asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the takeover bids for S. and W. Berisford and the likely effect on British sugar beet growers.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 20 May that he had decided to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission proposed acquisitions of S. and W. Berisford by Hillsdown Holdings and Tate and Lyle in accordance with the recommendation of the Director General of Fair Trading. The commission's investigations will include consideration of the likely effect on British sugar beet growers.

While welcoming the fact that the proposed acquisition has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the sugar industry is far too important to be the subject of such a takeover? Would it not be in the best interests of the industry if it rescued itself, and also for a management buy-out to be considered as the best possible solution for sugar beet growers and those who work in the industry?

I do not think that the series of parts in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary hang together. It is necessary that we look at the effect of any purchase in the context of the interests of the country as a whole, and especially those concerned in the sugar industry. That is what we are doing.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the finance margin for refining beet sugar is much higher than the margin for cane sugar, which is very low? Does he further agree that that could possibly activate against the interests of the ACP countries?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The narrowness of the refining margin causes considerable concern, because without a proper refining capacity in this country the ACOP countries would find it impossible to obtain a market for their cane, which would be a disaster. That is why we have been pressing the European Commission to hold a full investigation, and we are pleased that it will now do so.

Is it not true that a Monopolies Commission investigation could reveal that, given proper safeguards for monopolies, this acquisition could provide an opportunity for all the interests of beet producers and refiners as well as cane producers in the Commonwealth and cane workers in this country to be combined to provide a stable, domestically-owned sugar industry that would provide employment and markets for all concerned?

That is no doubt the case that Tate and Lyle will put before the commission. However, there are now two investigations — one by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the other by the European Commission, which is looking into the margin.

Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents and others who grow sugar beet that if Ferruzzi, the Italian company, makes a further bid he will support his colleagues by referring that to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission also?

The Office of Fair Trading is currently considering whether Ferruzzi's holding in Berisford constitutes a material influence resulting in a merger that would qualify, at the moment, for a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission under the Fair Trading Act 1973.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that takeovers usually mean unemployment for workers in the company taken over? Will he therefore consider making representations to try to ensure that workers do not lose jobs, especially in view of the tremendous workless total in this country?

In the first place, I do not think that is truthful. One must look for security of employment in an industry, and that security is sometimes advanced by takeovers and sometimes not. The hon. Gentleman must not let his political dogma get in the way of the facts. We must adopt the best possible solution across the board, and that is why we have established an impartial. investigation. The hon. Gentleman wants to prejudge the impartial investigation, which is a typical Socialist attitude.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration Her Majesty's Government are giving to agricultural set-aside schemes.

In the cereals sector, the Government are actively considering ideas for a Communitywide voluntary set-aside scheme. The Government are also studying the Commission's proposals for set-aside in its socio-structural package.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when we are seeking to tackle surpluses, the advantage of set-aside schemes is that they enable us much more accurately to determine which land shall be taken out of production, and thus ensure a fairly comprehensive countryside policy in any one area? When does my right hon. Friend expect that his Ministry will be coming to conclusions on both his and the Community's schemes, which are under discussion?

I believe that my hon. Friend is right in his analysis. We are working on the criteria that the scheme should be voluntary, Communitywide and cost effective, and should provide an alternative for those producers who are least able to cope with a restrictive price policy. We are anxious to start discussions as soon as possible.

Would not a set-aside policy be more easily achieved if we had a parallel farm woodlands policy? Does the Minister agree, on the question of surplus cereal production, that it is estimated that about 14 to 15 per cent. of cereal land in Britain will have to be taken out of production?

I would not accept those figures, because much depends on the degree to which the Community is successful in bringing the production of food closer to the level of consumption. We must consider, in respect of the scheme, the overall problem of land use, including the potential of a greater incidence of the growing of trees.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity again to clarify his position on the control of cereal surpluses? Does he still believe that price control is the best and only practical way to control production, or is he seriously considering alternative and additional methods?

