industrial fishing boats to 10 per cent. and then to 5 per cent.

The Council regulation which provides a derogation allowing a white fish by-catch of 18 per cent. subject to a limit of 8 per cent. on species other than whiting, when fishing for Norway pout in the northern and central divisions of the North sea will expire on 31 May 1985. The permitted white fish by-catch will then revert to 10 per cent. for all species unless a decision is taken to the contrary.

Does the Minister concede that the pout box is there to protect the breeding grounds and the young, immature white fish which could be caught up in industrial fishing? Does he agree that a by-catch of 18 per cent. is a threat to the stocks and to our fishing industry? Does he further accept that the increase in the quota from 10 per cent. — which was assumed by our industry to be an integral part of the common fisheries policy settlement — was rushed through by the Commission in a way in which we never rush through conservation provisions? Does the Minister therefore accept that not only must the by-catch limit be cut and properly policed, but that there is a case for ending industrial fishing altogether?

I do not think that the increase in quota was rushed through, because we argued about it for five months. As a result of those arguments we managed to agree on substantial changes, including better sampling techniques, to enable us to ensure more rigorous enforcement, as has happened this year. The key consideration is the conservation of the stocks. That is what we have most in mind, and that is what we shall be examining if another proposal is made.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to protect the United Kingdom fishing industry from the dangers to the industry resulting from the entry of Spain into the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

The terms of Spanish entry into the Community are still under negotiation. We have so far been successful in maintaining a Community negotiating position on fisheries which safeguards the present balance of the common fisheries policy and the interests of the United Kingdom industry.

Is the Minister aware that the Spanish fishing fleet is larger than the whole of the Common Market fishing fleet put together? Is he further aware of the deep fear among British fishermen about what will happen to their catches and their livelihoods when Spain enters the Common Market? What action is the Minister taking to defend the British fishermen in the negotiations? Is his Department represented in the negotiations? What action will he take to reassure British fishermen?

I agree that the problem is the size of the Spanish fishing fleet and the failure of the Spaniards so far to bring it into line with fishing opportunities. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the bigger part of the Spanish fishing fleet operates, and will continue to operate, in third country waters away from the Community. It is in our interests to ensure that every encouragement is given to Spain to restructure its fleet. At the same time, we must consider the cost to the Community of achieving that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fishing industry in the south-west in particular feels very vulnerable, especially as in the past agreements on paper have not always existed in reality?

If Spain and Portugal are to enter the Community, it is essential that we strengthen the existing policing and the inspectorate. The current exclusion of Spanish vessels from the Irish and Celtic seas — the so-called Irish box — in our view should continue for a long transitional period.

When the Secretary of State talks about the restructuring of the Spanish fleet, he is presumably talking about the reduction of the fleet. What is the likely reduction of that fleet; that is, the part of the fleet that can fish in European waters? Is the EC to give compensataon to Spanish fishing interests, and will part of that compensation be given to Spanish fishermen whose employment disappears when their vessels tie up at the quay?

I referred a few moments ago to the fact that in restructuring the Spanish fleet we shall have to consider what the cost will be to the Community. We are insisting that the numbers of Spanish vessels operating in waters of existing member states should remain subject to clear and enforceable limits for a very long period, if not for the full duration of the current common fisheries policy.

Will the Minister give us an idea of the timetable for the negotiations which he is working on at the moment? Will he give us an assurance that if he cannot get a deal that is acceptable to the British industry he is prepared to block the accession deal?

The Community's current position is that the basic transitional period should be 10 years, with a review in 1993. Transition could be ended before 10 years if the Council so agreed, but in the absence of specific decisions control arrangements would go forward for a further period, possibly up to another five years.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if satisfactory arrangements cannot be arrived at in this matter we will not accept the accession of Spain to the Community on unsatisfactory terms?

As my hon. Friend will know, these are all matters that are currently within the negotiations. Following on the previous question, if it proved possible to agree satisfactory arrangements applying right up to the end of the present common fisheries policy in the year 2002, it would clearly be worth going for that if we cannot get a shorter agreement.

Will the Minister comment upon the decision by the European Assembly this morning that the Falklands and perhaps, consequentially, Ascension, Saint Helena, Martinique, Guadaloupe and every other part of the Community should have a 200-mile zone to buy off Spanish fishing resources in the eastern Atlantic?

The hon. Gentleman will know that these matters do not come within my own departmental responsibility, but I will draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be in a position to comment on the proposed changes to the meat marketing scheme.

Many of the recommendations in the recent review of meat promotion — I think that this is what my hon. Friend was referring to — which was carried out for the Meat and Livestock Commission by an independent review team concern the MLC's work and organisation. These are matters for the MLC to decide. A few involve the Government's responsibilities. On these we await an approach from the MLC in the light of its consultations with the industry interests concerned.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given the controversy that the Webb report has already generated, does my hon. Friend think that agreement can be reached among the meat producers and others involved in the meat industry on the next steps to be taken? If so, when?

