asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the current level of United Kingdom fishery protection resources, in the light of the recent accession to the European Economic Community of Spain and Portugal.

I am confident that the resources currently devoted to fisheries protection, which are deployed flexibly in response to enforcement needs, are adequate to meet the demands of the present situation following the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Community.

The operations of the fisheries protection service are to some extent determined or shaped by EEC regulations. When does the Minister expect the proposed expansion of the EEC inspectorate from 10 to 21 to take effect?

That is a matter for the Commission, but people are being recruited for the posts. I am particularly pleased not only that that is going ahead under Britain's pressure, but, with the association between France, Britain and the Republic of Ireland, which together have been dealing most effectively with policing in the south-western approaches.

I am the hon. Member whose constituency is nearest to Spain. Will my right hon. Friend give my fishermen an absolute assurance that policing arrangements will be tightened with regard to Spanish fishing so that we can deal with the massive illegal fishing by Spain in the western approaches?

We have already done a great deal to meet my hon. Friend's request. I was in the west country seeing how effective the arrangements were. I think he will agree that what we are doing has been effective. We arrested a boat in the first week, and that resulted in a heavy fine. I have no doubt that we shall make sure that the Spanish fishermen fish legally. I ask my hon. Friend to tell his fishermen that not only are we doing that, but that we have been surprised and pleased by the way in which the Spanish Government have sought to do that work.

Does the Minister acccept that there can be no faith in the common fisheries policy unless; it is properly policed, and that the key responsibility falls; on our Government in their fishery protection effort? Is there not a case for increasing that effort with the advent of a power whose fleet is as large as its reputation for observing the rules is small?

I have made that point a number of times. The great and remarkable success of the common fisheries policy is largely because increasingly it is being enforced, and people know that to be so. When the hon. Gentleman sees the measures that we have taken on the south-western approaches, I feel that, on this occasion at least, he will be able to support the Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to allay the anxieties that are being expressed by south-western fishermen, it is necessary for them to see action being taken and convictions being obtained?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I went to see the way in which the policing is being carried out, and why I welcome the action being taken and the conviction that was obtained in the first week. I shall keep a close personal eye on seeing that this continues.

There is now an added burden upon the fishery protection resources because of the accession of Spain and Portugal. Does the Minister believe that sufficient resources are still available to maintain the former level of fishery protection in northern waters, particularly because of the phasing out of the the RAF Nimrod spotter plane?

The purpose of phasing out the RAF Nimrod spotter plane is to replace it with a plane that will do the job much better. We wish to do it for no other reason. I am, therefore, satisfied. if I were not, I should be pressing for additional resources.

Is the Minister aware that many of the people in the industry are still not confident that the common fisheries policy is operating fairly? Will he put pressure on the Commission to provide feedback for the industry on how well enforcement is working?

This country initiated the pressure. We are continuing to apply pressure and it is increasingly bearing fruit. If the hon. Gentleman wants proof, he must look at the very strong representations that have been made to other Fisheries Ministers by their fishermen now that we are being so very much tougher.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had in the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community concerning the future of milk production within the Community.

There have been no recent discussions in the Council of Ministers on the future of milk production within the Community. The Commission's proposals for a scheme to buy up and cancel milk quota have yet to be considered by the Council of Ministers. Other matters affecting milk production are likely to be discussed during the price fixing negotiations.

In respect of the proposed Community outgoers scheme, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Council of Ministers is fully cognisant of the real interests of both landlord and tenant and of the importance of reaching an agreement that is fair to both parties and that will reflect individual circumstances? Does he agree that it is probably better to take a little longer in arriving at a decision of this kind than to take one in haste, which might set unfortunate precedents for the future?

My hon. Friend knows that I am anxious to ensure that there is fairness between the varying interests of landlord and tenant with regard to milk quotas. I am having discussions at this moment, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has told me.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in all the problems of milk production and surpluses it is important to be fair to the various countries? Will he look into the developing problem of New Zealand and its butter agency in this country? It is importing butter from Eire and blending it with its own. It is therefore fulfilling a much larger quota in this country. That is completely against the butter agreement and needs to be looked into.

I am aware of my hon. Friend's suggestions and I am looking into them.

We recognise the need for an extended outgoers scheme, but what has happened to the negotiations over the scheme? We understood that the scheme was to come into effect in January. Will the Minister assure us that he will try to get it right this time, with particular reference to the needs of tenants in this country, and with even more particular reference to the fact that Britain took an excessive cut in production under the original quota system?