I know that my hon. Friend has heard me say on a number of occasion how I believe we should deal with the current surplus in cereals. I remind him of the Commission's estimate that if we do nothing we could find ourselves with 80 million tonnes of surplus grain in the Community by 1991. My view is that a package of measures is necessary. It would not be practical politics to deal with the matter with one device alone, such as price control. We must use the devices of price, set-aside and intervention standards. I have been saying this in the House for about six or nine months. I believe that price must be at the forefront of the package.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that while set-aside has its definite advantages, we do not want that to prolong the excessive use of fertilisers, which run off into rivers and into the public water supply from the land that is not set aside? In other words, we want to achieve a situation in which we do not get maximum production from the acreage that is not set aside.

My hon. Friend did not use the word nitrates, but I suspect that he had it in mind. We are conscious of the dangers of the excessive use of nitrogen in encouraging plant growth. For that reason we are carrying out a careful study of the problem. I hope that we will be able to see the conclusions of that before very long. We should be careful about introducing steps to prevent the use of methods of producing high yields which hold back farmers within the Community, whereas their competitors in the rest of the world are free to use every device which leads to greater efficiency. That would be a dangerous step.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the likely effect of the European Community agriculture price agreement on the European Economic Community budget.

The Commission has estimated that the agriculture price agreement for 1986–87 will reduce Community expenditure by 320 million ecu in 1986 and by 457 million ecu in 1987. At the same time, the Council agreed to cuts in the Community financing of intervention which will save an additional 300 million ecu a year.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that now is the opportune time to reform the way in which we market our surpluses within Europe, instead of selling beef to the Russians at a giveaway price? What plans has his Department put forward to the Commission to try to improve the situation?

Over the years we have tried—this was probably true of the previous Government also — to argue in favour of policies which prevented these huge, unmarketable, unwanted and uneatable surpluses from being built up. That seems to be the right policy. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been extremely unhappy about the special sales, which are directed, for instance with butter and other products, at countries such as the Soviet Union.

Is there not a simple way of solving the Community's financial problems? Is the Community not like any other organisation or person? Should it not say to itself at the beginning of each year that there is only a certain amount of money to spend on agriculture? If, perchance and sadly, it should go above that level of expenditure, could it not pass the hat round to those countries that spend the most money? If it needed surplus cash, could it not take it pro rata on the basis of where the money was spent? Would that not be a fair and sensible solution?

If it came to what was a fair and sensible solution, my hon. Friend would probably scrap the whole Community. Of course, that is not the policy of the majority of hon. Members or of the Government. We have a financial guideline, as my hon. Friend knows perfectly well. In this year's price-fixing the financial guideline has been a major influence on the successful outcome of that price fixing process.

Does the Minister agree that the CAP budget for this year will be £800 million more than last year, despite what the Minister said is being saved? Even that is not a full statement of the problem. Ministers have sought to hide expenditure of between £300 million and £900 million this year and bury it in next year's accounts. We are talking therefore about between £1,000 million and £1,700 million more expenditure. The Agriculture Ministers are doing that to try to hide the poverty of their approach to the real problems of the CAP.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that price fixing this year did respect the financial guideline. As he was shown, exceptional circumstances, in the view of the Commission, have led to a supplementary budget to be produced above the guideline, on the ground of the fall in the level of the United States dollar and the consequent increase in the amount of money which the Community needs to complete the programme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy towards the slaughter of horses and ponies for the purpose of carcase exports.

We consider that the welfare of horses and ponies should be protected at the point of slaughter in all circumstances.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of only five EEC-approved slaughterhouses for horses and ponies is not sufficient, and that the conditions at the lairages at them are, in many cases, disgraceful? In one case they amounted to only a muddy field where horses and ponies were kept for many days before being slaughtered. Will she look into the fact that horses and ponies are being forced to travel long distances, over many days, in unsatisfactory conditions, without food, water or exercise before slaughter? Will she look into the fact that RSPCA Inspector Rankin was forced out of the Southall horse market the other day when he said that horses being sold there were too thin for riding?

