asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on the size of intervention stocks of cereals held in Britain.

I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister, who is at a Council meeting in Brussels.

Will my right hon. Friend explain how those quantities persist even after a poor harvest? Does he agree that those surplus stocks represent a standing indictment of the way in which the common agricultural policy is still being run and are doing great damage to the image of British farming? Will my right hon. Friend make proposals for reducing those surpluses?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the surplus stocks are far too high and do no good to the image of agriculture. The Commission has presented its proposals and they are being discussed. It is obviously necessary to move the CAP away from being a means of ensuring that we do not have a shortage of food and towards becoming a system that enables us to control what are now surpluses.

What is the cost of that storage exercise in a full year? What proportion of cereal stocks have been in store for more than 12 months?

Detailed replies to those questions have been given to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends recently, but the average cost of commercial storage is about £10·22 per tonne per year.

Are not cereal farmers already getting far too much subsidy? When will something realistic be done to reduce those subsidies so that consumers pay a reasonable price for their bread?

My hon. Friend is right to say that price must be the basis of the removal of the surpluses; there must be much greater price discipline. However, we must also ensure that there is a sufficient return for the farmer so that he is able to produce the goods. We have to balance those aspects. If we are to do that, we must ensure that the increasing ability of farmers to grow more on the same acreage results in a lower price per tonne.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the impact of milk quotas in England and Wales.

At the end of November total wholesale deliveries in England and Wales were about 2·5 per cent. below the Milk Marketing Board's quota projection. If this trend continues, no producer will be liable for levy on milk he supplies to the MMB. I hope that producers will take good note of this and make every effort to maximise uptake of our national quotas.

In spite of the temporary underproduction compared with the quota, does the Minister accept that a further 3 per cent. cut across the board throughout the Common Market would be unfair to this country and lead to a further loss of jobs in our creameries? Has the right hon. Gentleman any new proposals for action within the Common Market over the flouting of its rules by countries such as France and Ireland? We religiously stick to what has been agreed.

That is not an accurate statement of what has happened in the rest of the Community. We are discussing a further Community outgoers' scheme. We have the details and the scheme is before the Council. We have to make a decision. We are still talking about a considerable surplus of milk throughout the Community and we must put that right.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain's milk output is as low as is desirable and that the only merit of the 3 per cent. reduction scheme is that it gives some rights to tenants? However, the amounts per cow are too generous and the knock-on effects in beef and other sectors would be disastrous.

We have many real concerns about the proposals and my hon. Friend has mentioned some of his concerns. Clearly, we must argue those proposals out. However, it remains true that the Community does have a surplus of milk. If there is a surplus, the consumer pays through the tax system in the end.

Is the Minister aware that most of the dairy industry will be appalled by his answers? When will the Government face up to the disproportionate cuts in production and jobs that have taken place in Britain's dairy industry? Will the Government recognise that the proposed outgoers' scheme is likely to have a disproportionate effect in Britain? Many organisations, including the Dairy Trade Federation, have argued that case. When will the Government start saving jobs in the dairy industry?

It seems that the hon. Gentleman, who represents a party which claims to be an internationalist party, has an odd view of the European Economic Community and the excellent way in which it seeks to solve the problems of agriculture across Europe.

Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that if at the end of the milk year British producers have not produced up to quota there will be no question of the national quota being reduced in ensuing years?

My hon. Friend is right. We are concerned to fight for a fair deal for Britain within the Community. In that case, it would obviously be wrong for the quota to be changed because we did not meet it this year for what may well be temporary reasons. However, it is to the advantage of the industry if it does produce up to quota. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister has drawn that to the industry's notice.

Why do the cheese manufacturers complain that they cannot obtain enough milk to manufacture Cheddar cheese in Britain if, as the hon. Gentleman says, we are running short of our quota?

The hon. Gentleman is right in that there have been complaints from some manufacturers. That is a matter for the Milk Marketing Board, which decides where the milk shall go. It is, in its view, the right way to do it. I am looking into this matter carefully because it would be quite wrong if there were any truth in that allegation.