The Presidency of the Council of Agriculture Ministers has not yet brought this forward to the point of decision. It will now be embraced within the normal price fixing arrangements, which we shall begin to discuss at the end of this month.

If the Commission's proposals go ahead, will the Government respond to the almost unanimous view of the milk producing industry, which would require the Government to establish a fund from the quota which could be reallocated to hardship and new entrant cases? The Government have said in the past that they are broadly in favour of such a system. Will the Minister give an undertaking to put it into operation?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "a fund". If he means a fund of money, that is one thing. What I need is a reserve of milk quota in order to be able to reallocate. If I want to get some milk quota to reallocate, I have to get it from somebody within this country who wishes to release it. That is much easier to say than to find.

In view of what my right hon. Friend said about a further 3 per cent. of milk producers taking a golden handshake and going out of milk production, has he considered, with the Commission, the fact that this will throw another 200,000 tonnes of beef on to the beef market and impose restrictions on that sector?

Yes, I am aware of that. I think I am right in saying that the Community has proposed a 2 per cent. cut. An NFU delegation saw me this week and its members drew my attention to the great difficulty that would ensue for the beef sector if there were any cut in milk production.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of current overproduction, he will take steps to revise the current guidelines for the release, where appropriate, of some agricultural land for other purposes.

The Government continue to attach importance to the protection of agricultural land as a valuable but finite national resource. The Government's policies in this area are implemented to ensure that the right balance is struck between the competing considerations.

I must express some disappointment with that answer. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether the 1976 guidelines are under consideration, whether she is having discussions with the Department of the Environment on this issue, and whether sufficient priority is being given to the problems of small businesses in rural areas and the extent to which it will be possible to improve the guidelines in the foreseeable future?

I can reassure my hon. Friend that we recognise the need to strike the right balance between the interests involved. We adopt a flexible approach to development proposals. We recognise the need to provide more jobs and to improve amenities in areas which are adjacent to towns and villages.

Is not the real criticism that the balance is entirely wrong in the countryside, in that we are growing vast quantities of unwanted cereals while we are short of protein crops and farm woodlands? Does the Minister accept that the Ministry's reluctance to issue a White Paper that gives any signs for the future is an irresponsible attitude to adopt?

We have a consultation paper on woodlands policy, and the entire issue is under that sort of review. We examine carefully any proposals involving first-grade agricultural land if we believe that there is other lesser grade land available for the purposes that are envisaged.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of county councils of varying political colours are granting themselves planning permission to develop good agricultural land for industrial purposes? As the Government are committed to the preservation and improvement of the environment, will my hon. Friend have better consultations with her opposite numbers in the Department of the Environment?

We always have good consultations with our opposite numbers in the Department of the Environment. We are consulted at all stages in the preparation of structure and local plans and on all planning applications for areas of more than 4 hectares if they are not within an agreed development plan. That enables us to ensure that the policy for the protection of agricultural land is taken fully into account in the planning processes, whoever is involved.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial provision will be made in 1986 for payments in environmentally sensitive areas under the Agriculture Bill 1985.

We estimate that expenditure in a full year will be £6 million if, as intended, five or six areas are designated during 1986. Expenditure during 1986 will depend on the timing of environmentally sensitive area designation and the conditions applicable to each area.

Will the Minister confirm that the expenditure will be for the first tranche of areas to be so designated? Will there be further tranches? If so, when will they be announced, and how much further expenditure does he envisage?

We shall have to see how we get on with what we hope will be the first five or six areas. Any extension will depend on the availability of cash at the time.

I ask my right hon. Friend to be a little more forthcoming. Who are likely to be the recipients in the environmentally sensitive areas, and for what purposes will the moneys be paid over?

In general, we are seeking to preserve traditional and historic types of activity in areas where such activity is threatened. We want to encourage people who are carrying out, let us say, a grazing policy, in areas which are threatened with being ploughed up for large acres of grain, to keep that form of husbandry.

For those of us who were in Committee, will the Minister expand on the two words in his original answer, "as intended"?

The hon. Gentleman will know that in Committee my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made it clear that we were intending to designate five or six areas during 1986. The words "as intended" were a way of describing our intention.