On my hon. Friend's latter point, another RSPCA inspector attended the market on 4 June. I would not wish my hon. Friend to think that there was not an RSPCA inspector there. I take his point about fewer abattoirs meaning, obviously, a longer journey for horses. Horses in transit are protected by transit legislation. I have often reiterated to my hon. Friend that local authorities are empowered to enforce controls. Evidence of offences should be reported to local authorities. The Farm Animal Welfare Council is reviewing the welfare of all livestock in transit, including horses and ponies. Following the FAWC's report on the welfare of redmeat animals, including horses, at the time of slaughter, the Government have proposed a number of changes to legislation to provide further protection for all animals for slaughter.

Does the hon. Lady agree that the problem is that there is an inadequate number of inspectors, that local authorities seem reluctant to prosecute and that legislation is not sufficiently penal? A decent method of slaughter of horses — many of us would object to their slaughter in any event—can be secured only through proper inspection, proper enforcement and proper punishment for offences when the law is so openly flouted.

Local authorities have not made the point that they arc not able to enforce the law as it stands. As I pointed out, offences have to be drawn quickly to their attention. I understand that a local authority is promoting a Bill to give additional powers to deal with stray horses.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the French actually eat our horses and ponies as steaks? Has she considered that if we stopped eating their frogs and snails, they might consider not eating our horses and ponies?

I note my hon. Friend's objection to, horsemeat as a diet. I think that, by and large, that view is shared by a large number of people in this country, but I would not like to speak on behalf of those who eat grenouilles and escargots.

Is the hon. Lady satisfied that the problems found by the FAWC within slaughterhouses have been properly and satisfactorily dealt with? Is she satisfied that slaughtering methods and procedures used for horses are no less humane than those used for cattle, pigs and other animals?

We have received the FAWC's report and have proposed a number of changes to legislation, which are now up for consultation — it will take a while because legislation is required — to provide further protection for all animals. The FAWC considered in particular horses and ponies at slaughter as well as all other redmeat animals.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with current measures to reduce European Economic Community food surpluses.

In 1984 the Council agreed milk quotas; in 1985 important reforms of the wine regime were adopted; the price-fixing agreement this year included further steps in tackling the milk and cereals surpluses; and the Council is committeed to taking decisions on beef support later this year. We intend to keep up this steady programme of reform. There is a great deal more to be done.

Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 918 in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and other hon. Members concerning a new EEC subsidy for feeding butter to cows? What is my right hon. Friend's attitude to that? Will he confirm that £75 million a week is spent by the Community on disposing of surpluses?

I have watched carefully the considerable efforts that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) puts into ensuring that we never miss some of the sillier things that happen in the European Community. Our purpose is to reduce the supply of goods so that they are more nearly in line with needs. We shall continue to press for that.

As substantial price reductions are really the only effective alternative to quotas, which the Minister does not like, why are he and his Department so complacent about the impact of recent currency changes in the EEC which have meant that this year a number of farmers in countries in the Community will receive increases in their cereal prices?

I do not think that the Department is in any way complacent. We have said that the effects of the package this time have meant a considerable cut in the price that will be received for cereals. It is not the method we would have used or for which we shall continue to press. However, we are honourable and honest enough to say that a great deal has been achieved.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that any system we introduce to confront the problem of surpluses must be simple and practical, and that in order to achieve that it is best to consult those who are involved in agriculture? In that respect, will he consider producing a Green Paper on the various methods by which we could reduce surpluses?

I am not sure that in those circumstances a Green Paper would be the right way to go about it. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no way in which we can reduce the surpluses unless we do so with the support and help of the agriculture community. Sometimes I wonder whether the Oposition realise that people in the agriculture community need proper incomes as much as do those elesewhere.