In 1984 we had a shortfall in milk output targets and we shall also have a shortfall this year. Is that not an indictment? Is it not high time that we had a scheme for transferring quotas between farmers?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the quota system will not work effectively unless there is a reasonable degree of transferability between farmers. Britain has always stood for that. We are fighting hard in the Council to see that we get a sensible transfer scheme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will propose to the European Economic Community that surplus cereals in intervention should be released for use as feed by farmers who have been adversely affected by the severe weather crisis.

Feed grain in intervention stores in Great Britain is available for sale on the home market at the intervention price. There is little demand at present, as supplies from the open market are cheaper. In addition, measures have already been adopted to make intervention feed wheat from stores in Great Britain available in Northern Ireland.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that the feed grain which was given to Northern Ireland was given at a reduced price? In view of the information that he conveyed to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) in an earlier question, does he agree that all farmers who suffer severely from the winter weather crisis should be entitled to the same consideration, whether in Scotland, England or Northern Ireland?

I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that it is reasonable for people to be able to get the feed wheat at least at the same price in various parts of the country. We needed to transfer the wheat to Northern Ireland, and there were special reasons why it had to be done from the rest of the United Kingdom intervention stores. As for that being part of weather aid, it was considered, and I think in general the agricultural community agrees that it was right to provide that aid in other ways. A certain amount of money was available and we used it in other ways, but we do not believe that in Scotland that would have been the best way to help those worst hit by the bad weather.

At the end of November over 29 per cent. of the intervention stock of cereals had been held for over a year. Is it not time that we had action rather than words from the Government to deal with that problem in view of the cost that the Minister gave in reply to an earlier question.

Of course it is time that we stopped over-production of cereals. That is why the Government have fought hard for a system that is based upon price restraint and ensures that in the future we do not produce too much. We have passed through a period in which shortage has been the main problem. We have moved into a period in which we are producing too much, and in those circumstances the whole system of agricultural support must be turned to deal with the new situation of plenty.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there has been a warm welcome in Scotland and the north of England for the help that he has been able to give farmers who have been affected by the extremely bad weather? Nevertheless, referring to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie), it would be of additional assistance if my right hon. Friend could give some intervention grain for feed mixtures until the spring. It could be helpful for livestock producers.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point about the great welcome that has been given to that package. It has been widely accepted as especially good in view of Government restraint on expenditure. It is unlikely that that package will be extended, although, of course, I shall carefully consider what he said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what acreage of barley and wheat has been sown this winter.

This information will not be available until about March, when the results of the December agricultural census will be published.

Is the Minister aware that the substantial areas that have already been planted will add to the cereal mountain next summer? As 29 per cent. of the cereal in intervention stores has been there for more than 12 months, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, does the Minister recognise the complete inadequacy of his proposals and those of the European Commission to deal with the matter? What is his response to the Labour party's demand for incentives for alternative land uses coupled, if necessary, with a quota scheme for cereals?

It is odd that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that his party has any answer to that problem, because we are now in a world in which technological advance has meant considerable increases in what we can produce. We should start by saying, thank God that we are in the business of dealing with plenty rather than shortage. The answer must be a Community answer. The Commission has put before us proposals about which we have considerable doubts. We are seeking a price restraint system which will ensure that we do not produce too much. The hon. Gentleman may push his hand like that, but if we have too high a price we shall go on producing too much.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that he must find an answer to this problem? If he will not accept quotas, will he accept production control? Does he agree that every other industry has to accept such control? It is time that the Government recognised that cutting prices will not solve the problem; it will aggravate it. We must alter our stance and have production control in cereals.

My hon. Friend and I have argued about this matter before. I am aware that we do not agree. Until we have a package in which price is the basic way in which we reduce production—

No. Nonsense.

—we shall not have a package at all.

Give it to him.