Is the money available within the common agricultural policy? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even if it is not available within the CAP, the policy—as a proportion of overall Community expenditure—will not cost any more this year than last year?

The first step that we took after the British initiative was to allow such schemes to take place under Community law. Currently, there is no Community money available to implement these schemes. Therefore, those five or six schemes will be financed through our own financial resources. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that the Treasury has agreed to that.

Does the Minister's first reply mean that there will be no further areas designated during the course of the first five years? Incidentally, is there not enough gobbledegook in the English language without introducing "environmentally sensitive areas" and the inevitable initials ESAs? Why not use the phrase "heritage areas"?

I understand that in Committee the hon. Gentleman was invited to find a better phrase. He has found a better phrase. Having thought about it for the past five seconds or so, I am not sure that it is better than ours.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a White Paper on the future of agriculture.

I believe that the agriculture industry is best helped by being kept fully informed of our thinking for the future of the industry and of the efforts we are making to secure its long-term prosperity. However, I am prepared to consider all options, including a White Paper.

In view of the uncertainty and aprehension felt by some farmers in this country, does my right hon. Friend agree that guidelines of objectives for the future of agriculture would be helpful and keep confidence high?

Yes. I intend to take opportunities which are offered by speeches, debates and similar events to make known the Government's view on likely developments. I intend to do that where it will be helpful. I know that some people speak about the possibility of a White Paper. The difficulty is that one tends to explain the situaton in a White Paper as it is one minute and, because Of the speed at which events are currently changing within the European Community, it is likely to be out of date within a month.

If the Minister decides to issue a White Paper, will he consider the huge cereals surplus currently in this country and also the colossal cost to the British taxpayer of those cereals and their storage? According to experts in the industry, those cereals are apparently unusable?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that one reason for our not being been able to take more positive steps to deal with the cereal surplus was the action of the German Minister in applying a veto to price cuts in cereals last year. The best thing that I can do is to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of a speech that I made to many German farmers in Berlin a week ago today, from which he will see that I tried to deal with that pressing problem to which he is so right to draw our attention.

When my right hon. Friend is formulating his policies for the future, will he bear in mind the difficulties that he has experienced with the milk quota system? Will he give careful consideration to a semi-permanent set-aside system to take out a percentage of each agricultural holding, preferably by encouraging a lage-scale woodland planting scheme?

We are giving urgent attention, as we have done for many months, to every device—physical and financial—to deal with cereal surpluses. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the consultation paper, to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred, on encouraging farm woodlands.

In the light of the debate earlier this week, what action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take on the reported speech of the EEC Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries, who said that he intended shortly to ask member states for a further £450 million to reduce the cost of disposing of "uncontrollable surpluses", as he called them? Is it not time that the Government took a stand to end this madness?

I am aware that the Commissioner for Agriculture and Fisheries has made proposals for extra money to deal with the existing surpluses. I suspect that many members of the Council of Ministers will feel that it is not helpful to find a lot more money to deal with the surplus stores in Europe if they are just going to build up again within the next year or two.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up a royal commission to inquire into agriculture's current situation and make recommendations as to the future of the industry.

I do not consider that a royal commission would be an appropriate response to agriculture's problems.

Will my right hon. Friend keep this matter under review? As he will be aware, in the light of his Berlin speech, the external and internal pressures on the industry are reaching enormous proportions. There are pressures with respect to land use, conservation, use of the countryside, urban development, and so on. Does my right hon. Friend not think that a fully blown royal commission looking to the future might be a much better way of proceeding than has been suggested?

My hon. Friend feels strongly about this idea. I shall certainly keep that point in mind. I must point out to him, however, that one aspect of royal commissions is that an unconscionable time passes before they give rise to reports. I suspect that the situation at the beginning of a royal commission's deliberations might have utterly changed by the time its report is published.

In considering the future of agriculture, will the right hon. Gentleman bend his mind to the real alternatives to the present disastrous common agricultural policy which will be fair to consumers, taxpayers, farmers and the Third world? The Third world exports primary commodities which are at present debarred from entry into the Community.

Frankly, I think that the principles of the CAP, if they had been properly managed over the years, could have met all the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. In the past seven or eight years both Conservative and Labour Ministers of Agriculture have made points which suggest that, if there had been more responsible management, we would not be into this mess.