Will the Minister accept that his policies have caused the maximum disruption in the industry that he has just been talking about, while having the minimum effect on surpluses? As the Minister is the proud custodian of all these vast stocks of cereals, beef, dairy produce and so on, will he try, by looking after them properly, to ensure that someone gets the benefit of these stocks in due course? How about starting by ensuring that good quality cereals in intervention stores are kept separate from the uneatable stuff about which his right hon. Friend the Minister was talking?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The answer to his second question is that it is our purpose to keep the stocks in the form which makes them most saleable.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the delay and confusion over the announcement of the method of collecting the co-responsibility levy on cereals is causing great concern in agriculture? Will he also accept that the draft recommendations from Brussels are totally unworkable and very much favour the farm feed process, against the country compounder? The trade is anxious that the settlement should be made well before the harvest, so that it knows where it is.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that a delay in the decision is extremely difficult for the trade. As the rest of his question goes on to suggest, it is also important that we get the management arrangement correct. Our problem is that we are pushing for the most sensible and simple method which we can have in a co-responsibility levy, which is not the system we would have chosen. Therefore, I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is our job to ensure in that management committee decision that it is, ultimately, the best system for Britain.

The Minister will be aware of the concern about food contamination following the Chernobyl disaster. Can he tell us——

Order. There is a later question on that.

I wanted to ask about the effects that Chernobyl is expected to have on EEC food surpluses.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting his question in early in case we do not reach it. We are not currently in a position to assess the effect of the Chernobyl disaster on European surpluses.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total sum spent by the European Economic Community on the storage and disposal of food and wine surpluses in the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, expressed in pounds sterling; and what was the comparable total five years previously.

Expenditure by the European Community in 1985 on the storage and disposal of products in structural surplus, that is cereals, sugar, milk products, beef and wine, was about £7·3 billion. The comparable figure for 1980 was about £4·7 billion, or, if inflation is taken into account, £6·8 billion.

Is it not a criminal waste of public funds that £150 million is now being spent by the Common Market every week on dumping, disposing of or destroying food surpluses? Is that expenditure not a shameful insult to every health authority and school authority, and to the old-age pensioners and unemployed of Britain, who could use the money much better?

It is certainly not a sensible way to spend money. It is the Government's purpose to ensure that surpluses are pulled down while farm incomes are at least protected and that we are able to have what ought to be the triumph of agriculture, which is that we are able to feed our people, not turned into the sadness of agriculture because there is too much.

When the Minister's right hon. Friend says that Mr. Adriesson has estimated that in five years' time cereal surpluses will rise to 80 million tonnes, which is a fivefold increase on their present size, does he not think that this time the Agriculture Council should do other than mull over generalities and get down to solving the problem?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that that is what would happen if we did nothing, and that the Agriculture Council has already done a great deal, but nothing like enough. I am, therefore, pleased to note his support for the measures that we are trying to take and trying to get the Council to take to ensure that we achieve solutions. The fact is that the CAP, like the previous system in this country, was based on the principle that the major problem was a shortage of food. Contrary to everything that the experts say, we now have a world in which we have too much food. Changing the system is not the easiest thing in the world.

May I press my right hon. Friend a little further on cereal surpluses? Does he agree that the only test of a successful policy is whether a small amount goes into intervention? Will he confirm that the prospects for the coming year are that a larger amount will go into intervention?

I would not wish to make any prognostication about how much will go into intervention. The fact is that China, India and other countries which used to need our food surpluses are now exporting food. In those circumstances, it is a scandal that we have more and more intervention stores and grain, and we must change that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about reform of the common agricultural policy.

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I receive many representations from individuals and organisations about the common agricultural policy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that what Bob Geldof raised last year——

Sir Robert Geldof——

—the EEC wastes each week in dumping and destroying food? Why cannot British pensioners have British butter at 15p a pound, instead of it being given to the Russians? Now that the Russians have poisoned their meat produce with radiation, should they not pay a proper price for our meat?