It is all right for Labour Members to say, "Give it to him," to my hon. Friends, but at least my hon. Friends are arguing about something for which they care, which is more than the Opposition do.

What estimates has the Minister made of the impact on British cereal production in the current year of the Commission's cut in cereal prices in that year?

There has been a net cut of about 3·5 per cent. in the price of cereals. We cannot dissociate that from any other element which has affected production this year. I am sure that had the price continued to increase production would have increased even more than it has.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many involved in the industry feel that if a prudent price policy is to be effective the cuts must be dramatic? That being so, there is a move within the industry to support acreage quotas. What is his view on that?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct and that the industry is moving towards a mixture of price and some kind of quota system. I hope that the industry considers carefully how such a system would be policed and organised and whether it would not, perhaps, result in a kind of sterilisation of the industry which neither he nor any of my other hon. Friends would like.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will convene an inquiry to study and recommend methods of standard and informative food labelling.

My right hon. Friend the Minister is advised on such matters by the Food Advisory Committee, which is composed of independent experts. Its reports, and any proposals for legislation, are subject to consultation with all interested parties.

How long will it be before the Ministry implements the findings of its research, carried out in conjunction with the National Consumer Council, into whether clearer labelling should be provided on canned food, and especially should show levels of added sugar and salt? If that does not happen, would not the Ministry be open to the charge that it is simply pandering and kowtowing to the interests of the canned food manufacturers?

No. My right hon. Friend made it very clear that we accepted the report of COMA. We have been holding consultations to find the most practical way to implement it. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we also carried out a consumer survey to assess the needs of consumers in relation to labelling. We are considering all the comments made and hope to bring forward proposals shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 60 per cent. of those responsible for food shopping who were interviewed in a recent market research survey said that they considered the health aspect of food when deciding what to buy? Against that background, and also because many supermarkets, including Tesco, are now introducing this food labelelling, does she recognise that there is a need for the utmost dispatch in introducing labelling proposals?

I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why we are currently considering proposals for legislation that will provide a statutory requirement to indicate on labels the fat content in food. We are also looking at a format for nutrition labelling. We are aware that although COMA did not recommend that, a great deal of interest is being displayed both by consumers and manufacturers. If nutrition labelling is taken up, we want it to be in a form that will help rather than confuse the consumer.

Is the Minister aware that even when additives are considered generally to be safe, some individuals suffer adverse reactions to them? Are those people not entitled to protection like everyone else? Therefore, should not all main additives be shown on the label?

Indeed, and the Food Act 1984 requires that. The lead-in time means that by 1 July 1986 all additives must be shown on labels, whether in number, description, or both.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be a sensible step, which would benefit housewives and other shoppers, if the major food stores explained the meaning of the E number on labels?

My Ministry produces a book which, if we were not giving it away, would be counted as its best seller. It is entitled "Look at the Label" and sets out all the E numbers. We are considering what other systems of educational information should be provided.

I hope the Minister accepts that people do not want to go shopping with a ready reckoner to discover what additives are in food. Will she confirm that when regulations are made they will not be two-tier—one, the statutory labelling of fat content, and the other an optional requirement to show added sugar, salt and fibre?

COMA recommended statutory labelling of fat content. We have responded to that and proposals will be put before the House. COMA did not recommend statutory nutrition labelling. If we introduced that, we might have some difficulty within the EEC because of distortion of trade.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are fully behind the EEC Commission's proposal to include in the revision of the 1973 chocolate directive a vegetable content of up to 5 per cent.? Will she bear in mind that for almost half a century the United Kingdom confectionery trade has included that content and ensure that we do not follow the French and Belgian Members of the European Assembly in the spirit of the fruit-and-nut case in going along that line, which would reduce jobs, reduce choice and reduce United Kingdom confectionery in the EEC market?

Yes. I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the European Economic Community Council will next consider the level of cereal prices for the current year; and if he will make a statement.

The Council took no decisions earlier this year on cereals prices for the current marketing year, although discussions continue, and the Commission has now laid before the Council further proposals.