In considering the future of agriculture, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the agricultural advisory services and try to diversify them so that they help farmers to set up small businesses and other on-farm enterprises? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the funds saved from cutting back on agricultural support should not go to the Treasury, but should be used to promote this form of job creation?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, we are trying to adapt the advisory service more to fit the desires and demands of farmers. That is one of the purposes of the Bill which has just completed its Committee stage. My hon. Friend should take note of the fact that in recent years the advisory service's work has broadened into other things, not least conservation.

If the Minister is not prepared to publish a White Paper or set up a royal commission—I agree with the latter decision—will he give agriculture a clear view in one of his ad hoc speeches, if that is the way he chooses to deal wih the matter, of how he proposes to rectify the appalling decline in agricultural incomes that there has been during his period of office?

I hope that, in fairness, the hon. Gentleman will recall that the drop in farm incomes in 1985 must be set against the increase of 35 per cent. in the previous year. He might also recall that during the past year the amount of public money from all sources that has gone to the support of agriculture has increased from £1·7 billion to £2·2 billion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have submitted to quite enough humbug from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), which is similar to that to which we had to listen in the debate last Wednesday? Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of agriculture's problems are man-made and that some are natural, such as the weather, which was largely the cause of the fall in farm incomes, a fall which was preceded by a rise in farm incomes which was almost as great? Will he bear in mind the ripple effects that the changes in farm incomes have on the agricultural machine industry, which is in deep trouble following the withdrawal of capital allowances?

I am conscious of the difficulties of all sections of the industry, including the agricultural machinery industry. With regard to my hon. Friend's first remarks, I have been in the House with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for nearly 20 years. I am used to his hesitant humbug, which has not changed over all those years. Anyone who wants to know has only to read Hansard's report of that debate to discover what a mess the policies of the parties that sit below the Gangway are in.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average weekly wage for employed farm workers in England and Wales.

My Department's most recent wages and employment inquiry shows that for the year ending September 1985 the average gross weekly earnings for all whole-time regular hired men aged 20 and over was £129·92.

That is £38·70 less than that of the average industrial worker. Is the Minister prepared to agree that the modest request for a basic wage of £140 for an agricultural worker is £24·40 less than that for an average industrial worker? Why are the Government not considering that matter and taking the appropriate action?

Statutory minimum rates are a matter for the independent Agricultural Wages Board, not Ministers. About 86 per cent. of full-time adult male workers earn more than the statutory minimum for the hours worked. It is difficult to make comparisons on the basis that the hon. Gentleman tried, because almost half the whole-time adult male agricultural labour force pay little or no rent for their accommodation.

Will my hon. Friend please consider the case of single workers on small farms, and the fact that they must accept the basic minimum wage, although I know that in my district the wages are far higher? She must bear that fact in mind.

I must again make the point that the independent Agricultural Wages Board fixes the minimum rate. The board has employer and employee representatives. They take a balance of the argument.

Is the Minister aware that the gap, currently £38·70, between the average weekly earnings of farm and industrial workers is becoming wider all the time, and that farm workers comprise the biggest group of workers drawing family income supplement because of their low earnings? At the same time, some company directors are paying themselves salaries of £90,000, £100,000 and, in some cases, £125,000 a year. In view of the farm workers' production record, when will the Government honour their pledge that those who increase production are entitled to a real wage and not peanuts?

I readily acknowledge the notable contribution of farm workers to agriculture's good productivity record, but reward for improved productivity is a matter to be negotiated between the employer and the employee. Many of them do this.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the massive pay claim submitted today by the farm workers' union, if conceded, would have a grossly inflationary effect and would therefore affect the weekly bills of everybody?

I am aware that negotiations on this claim are due to start soon, but it is not for Ministers to try to influence those negotiations, because there is an independent Agricultural Wages Board.

Have the Government a secret pay norm which they want to impose on the farm pay negotiations? If so, rather than take it out on the chairman of this supposedly independent body, as they did by sacking Professor Dickson on the last occasion, when he made a higher than desired increase, why do they not make it public? After all, any personal and confidential letter will do.

I reiterate, the Agricultural Wages Board is an independent body.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will conduct a survey of the current use of land which has been taken out of the dairy industry under the outgoers scheme.

We have no immediate plans to conduct a special survey on the impact of the outgoers scheme. We shall, however, be monitoring the changing trends in agricultural activities, through existing statistical series.