The latest Commission proposal, which we have only just received, suggests, disappointingly on the Commission's figures, that the revised scheme for butter disposal would deal with only about 30,000 tonnes of butter in the Community as a whole. We have not yet had proper discussions of the proposal in Brussels, and we need to have a number of points clarified before we can take a final view on how to react.

Will the Government take careful account of the importance of less-favoured area status within the CAP in terms of any future reform? Will they look carefully at the extensive extension granted recently in West Germany and consider similar proposals for extentions in other areas, such as Scotland?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that only about a year ago we were able to achieve the great success of enlarging the less-favoured areas in the United Kingdom, which brought about 28,000 additional farms into less-favoured area status. That has been most warmly received by the industry. Regarding the recently agreed German extension, the hon. Gentleman will recall that it was carried out under the guidelines laid down by the Commission and the Council. We are considering the possibility of further adjustments to our areas with this status and we are at present working towards that possibility.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in any reform of the CAP we should aim for a modest surplus to be produced at home by British farmers, and that the best way of controlling that surplus is by pressing on wih the set-aside programme, which will provide farmers with a working income at less than the present great cost of storing the surpluses produced?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm support of our ideas on the set-aside programme. They are gaining support. I am particularly interested to hear that the German Government are proposing a pilot scheme along these lines in Lower Saxony. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that we should aim at a modest surplus, so that the chances of food shortages are reduced to a negligible level.

As the right hon. Gentleman is basking in the support of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for the set-aside programme, may we have some details rather than general statements about how and in what form the set-aside programme will work? At column 245 of the report of our previous Agriculture Questions on 8 May the Minister appeared to say that the cause of surpluses was bad management and that no change in the principles of the CAP was necessary. Is that still his view? If so, is that how he will approach his presidency of the Council of Agriculture Ministers?

Yes, most certainly. I have taken the view, as have Labour Ministers before me, that the principles of the common agricultural policy, in endeavouring to ensure that there are adequate supplies of food at reasonable prices for the housewife while providing a fair return for the farmer, are good principles to start with. The tragic mistake was the way in which the Council of Agriculture Ministers, over the years, but especially during the early 1980s, despite British protestations, has reached for the cheque book whenever there have been difficulties. It has allowed massive price increases, which could lead only to huge food surpluses and the ultimate bankruptcy of the Community. The inadequacies of management, which ignored British advice, have led us into the present mess.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Department is considering the publication of a White Paper on the future of agricultural land use.

No, but my Department has commissioned, or is involved in, a number of studies into future agricultural land use. I expect that the results of these studies will be made widely available to enable informed discussions to take place on this important issue.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the greatest problems facing agriculture is the sense of uncertainty and the lack of direction? The publication of a Government White Paper would at least have the effect of pointing farmers in the right direction and at the same time might have the effect of scotching some of the more ridiculous alternative land use schemes, such as Government subsidies for growing trees, which are phenomally expensive?

My hon. Friend will recall that for many years there have been Government subsidies to encourage people to grow trees. I am sorry to hear that he believes that is a mistake. I perfectly understand and agree with him about the vital future importance of land use. However, I remain to be convinced that the correct way to proceed is to produce a White Paper. Let me give him one example. In the last six months of this year we shall be discussing a new beef regime. Neither I nor anyone in the Community or the House has any idea of the outcome of the discussion. It would be very difficult to produce a White Paper with that imponderable taken into account.

Should not a White Paper be announced to disclose the Government's intention to carry out a study into the effects of acid rainfall on agricultural land use? As last year, 150,000 people died of cancer, and as we know that coal-fired power stations are emitting carcinogenic material by the tonne every day of the week, do not the Government have a duty to discover whether any of that carcinogenic material is making its way into the food chain? Should not the Government, especially the Minister's Department, address that issue?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we regularly monitor food health and safety. Food is becoming safer as time goes by. That is certainly the case with regard to radioactive material. The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to this difficult area. He requests a White Paper on acid rain, another on cancer and another on emissions from power stations. There is no end to it.