When the Council comes to consider cereal prices for next year, will it take as its base figure the level of cereal prices for the current year as determined by the Council following the German veto, or the level of cereal prices as determined by the Commission?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the proposals before the Council will have to be considered by all the members of the Council. The Government have made it clear that we welcome the fall of 3·5 per cent. in real terms in the price given to cereals and that we intend to have that and to pull the price down still further.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of two pieces of evidence given to the Select Committee on Agriculture? The first piece is that the amount of grain in intervention stores is virtually bound to increase still further. The second piece is that farms have now reached the ridiculous point of growing purely for intervention rather than for the market. Although my right hon. Friend is right to put his faith in price restraint, if it can be achieved, the fact is that that will not be achieved because of the view of our partners in Europe. Will he be prepared for what I reckon will be the inevitable consequence of the introduction of quotas so that we do not get them introduced overnight?

I am sure my hon. Friend is right in saying that we should be prepared for a package that will include a range of measures. That is always true and it would be wrong to think otherwise, but unless the Government stand firmly by the fact that we need to have a major part of the package based upon price discipline, price discipline will not be achieved, and it is essential for success.

Will the Minister agree with me and others that if we lower the price of grain by 5 per cent., production will increase by 10 per cent. within the next two years?

I do not agree with that.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that we had a drought last year and that this year has been particularly wet. Does he recommend to farmers in Scotland that in future they should go into warehousing? It is obvious that there is more money in that than in growing cereals or keeping livestock.

No, Sir, I do not so recommend.

Will the Government oppose root and branch the proposal for a co-responsibility levy for cereals?

For the many reasons that we have put forward previously we do not like the concept of the co-responsibility levy. We do not enter these discussions on the basis that we oppose root and branch any of the proposals put forward. We shall consider, discuss and argue them and try to come to a solution that fits the whole of Europe, for the Conservative party is an internationalist party.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that when there were proposals to reduce the production of milk, our Government said that the quotas would be bureaucratic and impracticable? Is there any guarantee that when there are proposals in Europe to reduce the production of cereals the Government will not once again go along with a solution which they know to be wrong and against the interests of the British people?

We do not believe that quotas are the way to solve the problem. We have said that clearly. We believe that the way to solve the problem is by price restraint. We shall continue to press that. That seems to be a solution that will be good for Britain and for the rest of the European Community, to which we belong.

As the Minister keeps saying that price restraint is the right way to control surpluses, will he give an estimate of the percentage price cut that would be necessary to bring supply into line with demand? What would be the effect of such a cut on smaller producers? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that such a solution would be intolerable? We need a comprehensive package, which must include quotas.

The hon. Gentleman always asks for a comprehensive package without indicating what would be in it. Whatever the results we come to, and whatever the period during which cuts are obtained, it is necessary for cereal prices to come down.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the annual loss of agricultural land to other forms of development.

For England, the average annual loss of agricultural land to other forms of development for the five-year period ending June 1984 is estimated to be 13,000 hectares, or 32,000 acres.

The answer to that identical question last year was 35,000 acres. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is a welcome trend downwards in loss of agricultural land to other developments? Will she confirm that the proportion of agricultural land last year to building and other urban developments this year—about half—is also about the same proportion as last year?

I confirm that the net reduction in the rate of loss of agricultural land in recent years confirms that trend. In the preceding five-year period ending 1979, the average annual loss was approximately 21,000 hectares, or 52,000 acres. About 10,000 hectares of that were known to be for urban and industrial use. During the last five-year period, about 4,000 hectares, or 10,000 acres, per annum have been lost to urban development and industrial use.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that Warwickshire county council is hell bent on taking a large slice of superior agricultural land to develop a technology park when non-agricultural land is available for the purpose. Will my hon. Friend and her colleagues consult the Department of the Environment to ensure that such a difficulty does not arise in future?