I know that the commission is seized of the need to make decisions as quickly as possible. The commission is anxious and keen to carry out the consultation procedure properly, and this takes time. I hope that the various interests can reach a broad measure of agreement — I am sure that my hon. Friend is with me on that point — with the MLC on any new arrangements that would require parliamentary approval. We would need to have detailed discussion with the commission when the commission makes up its mind. I cannot, at this stage, say when that will be.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in terms of meat production and consumption, it is essential that we continue with the beef premium, the suckler cow subsidy and the hill and livestock compensatory allowance, all of which are crucial to providing beef for the housewife in the short and long term?

As I have said to the House before, we entirely agree with my hon. Friend's point about the beef variable premium scheme. That is what we shall endeavour to achieve in the price review negotiations on which we have embarked. On the hill and livestock compensatory allowance my hon. Friend will know that we have recently completed agreement on the new structures programmes, and I see no reason why they should not continue.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average consumer price of lamb and beef in the United Kingdom.

The prices of different cuts of meat vary widely. Information collected by the Department of Employment in the course of constructing the retail price index indicates that the price of a leg of home-killed lamb in January 1985 was 169·1p per lb, compared with 159·1 per lb a year ago. The price of chuck braising steak, for example, was 170p per lb in January 1985, compared with 168.5p per lb in January 1984.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Ignoring the different cuts, and taking the average price per pound of a carcase of lamb, is it not true that the price of a pound of lamb is cheaper in this country than in any other country in Europe and that, similiarly, the price of a pound of beef is cheaper in Britain than in any other European country, except Holland? Is that not a tribute to the sheepmeat regime and the beef variable premium, which we must retain?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the beef and the sheepmeat variable premium schemes have helped to keep down the price of meat to the consumer. The schemes have benefited producers while reducing the need for costly intervention.

I recognise that the sheepmeat regime has given the consumer a good deal. Will the Government press strongly during the negotiations in Brussels to ensure that the seasonal scale of the sheepmeat regime is altered to the advantage of our farmers?

We are trying to do exactly that.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the Minister's reply yesterday was less than totally reassuring about the Government's commitment to defend the beef variable premium and the sheepmeat regime? Since these measures are almost unique in the common agricultural policy, in that they are to the benefit of not only the producer but the consumer, may we have a cast-iron guarantee that they will be retained?

The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already said today that we shall be pressing strongly for the retention of the beef variable premium scheme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on the new British food quality mark scheme recently launched by the Food from Britain organisation.

The Government welcome this important marketing initiative on the part of British food producers. It shows that they understand the importance of achieving high standards of quality.

Will my hon. Friend give every encouragement to an increase in the portfolio of goods carrying the mark? Will she pay particular attention to the excellent quality of fruit and vegetables available from the county of Kent?

My hon. Friend will know that I have a slight bias towards the county of Kent. The Government have a commitment of £14 million during the first five years. The long-term success of Food from Britain will depend also on the support that it receives from industry.

Does the Minister recognise that the other St. Michael has already given the scheme the thumbs down by saying that it is not good enough for Marks and Spencer? Will she have urgent consultations to see that the scheme truly raises standards in this country?

I believe that it truly raises standards. The other St. Michael has exceptionally high standards.

Does the Minister accept that many countries to which we export food rightly insist upon more information about the content of the food being provided, and that she should now insist on it in view of the announcement that she made at a press conference a few days ago? Will she again consider nutritional food labelling to improve the information given to British people as well as those abroad?

We are discussing nutritional food labelling with the food industry. We do not intend to make it mandatory, as with fat labelling, but we should like to see a format specified by regulation so that it can be recognised by the consumer.

asked the Prime Minister if she is satisfied with the arrangements for financing of public service broadcasting; and if she will make a statement.

The current BBC licence fee application will be settled on the basis of the present arrangements. As far as the longer term is concerned, I have made it absolutely clear that we do not rule out the possibility of changes.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for her answer, may I ask whether she agrees that it is important to bear in mind that there are already a large number of pensioners and low income households which find it hard to pay the existing fee? Will she also resist calls to fund the BBC out of general taxation, which would remove its independence and tend to put it in the hands of the Government of the day?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about increases in the licence fee. He will be aware of the recent Peat Marwick Mitchell report, which suggested a number of improvements in efficiency, which my right hon. and learned Friend will be taking into account before he makes his decision. I have no intention of putting the BBC's licence fee, or any part of it, on to the general body of taxpayers.

Is not the flaw in the right hon. Lady's policies that she knows the price of everything but is unaware of the value of anything?

The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the BBC.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main problem which the BBC and the Government face with the BBC's request for an increase, which many of us regard as excessive, is that the BBC has failed tc address itself to the question—let alone attempted the answer—as to what the licence payer should be expected to pay for in 1985 in these days of multi-choice broadcasting? Will she consider a wide-ranging inquiry into the whole future of public service broadcasting?

I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. The BBC's licence fee is in the nature of a compulsory levy on people who have television sets. I have taken note of his other suggestions.