Despite the obvious attractions of a White Paper and the consultation process, will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to tell the British people that there is no question of large numbers of golf courses being sought as the solution to this problem? Will he assure the House that, if we are to have trees, they will be British trees such as the oak, the ash and the beach and not the anonymous conifers of Scandinavia and North America?

My hon. Friend will recall that we recently announced a broad-leaved policy for woodlands, which was most warmly received. My hon. Friend should address his question about golf courses to my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for sport.

How can there be the informed discussion to which the Minister referred against the background of cuts which the Government have made in the Soil Survey for England and Wales and the Macaulay Institute, which does the same work in Scotland? For how much longer will the Minister shirk his responsibility for giving the industry the guidance that it needs to readjust the pattern of production and supply? If he is thinking about some form of set-aside scheme, will he give the House some answers and stop trying to duck questions, as he did in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John)?

There is no question of ducking questions. I have explained clearly our views on set-aside. I have explained them in the Community, and they are becoming more recognised. I do not understand what all this has to do with the Soil Survey.

That says it all.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has held with the president of the National Farmers Union regarding a set-aside scheme for dealing with agricultural surpluses.

I and my officials hold frequent discussions with representatives of the NFU on all aspects of the support system for cereals.

Rather than just going back 200 years to "Turnip" Townsend and fallow fields in a four-course rotation, will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the NFU's brand new document on tree production? Does it not contain a good deal of common sense?

Yes. I believe that, for some time now, the NFU has recognised the importance of increasing woodland on farms. I very much look forward to studying its document more carefully. The fallowing of land is an ancient and honourable way of land management.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total amount and value of surplus food stocks (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the entire European Economic Community.

A note setting out the volume of intervention stocks in the United Kingdom and the Community is deposited in the Library of the House and is updated monthly. The value of these intervention stocks, which include some non-food stocks, is estimated to be £1,371 million in the United Kingdom and £6,197 million in the Community as a whole.

For how much longer will the Government tolerate the absolute obscenity of millions of tonnes of food rotting away in the Common Market while millions of people in the Third world face the risk of death by starvation? As the Government have given some belated recognition to Bob Geldof——

Sir Bob Geldof.

—is it not time that they gave more recognition to what the man had to say about releasing some of the surplus food to help hungry people in Africa?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman, whose views on the need to help hungry people I share, would just read what Oxfam and other organisations say. They say that it is not surplus food but financial aid that is needed, otherwise indigenous agriculture will be driven out and there will be no possibility of building an agricultural future for those countries. The hon. Gentleman must not allow his opposition to the Common Market to do down the underdeveloped countries.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate his Department has made of the effect of the new article 100A of the Treaty of Rome on the interests of the food and drink industries.

This article, which will apply after ratification of the single European Act by all member states, contains new provisions for adoption of Community measures in the internal market. In particular, the Council will act by qualified majority rather than by unanimity. I cannot predict what effect this change will have on the nature or number of the measures adopted.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she continue to ensure that there are no unnecessary restrictions on the export of foodstuffs to the EEC while we are considering our internal legislative policies?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to play a full part in the negotiations for harmonisation of food standards and ensure that the interests of our food industry are taken into account in working towards a harmonised market.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish the outcome of his Department's study into freezer vessel licences for pelagic fishing.

I hope that it will be possible to make an anouncement in the near future.

Is the Minister aware that the inordinate delay in publishing the findings of his review has seriously impeded investment in, and the restructuring of, the British fleet? Will he tell the House whether he agrees, in principle, that the use of freezers in pelagic fishing could result in considerable improvements in efficiency and cost-effectiveness? Does he agree that the early construction of new freezer vessels could provide much needed orders for our very hard-pressed shipbuilding industry?