Are we going to see the Minister paying people to take land out of dairy production, then paying people to take the same land out of beef production and then paying people to take the same land out of cereal production, in a highly expensive game of musical chairs, or can we have a sensible strategy for agricultural land use in the country?

The answer to the first half of the question is no; to the second half of the question, yes.

Will the Minister concede that, because land is available as a result of overproduction, it does not necessarily follow that that land has to be filled with residential or industrial development? Why can we not have a few decent golf courses?

Golf courses do not come within my many responsibilities, but my hon. Friend must be right in saying that there are different considerations when we are dealing with land that can be taken out of use as agricultural land for purposes that would enable it to be returned to such use and the situation where it would be covered with concrete.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is collected by his Ministry about the number of sites of special scientific interest which have been damaged by agricultural activies over the past 12 months.

Information on damage to SSSIs is collected by the Nature Conservancy Council and published in its annual report.

In thanking my hon. Friend for her reply, may I ask whether she thinks the agricultural community is careful enough with scientific sites and, for that matter, with ancient monuments?

Yes, indeed. Government policy on conservation is founded on the voluntary approach. Generally speaking this works very well with the majority of farmers, who are very conservation conscious. The instances of damage to SSSIs should not be allowed to disguise the fact that most biological SSSIs are receiving protection by the good management of the farmers. It is the farmers, indeed, who are providing this.

Is the Minister aware that only a few months ago her right hon. Friend appeared to become the champion of British conservation? Is she now telling us that the Ministry of Agriculture does not know how much damage has been done to sites of special scientific interest for agricultural purposes?

Yes, we do know—

Why not tell us?

My hon. Friend asked whether we kept the figures. I pointed out what is accurate, that the Nature Conservancy Council keeps the figures, but, of course, we have read the report. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can be reassured by the fact that the figures produced in the report were for a period before the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985, which seeks to close that loophole, came into operation. I think that we should bear in mind that the figures produced by the NCC show that there were only eight cases of serious damage caused by agricultural activities.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures announced by her right hon. Friend the Minister during the past year, and those available through the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, provide every opportunity to enhance the countryside and the habitat, and that it is high time the anti-farming lobby stopped bashing the countryside?

I would add to my hon. Friend's remarks that recently we introduced a clause into the Agriculture Bill in Committee, which was generally welcomed and which imposes a general duty on Ministers to seek to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of agriculture and those of the environment. I trust that that will further expand and improve the position.

Is the Minister aware that a farmer in my constituency wants to work his land, but the Ministry will not let him? Apparently weeds of scientific value are growing there, but he wants to earn his living. He must sit in the cottage and watch the weeds grow all day. What will the Minister do about that stupid position?

I am aware that there are certain plants of inestimable value, including some weeds. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me, I shall look into the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to announce his provisional choice of environmentally sensitive areas as provided for in the Agriculture Bill 1985.

We are currently consulting the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council over the selection of areas. We expect to receive their final advice within the next three months. Announcements will be made as soon as possible after that, following consultation with the Secretary of State for the Environment and other interested parties.

Does the Minister agree that the proposed £6 million for the ESAs is in terrible contrast to the £1·8 billion for agricultural support? Will he agree to press for the figure to be increased as soon as possible, rather than merely to continue consultations, which seem to have delayed the report?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as generous as his hon. Friends on the Front Bench about the introduction of ESAs, which has been warmly welcomed on both sides. To be budgeting to spend £6 million in the first year on five or six of those areas is a good start.

What plans has my right hon. Friend to monitor the effectiveness of ESAs?

We shall seek to monitor them as soon as we get them into being. I am sure that many people will pay particular attention to how well they work in practice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his Ministry's objectives in regard to the common agricultural policy; how he is monitoring their implementation; and if he will make a statement.

My Ministry seeks to promote the Government's policies by negotiating for improvements in the common agricultural policy so that it is more economic in its operation and fair to our producers and traders.

Will my right hon. Friend resist all attempts to spend an extra £500 million on vast and ever-growing surpluses?

During the next few months I shall devote my attention to ensuring that steps are taken to bring the production of foodstuffs within the European Community back to a realistic rational and prudent level.

As Herr Kiechle thinks that the way to limit production is to pay farmers more for their produce, and as the Minister seeks to do exactly the opposite, when will he seek to reach a compromise between those two views?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I made a speech in Berlin last week, and Herr Kiechle was present. I hope that when I next meet Herr Kiechle he will have seen the light.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of cereal production for 1985.