I shall have to look into that matter. We are consulted at all stages in the preparation of structure and local plans and on all planning applications affecting more than 4 hectares of agricultural land that do not conform to an agreed development plan.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future arrangements for the export of ewes to France.

Under a European Commission regulation which came into effect on 9 December, we are required to charge clawback—at the rate of 50 per cent. of that applicable to lambs—on ewemeat exported to France. Though we remain opposed to this approach, we have introduced the necessary arrangements. The French have now removed the import restrictions they were operating on our exports of ewemeat.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the concept of imposing what is, in effect, a tax on any form of export of agricultural produce from the United Kingdom to the Community is unacceptable? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the practice is never allowed to stick and that it is never accepted in default? Will he take all the steps at his command to ensure that this kind of penalty is not accepted in future?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that it is unacceptable to claw back that which one has given in the first place. That does not make sense and we have opposed it wholly. It is also wholly unacceptable and against any kind of international order when a country decides to take the law into its own hands and act in a way that we would consider to be entirely illegal.

What will the right hon. Gentleman do to remove claw back by next spring, when a great number of cull ewes will come on to the market? It is essential to remove this claw back by then.

I said clearly in answering the last question that we believe this to be entirely wrong. We have obeyed the law because it is our business to be law-abiding. We shall do everything in our power to change what is obviously nonsense.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that his endeavours on behalf of sheep farmers are highly commendable, but as this matter has been dragging on since last September we must try to get it resolved as soon as possible because it is having a very serious impact on the sheepmeat market between this country and the Continent?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe that it is necessary to stand up in the Community for the rights of British fanners, and it is not proper that their reasonable export demands should be stopped, first, illegally and, secondly, by a system that is clearly nonsense.

Will the Minister confirm the amount of disruption caused by French interference and the loss therefrom to the British farmer? Will he also confirm that the effect of the 50 per cent. levy will be a reduction in the variable premium by 30p a kilo?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been considerable disruption as a result of the action by the French. That is why we opposed it so strongly, apart from the principle concerned. At the same time, obviously it would be for the trade to take any course of action which it felt was available to it. As to the hon. Gentleman's assertions, I will give him a detailed table of what seem to me to be the direct effects.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to visit the Southall horse market; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans at present to visit the market. My veterinary staff attend the market and are able to monitor and encourage compliance with the voluntary code of practice on horse markets.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the voluntary code of practice does not seem to work at Southall, and that inspectors of the Horses and Ponies Protection Association, I and many other people regard the state of affairs there as wholly cruel? Horses and ponies are abused by being left unfed and unwatered for long periods of time. They are not properly presented for sale and they are not properly loaded into boxes when they are removed from Southall. Is it not now time to do something to stop such serious animal abuse?

There have been considerable improvements of facilities and conditions generally in that market, as my hon. Friend was good enough to acknowledge when he last raised the matter on 16 May. He will know that the Farm Animal Welfare Council is studying the whole question of horses' welfare in markets, and we believe that it is right to await its recommendations for any further action.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the Government's attitude towards the milk co-responsibility levy.

Funds raised by the co-responsibility levy make an important contribution to the cost of supporting the milk sector, particularly to the cost of disposal of the milk surplus.

Does my right hon. Friend think there is any prospect of getting rid of this levy in the forthcoming negotiations, as it has achieved little or nothing, and has merely added to the cost of British dairy farming?

It is clearly important that this is taken into account in discussing the price of milk. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, because what started as a levy to do something totally different has now been overtaken by the quota system.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the European Commission Green Paper on "Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy."

The Government welcomed the Green Paper and the stress it laid on the importance of price policy in securing a better market balance. We now look to the Commission to make specific proposals adequate to deal with the problems identified.

As a farmer, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his continued belief in the price mechanism as the best way of controlling surplus output. Has he seen the package of proposals on cereals produced by the Commission since its Green Paper, which in my view discriminates against United Kingdom cereal producers? What changes to those proposals has he in mind to ensure greater equality?