I think it is very important that the British fishing industry should make the most of the opportunities that it has under the common fisheries policy and which are much to its advantage. That is why I want to get the right answer, and that is why we are seeking an answer. I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman a reply soon.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 June.

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

Is the Prime Minister totally unaware of the deep anger among nurses over the fact that, for the second year running, she has overturned the review body award and short-changed them by giving them only nine months' instead of 12 months' pay? Is she also aware that the injustice of giving the managers back pay until February has infuriated doctors and nurses alike? Ward sisters have now got £800 less than the review body decided they should have. When the Prime Minister replies to the Royal College of Nursing's letter of 28 May, will she take into account the grave shortages in acute nursing facilities and the low morale? Will she take the decision back to the Cabinet and not give the House a lot of statistics about national numbers, past comparisons and the inflation rate?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that nurses have had a far better deal under this Government than ever they had under the Labour Government. A ward sister to whom the hon. Gentleman refers is now, on the top of her scale, receiving £2,000 a year more than she would have done had the 1979 rate, which appertained when his Government were in power, merely been increased by inflation. Our record on that is excellent.

Reverting to my right hon. Friend's answer of last Tuesday on the question whether Rolls-Royce required Government support, is she aware that last week Cathay Pacific Airways ordered two Boeing 747 400s, with an option on seven more?

I am delighted to hear of the order won by Rolls-Royce, on the merits of this engine. It is very good news indeed and it highlights the company's export record. Rolls-Royce is used to exporting. Last year Rolls-Royce engine sales to the United States were worth £435 million.

The Prime Minister will know that this morning a state of emergency was declared in South Africa. In the light of these latest and grave events, and the sombre report of the Eminent Persons Group, is it not now plain to the Prime Minister that her stance at Nassau last October was totally misjudged? Political progress against apartheid cannot be made without effective and concerted economic pressure against South Africa. Detailed measures need urgent consideration with Commonwealth partners. The House and the Commonwealth are entitled to know from the Prime Minister now whether she accepts the principle of economic sanctions against South Africa.

We have just received the group's report and we are studying it carefully. Time is needed for all concerned, including the South African Government, to consider the report. I shall be meeting the two co chairmen later today. We must not close the door on future negotiations. The group's report recognised that it was not its task to make specific proposals about measures. Therefore, we shall be in touch with our Commonwealth partners, our European partners and our economic summit partners to discuss this report.

That is an equivocal, and, for the right hon. Lady, a surprisingly unclear and indefinite response to what was a unanimous report by a group that spent six months, at her personal request, studying events in South Africa.

We have just received the report.

We have indeed just had the report, but it has been available to almost everybody for the past 48 hours. The Prime Minister has had plenty of time to consider, not so much the detail of what we need to do, but the principle of the matter. Will she now remove her veto on economic sanctions, on which she has previously insisted?

The right hon. Gentleman is complaining because we are to consider the report carefully with our partners before we reach our conclusions. He knows full well that the report says:

"we are not determining the nature or extent of any measures which might be adopted, or their effectiveness".

I have one final point to put to the Prime Minister, because she is equivocating. The word "sanctions" has been used by the leading members of the Eminent Persons Group. I quote directly from paragraph 352 of its report, which says:

"We are convinced that the South African Government is concerned about the adoption of effective economic measures against it."

I have read out what the report says, which is:

"we are not determining the nature or extent of any measures which might be adopted, or their effectiveness".

"We voted against"—

"together with France, West Germany, the USA and some other Western countries, because we do not agree that the far-reaching economic measures which the resolution calls for would produce the changes in South Africa which we would all wish to see."—[Official Report, 16 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 9.]

My right hon. Friend has made much of the sentiment "the lady's not for turning". May we take it that she will not turn aside from her view that the further isolation of the South African Government and the imposition of sanctions, while they will achieve many things, will not help the creation of a more just and equitable society in South Africa?