The United Kingdom production of cereals in 1985 is currently estimated at 22·3 million tonnes.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, following a very sharp drop in farm incomes in 1985, there are many farmers in East Anglia, especially cereal farmers, who are anxious about possible measures to restrict the production of cereals, and that quite a number of them would favour the introduction of a quota system?

I am aware of that, but I am quite sure that we shall need a package of measures. Foremost among them must be price restraint. There is no way in which we can deal with surpluses without a policy of price restraint.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

Will the Prime Minister take time today to study the letter that was sent by the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency to the previous Secretary of State for Scotland saying that if Gartcosh were closed Ravenscraig might not be viable? As the Conservative party's standing in Scotland commands the support of only 14 per cent. of the electorate, and as it is fourth in the opinion polls, is she aware that if she allows the Scottish steel industry to be wiped out, she will also allow her right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies to face the same fate at the next general election?

As I have said, the Government have done a great deal to ensure the future of Ravenscraig as far as we can during the currency of the present British Steel Corporation plan. With regard to the letter, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland replied on 4 February to the letter from the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). He confirmed that the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency had written to his predecessor in November last year confirming the agency's general views on the future of the steel industry in Scotland. He said that this was a private letter. My right hon. and learned Friend has indicated that it is for the Scottish Development Agency to decide whether it wants to make its views known.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that competition is good for the Scotch whisky industry, as for others, and that that might best be achieved by companies such as Bell's and Distillers competing with each other at home and overseas?

I confirm that competition is generally good for industry. I wish the industry well in getting increased sales of its products.

Without encroaching on the wider issue of the future of British Leyland, can the Prime Minister explain why, when the Land Rover division is profitable, when it has been a symbol of British engineering quality around the globe for 40 years and when it does a great service for our armed forces, she is trying secretly to sell it off to the highest foreign bidder?

There will be a full statement on British Leyland later. I think it best to leave the answer until then.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in its wisdom, the Trades Union Congress has somehow found the electricians guilty of conduct unbecoming to the trade union movement? Does she agree that during the past 20 years the two unions most involved in this dispute have—

Order. This is a bad habit. The hon. Member must ask the Prime Minister a question relating to her responsibilities.

My right hon. Friend is responsible for the wellbeing of the country, for the newspaper industry and for a becoming trade union movement. Have not the two unions involved abused everything that the trade union movement should have stood for during the past 20 years?

I gladly congratulate any union, especially the one to which my hon. Friend has referred, which abolishes restrictive practices and overmanning and embraces the latest technology. That is how to have the best and most efficient industry.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that during recent years the number of ships in our merchant fleet has fallen from 1,600 to 600 and that the number of men working for British Shipbuilders has fallen from 87,300 to 10,000? According to the news, the unions had meetings with the chairman of British Shipbuilders today and it is reported that another 4,000 men will be declared redundant before the end of this year—half of whom will be from the northern region, which already has the highest percentage of unemployment in mainland Britain. When will the right hon. Lady do something to save that industry, which is vital to an island nation? When will she show the same type of patriotism to our country as she asked for from the British people during the Falklands war?

The problems of British Shipbuilders, and shipbuilders the world over, is a shortage of orders. That shortage is difficult to overcome by any of the methods that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Since 1977, taxpayers' support for British Shipbuilders has amounted to £1·4 billion, and accumulated losses have amounted to £800 million.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will be a Bill before the House tomorrow dealing with the removal of Crown immunity from National Health establishments? Does she recognise that if the Government concluded their urgent review of Crown immunity that would be welcomed by the House with gratitude and would be immensely popular throughout the country, because it would show the Government's concern to protect the health and welfare of patients?

Obviously, we are very concerned to protect the health and welfare of patients. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Health has had this matter under review and I understand that he will make a statement later this afternoon.

Has the Prime Minister noticed the cynical and deceitful way in which, over a period of months, Mr. Rupert Murdoch has been cold-bloodedly conspiring and scheming to sack his entire work force in one go?

Order. What is the Prime Minister's responsibility in this matter?

This has been described in some quarters as Thatcherism in action. Would the right hon. Lady care to say whether that is an accurate description, or would she like to dissociate herself from that brutal and unprecedented action?