A large number of proposals are obviously not acceptable to us because they discriminate against the pattern of farming in this country and the nature of the cereals that we produce. There is a whole series of items that we would like to see changed. Moreover, we do not believe that the package is adequate to solve the problem, and that has to be done.

Will the Minister accept that the Green Paper ought to have contained some reference to the problem of food additives, given the real dangers that some people claim are caused to consumers, and particularly to those working in the food sector, who may be exposed to very high levels of food additives?

Order. That question is rather wide of the mark.

If the hon. Gentleman had been present earlier he would have heard our particular discussion on food additives, which do not come under this question.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if there were to be quotas in the cereal sector, it would still be necessary to maintain sharp price discipline?

My hon. Friend is right, and only Britain is determined to see that price restraints play a major part in any package of measures. If we do not continue to press for that, we shall have a package that does not work.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from interested organisations on European Economic Community proposals to set up a Community-wide outgoers' scheme.

I have received representations on the proposed Community outgoers' scheme from hon. Members, interested organisations, and individual farmers. These have reflected a number of concerns, including the position of tenant farmers and landlords. The proposals are still being discussed at official level and are unlikely to come to the Council of Ministers before January.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that agriculture accepts the need for an outgoers' scheme for the milk industry, but nevertheless there is a legitimate complaint from the landlord and the tenant, each of whom has invested his resources in developing the industry to its present state?

An outgoers' scheme should recognise that in most cases both the landlord and the tenant have contributed to the ability of the land to produce milk. Therefore, it would be wrong to ignore either side in the outgoers' scheme, and we shall ensure that that does not happen.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if there is a voluntary outgoers' scheme on all agricultural products, that may lead to the withdrawal of the most efficient farmers in some counties and the perpetuation of high-cost inefficient farmers in others?

The hon. Gentleman is right, and we are concerned about this factor. To achieve our purpose we shall look carefully at the scheme and seek to ensure that it is fair as between countries and farmers and as between tenants and landlords.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the total fish catch in a 200-mile zone around the Falkland Islands was made by British distant water vessels in the last year.

I am not aware of any catches made by British distant water vessels in the last year in the waters around the Falklands Islands.

Is it not astounding that these rich fishing grounds should be subjected to such ruthless exploitation by the fishing vessels of foreign nations? Should we not be moving towards a more effective system of harvesting, with the direct involvement of British fishing interests and those of the Falklands'?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that British fishing interests have every right to take part in fishing in this area if they so wish. Setting up a different regime there is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ridiculous that Britain has become the laughing-stock of the Community when £50 million worth of fish are being picked up within the 200-mile limit of the Falklands? When do the Government propose to do something about the report by Dr. Beddington of Imperial College?

The general response to the Beddington report is based on advice given by the Minstry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the Foreign Office, in whose hands this matter continues to be. As to the first question, I am not aware of any British fishing interest that has been prevented from fishing around the Falklands. If it wishes so to do, it can.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an early agreement on the best way to exploit and manage this rich fishery is important to Britain and the fishing industry, especially if one takes into account the rumoured cuts in quotas, about which we expect to hear later this afternoon?

The hon. Gentleman need not be too concerned about that. We are pleased that the Food and Agriculture Organisation has launched its study. When we have the details we shall be able to make a sensible basis for the future fishery potential in this area.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the probable increase in salmon entering British rivers following his announcement on drift netting off the English coast.

The measures which I announced on 7 November will tighten the rules under which the English north-east coast salmon drift net fishery operates. They should produce a significant reduction in the catch of that fishery. Because various natural causes influence the level from season to season, I cannot give a specific forecast of the extent of the increase in salmon entering British rivers.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the resolution of the problem of drift netting off the north-east coast of England is crucial to the survival of salmon in the United Kingdom? Will he watch the matter closely and take further action if there are no significant improvements in salmon stocks in Scotland?