Of course we want a more just and equitable society in South Africa and we condemn apartheid. We still believe that we must not close the door on future negotiations and that the group's basic approach of promoting dialogue and a suspension of violence remains correct. Of course, we shall consider this distinguished report carefully, and consider it with our European partners, our Commonwealth partners and with the seven industrialised nations. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that that is the right way to go about it, before dashing into premature conclusions.

Can the Prime Minister promise the House that when President Reagan applies economic sanctions against South Africa she will not turn round and follow suit? When will she lead world opinion instead of being led by the nose? In the light of the state of emergency that was declared today in South Africa, will she tell us now that she will be ready to stop direct intercontinental flights to South Africa?

The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that those flights are conducted under legal contract. There are specific legal obligations in those contracts, which cannot suddenly be abrogated. I note that in an article in The Sunday Times on 24 March 1985 the right hon. Gentleman said:

"Total, or even selective trade sanctions, will not succeed."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time that Northern Ireland said yes to something? The SDLP vetoed the Assembly and the Unionists have vetoed the Anglo-Irish accord. Is it not time that Northern Ireland said yes to something and then tried to seek a solution to its problems? Northern Ireland should not always look to Westminster for a new initiative, because we have rather run out of initiatives and out of patience with the people of Northern Ireland, who sabotage everything that we try to do.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will make a statement later today. In the meantime, the invitation to the Unionists stands. We invite them to come and discuss how to get devolved government and to discuss the future of the Assembly. It is also open to them to come to discuss the future arrangements about the conduct of Northern Ireland legislation in the House. I hope that one day they will take up that offer.

Will the Prime Minister invite her security advisers to study with great care the implicit timetable behind the outrages and attempted outrages for which the perpetrators have just been convicted? Will she compare those with the successive stages of negotiation between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the United States and the Irish Republic?

I shall deal separately with the two parts of the right hon. Gentleman's question. Of course security advisers will learn any lessons that are to be learnt. It is their duty to do so. They go to great lengths to try to protect us and they do a supremely good job. I totally reject the latter half of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 June.

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that the uprating by 10p per week of child benefit is an insult to the many families who depend upon it? Is that not another example of the Government's callous indifference to those that have not?

No. Child benefit is at just about the right level. The hon. Gentleman fails to observe that the money for child benefit often has to come from the very families to which it goes. There are of course increased amounts under supplementary benefit. In so far as the hon. Gentleman refers to supplementary child benefit, the increase is low because inflation is low—lower than ever his Government had it.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 June.

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

When it comes to the crunch, is the Prime Minister prepared to break the Commonwealth rather than back stronger concerted measures to break the pattern of apartheid in South Africa?

I have said that we shall be consulting the Commonwealth, I think at the beginning of August, when the seven Heads of Government come to London for that purpose, and I shall be seeing the two cochairmen of the Eminent Persons Group later this afternoon.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 June.

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

As it is only the Conservative party which is united, with a strong and clear defence policy for the defence of Britain, is it not a danger to our country that unilateral nuclear disarmament is supported not only by the Labour party but by live out of every six Liberal candidates, over which they are deeply split with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)? Is this not a total abuse of the word "alliance", which should now be dropped?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend that only the Conservative party and the Government have a defence policy which is based on British interests and not on trying to reconcile irreconcilable views.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 12 June.

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

Is the right hon. Lady aware that many parts of Rolls-Royce aero-engines are made in my constituency at Millington and that there is deep concern about the company's future in Glasgow, particularly its capacity to produce in the west of Scotland? Will she ask her Ministers to seek assurances from the directors of the company that they will keep a presence in Glasgow?

I shall, of course, pass on the hon. Gentleman's request, and I am sure he will appreciate that the likelihood of the company maintaining a presence in Scotland is the greater the more orders Rolls-Royce wins. It appears to be being very successful on design and merit.