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

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

During the course of the Prime Minister's busy day, will she consider the problems at the Springburn British Rail engineering workshop, where the work force is to be reduced from 1,500 to 500? Since the turn of the year about three major redundancies have been announced in my constituency and some young people are even getting married without ever having had a decent job. Will she come to Springburn and tell us that her policies are working?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the amount of work for British Rail workshops has diminished as changes in the business on the railways and in the type of equipment which they use occur. With regard to his wider question, we are doing everything that we can to increase the youth training scheme and to give more young people technical training so that they may be better able to find jobs.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Kirklees metropolitan district council appears to be misguided when, having given away £35,000 to support striking miners, it now finds it necessary to increase the rates by 35 per cent. to save local authority jobs, given that that will put in jeopardy many jobs in my local industries?

Such a rate increase puts an enormous burden on small businesses especially, because it has to go on to their costs and therefore on to their prices. That makes them less competitive and can deprive the area of jobs. It is also an enormous increase for domestic ratepayers.

I know that the Prime Minister will share my concern and that of millions of other people about the increase in crimes such as mugging and robbery, the increase in drug-taking and the acts of hooliganism such as those last night, which horrified the people of Luton and the whole country. Since concern clearly is not enough, what is the right hon. Lady's personal view of the main causes of these afflictions of society?

It is not for me to give a personal view on that. The crime figures for 1984 show that there has been a large overall increase in the number of notifiable offences recorded. This is in spite of the increased police manpower and better training and equipment.

I am sure that the Prime Minister was not trying intentionally to evade my question. The problems of breakdown in behaviour are so great that none of us can simply watch them increase. Everyone, most of all the House of Commons and everyone in it, must have a direct opinion on what are the main causes. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need action to identify and deal with the causes of these afflictions and the breakdown in behaviour in society? Does she agree, further, that asking the police and the courts to bear even greater burdens is no answer and that issuing yet another White Paper undertaking yet another inquiry is no answer for the old who are frightened, for parents who are anxious and for young people who have to grow up in this society?

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, there have been many theses and inquiries into the causes of crime. Despite all of them, crime has increased under all Governments and in all countries. The causes vary from lack of parental discipline and lack of teacher discipline to background—in fact, to everything. Having said that, it is not exactly easy to cure it. We have to tackle it by way of increased numbers of police and increased equipment. I believe that what the Court of Appeal said in the case of R. v. Wood in January 1984 is very true:

"It seems to us, that the time has come for the courts to impose sentences which may deter those who are minded to use violence at or near football grounds."

rose—

No.

This is a national problem, which faces us all. It requires national answers that involve us all. The right hon. Lady is still talking about symptoms. What will she do about the causes? Why will she not accept offers of help in identifying those causes and in curing the problem?

When one has said that contributory causes are family background, parental discipline and teachers' discipline, it does not help to solve the problem. It may help the right hon. Gentleman to get through Question Time, but it does not help in solving the problem.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when dealing with punishment for serious crime, there must be a distinction between offences which do not involve violence and offences which do involve violence? Does she agree that for offences involving violence, only in rare cases should the offender escape imprisonment?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, and I believe that that is what the Court of Appeal was saying in the case that I cited.

Will the right hon. Lady take time to consider the fact that a rating revaluation is taking place in Scotland for the second time and that there has been no similar revaluation in England? As this means a 17 per cent. increase in rates — almost four times the rate of inflation—and is defended by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the ground that it will protect Scottish ratepayers, to avoid an unfair advantage being given to one part of the United Kingdom will she order its postponement until similar protection is offered to English ratepayers?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the system for revaluation is different in Scotland from that in England. Had I interfered, he would have been the first to complain.

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

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

Has my right hon. Friend seen the alternative Budget proposals put forward by the deputy leader of the Labour party, in which he calls for a 98 per cent. maximum rate of taxation and describes his proposals as penal? Does she agree that the Labour party has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing during its six years in opposition?

Yes, Sir. Now we have it directly from the Labour party that it wishes to reimpose penal taxation rates up to 98 per cent. That is confiscation. It is a tax on enterprise and initiative and it will not help the country, jobs or industry to recover.

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

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

Further to the question of the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), is the Prime Minister completely unaware of the outrage felt in Scotland about revaluation? Will she now instruct the Secretary of State for Scotland to postpone the revaluation either until he carries out his promise to reform the rating system or until revaluation takes place in the rest of Britain?

The difficulty that arises from revaluation is the variation between the amounts raised from industrial and commercial ratepayers and those raised from domestic ratepayers. That is only a small part of the problem. The real problem is the high rate of expenditure and the comparatively few domestic ratepayers. That means that rates are not a proper tax on the accountability of the local authority.

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

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

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to confirm that teachers' pay has increased by 9 per cent. ahead of prices since 1979, and that if we wish to improve what is currently on offer to individual teachers the way to do so is to reward merit, which would involve not paying any more to those teachers who deny children examination opportunities and who also threaten schools for the handicapped, 10 of which are under serious threat?

I agree with my hon. Friend that teachers' pay should be restructured to take into account performance and success in teaching children, which, after all, is the fundamental job. I agree also in condemning some of the strikes that there will be this week and next week that affect special schools. That is one of the most despicable and disgraceful things that a teacher can do. For example, this week teachers are on strike at a boarding school for 300 partially sighted children, among others. That is disgraceful.