I undertake to do that, but I remind my hon. Friend that the arrangements which we have made this year will restrict fishing there, in that there will be no weekend fishing, no night fishing, and licences will not be transferable. Major steps have been taken, but we shall continue to examine the matter.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

In view of the announcement by the board of Westland Helicopters that it intends to enter into an agreement with Sikorsky-Fiat, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the position of the Government is as set out in the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Monday?

Yes, Sir. The future of Westland is a matter for the company to decide. The company's decision is a matter of commercial judgment for its directors and shareholders. That was the position set out by my right hon. and learned Friend, and that was the position reaffirmed by the Cabinet this morning.

It is something of a change for this matter to go before the Cabinet, or so it appears. Given the patently obvious views stated publicly by the Secretary of State for Defence and the Select Committee on Defence, does the Prime Minister really believe that the subjective preferences of a company are an adequate basis on which to determine important national defence interests?

Westland is a private sector public limited company. Its future is a matter for the company to decide, and the company's decision is a matter of commercial judgment for its directors and, ultimately, its shareholders. That is the position, and it was reaffirmed by the Cabinet this morning.

The Prime Minister said that the company was responsible to its shareholders. Is she not, as Prime Minister, responsible to the nation and for the proper welfare of the nation? Why is she not taking that into proper account, as the Secretary of State for Defence clearly believes she should? When the strategic, considered judgment of the Secretary of State for Defence is contrary to the view of a private company, why is she backing the company, not him?

I have informed the House of the position of the Cabinet this morning. The position of the Cabinet is the position of the whole Government.

Has my right hon. Friend heard of a farce that is playing on the South Bank entitled "Robin Ratepayer and his Merry Ratepayers"? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely appropriate that the leader of the Greater London council should play the star role in this production, for he and the other Marxist city henchmen of the Leader of the Opposition have been robbing ratepayers for years? Will she accept that the ratepayers of the metropolitan counties will be delighted when she rings down the curtain on this over-expensive production next March?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with his broad analysis. I believe that the GLC has taken in far more rates than it needs. There should therefore be a goodly amount to be returned to the district councils when the GLC is extinguished.

At least there is still a sense of humour on the South Bank. Does the Prime Minister care that the Christmas present to 6,000 loyal GLC staff this Christmas will be their redundancy notices? In view of the misery and unhappiness that the right hon. Lady is causing to these people and to the 3·5 million people who are on the dole, does she think that she deserves a happy Christmas this year?

The decision to abolish the GLC was taken by Parliament. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman mention whether Labour councils will be prepared to take on those extra people. The hon. Gentleman ought to remember that there were two years under a Labour Government when all pensioners received no Christmas bonus.

During her busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to consult the relevant Ministers about the disgraceful way in which the chief constable of Greater Manchester is being treated? Is she aware that yesterday the Labour party used its built-in majority on the police committee to censure this man for merely telling the truth? Is this not yet another example of the Fascist Left in this country pillorying decent public servants who refuse to kowtow to them?

My hon. Friend makes his point very cogently. I am sure he will understand that I cannot comment while that investigation is in progress.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm that the city of Bradford has been earmarked to receive extra resources for urban renewal? Will she also confirm that the key to urban renewal lies in providing more money for new council housing and more money for home improvement grants? Finally, will she confirm that any new money will be given to the local councils concerned and not to a new range of unelected and unaccountable quangos?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that the key to urban renewal lies solely with urban housing. The amount of money that has been spent on urban housing and the way in which it has been spent are two of the factors that have led to many of the problems.

When Ulster is told that it may be rid of the Intergovernmental Conference when it accepts devolution, is legislative devolution and devolved government meant by devolution, or what is meant? Why do a Unionist Government pursue policies that tend to detach Northern Ireland from Great Britain?

I cannot accept the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. As he knows, I believe that Union will certainly continue under the Agreement, so long as there is a majority and the majority expresses that wish. Devolved government has to be in accordance with the agreement, which is one that is acceptable to the two traditions in Northern Ireland. As my hon. Friend is aware, there was, in legislation about the Assembly, a possible means of securing much more decision-taking through the Assembly, through the two communities, than is at present the case.