I do not believe that that is a matter for me, but I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so resistant to getting the latest technology into British industry and to improving newspapers.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that during the previous month the Government have not attempted to hold up the value of the pound, either by wasting the country's reserves of foreign currency or by increasing interest rates. Will she please remind those who are interested in heavy manufacturing industry in the west midlands that they have more to gain from a low pound and lower energy costs than from state protection and state subsidy?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Lower energy costs will be welcome to many manufacturers. Lower exchange rates are not, and must never be, considered as an easy option. The only assurance of sustained success is for industry to be competitive by virtue of its efficiency, not by relying on the exchange rate.

In view of the condemnation expressed yesterday by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) of the proposed sale of British Leyland to the Americans, will the Prime Minister reconsider the proposals? Will she make a statement, especially in the light of the threat, as outlined by her right hon. Friend, of no security for the workers at British Leyland?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be making a statement on British Leyland. Regarding investment from the United States to Britain and from Britain to the United States, inward investment and equity investment in Britain from overseas have created 100,000 new jobs and safeguarded many more. One purpose of our entry into the Common Market was that we might attract investment to this country.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to remind those engaged in United Kingdom car manufacturing that their share of the home market has dropped from 90 per cent. 25 years ago to 34 per cent. now? How many job losses in suppliers such as the steel industry have been caused by this abysmal performance?

The performance on productivity has improved, but not by enough to recover a sufficient share of the car market. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the only way to do that is to be competitive not only on price but on design and delivery, and I hope that the car industry will continue to strive to that end.

British public investment saved BL. Does the Prime Minister believe that British taxpayers saved it so that it could be used for a foreign sell-out?

The British taxpayer has been very generous to British Leyland. We wish there to be a secure future for the car industry in Britain and, with that in mind, we have taken decisions which will be the subject of a statement later this afternoon.

Since the Prime Minister discussed the matter in Cabinet this morning, may I ask what security she believes will be provided, and which assurances can be sustained, in the light of the international car market and the fact that decisions would be made well outside Britain for reasons which would primarily benefit a multinational company outside Britain?

The assurances are that one gets a larger share of the market by virtue of being efficient and having a very good distribution mechanism. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government did not object to Chrysler taking a majority shareholding in Rootes.

Does the Prime Minister believe that that precedent should be followed? Does she believe that after £2 billion of British taxpayers' money has gone into the industry, all the benefit should be reaped by a foreign multinational?

If there were a private sector buyer for the whole lot in Britain, that would be very welcome.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, with the inevitable great pressure on the defence budget, the time has come for a thorough defence review? Does she agree also that that must include a reassessment of the role of the British Army of the Rhine?

We have thorough defence reviews at this time of the year, and the House has several debates on different parts of the defence services, as it will later today. I recognise the question which my hon. Friend is asking, but I must ask him to consider the political consequences of any such review.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

As the Prime Minister and Ministers have consistently said during the past months that we must have regard to the views of the work force of Westland in deciding the future of that company, will she give the same regard to the work force of British Leyland?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Government decided not to mount a rescue package for Westland or to put in any more money other than to write off the launch aid of £40 million, which expenditure had already occurred, should the W30 project be terminated.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 February.

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

Will my right hon. Friend join others in congratulating the Daily Star this week on cataloguing the corrosive and cumulative amount of television violence that comes into our homes? Does she expect the television or broadcasting authorities to take that mounting public concern into account in their policy discussions?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I saw that catalogue of violence displayed over a short time on television. There is much public disquiet about it, which is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary called in representatives of the BBC and the IBA to discuss how they would alter their guidelines on violence to ensure that violence was reduced. We must wait to see what they do, monitor it carefully, and see whether further action must be taken.

How much in taxpayers' subsidies has gone into farming?

The system of support changed from direct support when we went into Europe. The amount of support through Europe is too high a cost on the taxpayer, and we are trying to achieve a reduction in surpluses.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to continue to uphold the excellent standards of British Army bands—which add splendour to royal and state occasions—and which are trained at Kneller hall, Twickenham? As the Public Accounts Committee has today reported its "grave disquiet" at the lack of any financial basis for the decision of the former Secretary of State for Defence to move the bands elsewhere, will the new Secretary of State take a fresh look at the facts?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his valiant campaign in support of the excellent military bands. I note that the report of the PAC on that matter has been published today. Obviously I cannot at this stage reply to that, but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks—that the new Secretary of State will indeed look at matters afresh in the light of the latest facts.