In view of the widespread disquiet in the country and in the City about the situation affecting Lloyd's, and in the light of what has happened to its chief executive, how do the Government justify not placing Lloyd's under the new market investing board? Will the Prime Minister consider this issue again and also the need for a full-time chairman of considerable independence and stature to supervise this aspect of the City's behaviour, which many people feel the present legislation is inadequate to cover?

I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be aware that Lloyd's had its own regulatory system and Act of Parliament, the Lloyd's Act 1982. It is too early to pass judgment on the effectiveness of the new regime. We believe that events at Lloyd's to which publicity had been given originated before the Act was passed, but we are keeping a close watch on events there and if it becomes necessary to take action or to legislate we shall not hesitate to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the chairman of ICI and others who are calling for a lower exchange rate that if industry insists on raising wages so that its products become uncompetitive, the Government will not bail them out by reducing the exchange rate?

Yes, I shall make that very clear. That way does not lie increased and improved competitiveness. The only way is to have efficiency in the company, in costs, in design and in quality. No company should look to the exchange rate to secure competitiveness which it cannot itself produce.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

The Prime Minister told the House on Tuesday that there had to be losers in the social security review. Will she now say how many there will be, who they will be and how much they will lose?

If we were to bring in what the Labour party has plans for—[Interruption.]—the burden on the working population would be colossal. We reckon that national insurance contributions for people on average earnings would rise by £9 a week, so that about 20 million people would lose under Labour's plans.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

If the Sikorsky deal goes through, as I hope it does, will the Prime Minister ensure that there will be no question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence discriminating against the Westland company or any of its excellent products?

In respect of both parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary question I indicated the Cabinet's decision this morning, and I wish to make it clear that major procurement decisions are a matter for the collective decision of the Government as a whole. I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the rate support grant. Any authority that spends efficiently and keeps its budget in line with assessed need gets its full grant, and its ratepayers may be very grateful.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 19 December.

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

Will the Prime Minister now answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)? How many losers will there be under the social security review, who will they be and how much will they lose?

This Government have protected those most in need—(HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and have increased, over and above prices, the retirement pension, supplementary benefit rates and benefits for the sick and the disabled—[Interruption.] They have all risen by considerably more than prices. The social security review must be taken as a whole. It is fair both to beneficiaries and the working population. As I said earlier, under arrangements that have been proposed by the Opposition, about 20 million of the working population would stand to lose through national insurance contribution increases.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever decision may ultimately be taken by the shareholders of Westland, it has at least flushed out the Labour party Front Bench into appearing to support the defence of this country?

The Labour party is supporting NATO and the defence of Britain. That is worth while, and a change of policy for some.

In view of the recent track record of the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Transport in the courts, will the Prime Minister say whether the Attorney-General's Department was consulted? To save taxpayers' money in future, will she co-ordinate the activities of the legal officers of those Departments and the Attorney-General's office?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. Yes, the Government have been before the courts and have abided by the decisions of the courts. That is what the rule of law is all about.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise this matter while the Prime Minister is still present. During Prime Minister's Question Time we heard that the Cabinet had taken a decision regarding Westlands. Since this is a vital matter, may we have a further statement from the Government? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether such a statement will be made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, or by the Secretary of State for Defence?

I cannot answer that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point arises directly from Question Time, when you called hon. Members for agriculture questions, shortly before the change of subject. The old custom was that you would be notified if hon. Members were not to be present. I know that it is just before Christmas, but, in one go, an unprecedented list of 10 hon. Members were not present. Do you have any observations on that?

Only that that is the present custom also.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. You will have heard, with the rest of us, the Prime Minister's dismissive view of the importance of housing. Does that attitude explain why the Secretary of State is today issuing by written answer the details of the housing investment programme rather than coming to the Dispatch Box to make a statement?

That is a continuation of Question Time. It is not a matter for me.