asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the farming industry; and what subjects were discussed.

I am frequently in touch with representatives of the farming industry on a wide range of agricultural matters.

Does the Minister appreciate the great uncertainty that exists in agriculture? Is he aware of the existence of large surpluses and the market decline in land values, which cause farmers great anxiety and feelings of insecurity? Secondly, the Government's commitment to conservation has not led them to present their position with clarity on farm and forest development in environmentally sensitive areas or, for that matter, anywhere else.

The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that there is a certain amount of uncertainty throughout agriculture worldwide, where massive surpluses exist and export markets become fewer and fewer. I believe that our work over the past few years in Brussels to return the common agricultural policy to reality and prudence is a move in the right direction. I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments about conservation. He will recall that we have had a warm welcome from both sides of the House and from many other places to our proposals for environmentally sensitive areas. We have specified these areas and we are now negotiating terms with those concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the dairying community, and certainly in my constituency, there is strong objection in principle to the imposition of the new statutory inspection charges, and that when there is not objection in principle there is a strong feeling that the charges are too high anyway?

I have discussed with the leaders of the various sections of the farmers unions the statutory charges. My hon. Friend will recall that the proposed charge per visit under the milk and dairy regulations will be about £90. That figures will reflect actual costs. It is important to bear in mind that farmers with high standards of hygiene on their farms will be visited only once every three years, or even less frequently. A £90 per visit charge is equivalent to only £30 a year or less for those who have high standards of hygiene on their farms.

Will the Minister confirm the report that was carried on the front page of The Independent that he is to take on the fanning lobby? If it is true that the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Departments of Employment and Environment are engaged in secret discussions about alternative land resource use and employment, does he agree that that will increase uncertainty? Will he confirm that the debate is being conducted in secret, and would it not be better to conduct it in public with the National Farmers Union?

The Government's policy is to continue to support British agriculture, which has made a massive contribution to our economy for a long time. The hon. Gentleman should not make statements such as he has just made, because agriculture is our finest industry.

Will my right hon. Friend explain, if he can, why he considers it just that farmers should have to pay for inspections that they do not want at a cost of £90 when factories do not have to pay for inspections by factory inspectors or by health and safety inspectors? Why should farmers have to pay when others do not?

My hon. Friend will know that the Government took the view that we should make certain charges on certain statutory duties. The National Farmers Union asked us especially whether we could be sure not to make charges for tuberculosis and brucellosis testing. I am aware of the anxieties, but charging is appropriate when the producer derives a benefit. The high quality and reputation of the product helps to maintain consumption, and thus benefits the producer.

Has the Minister had raised with him in his discussions the question of intereference by French farmers in the British lamb trade? What steps, beyond writing to his French opposite number and to the President of the Commission, does he propose to take? Will he make it clear in words that even M. Guillaume can understand that the French do not have a unique prescriptive right to strain the CAP rules, and that if we were to respond in kind they would have much more to lose?

The hon. Gentleman should know that I have twice spoken to M. Guillaume about the 'hijacking incident. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken to President Mitterrand about the matter. We were both given assurances that fresh and firm instructions would go out to all police authorities and that compensation would be paid.

Bearing in mind the Government's oft-stated wish to support farming and the problems caused to the port of Aberdeen as a result of the fall in oil prices, would it not be sensible to insist that all imports of Perrier water should be routed into Britain via Aberdeen, where they would be subjected to chemical analysis? Would that not encourage the French to stop interfering with our sheep?

My hon. Friend gives us, in general terms, food for thought. I am sure he agrees that, when we are criticising lawlessness by citizens of France, the last thing that we should do is resort to lawlessness ourselves.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board; what subjects were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

My colleagues and I frequently meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board. My last formal meeting with him was on 13 May, when we discussed a wide range of subjects.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. When he next meets the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, will he ask how many dairy farmers have agreed to take the new outgoers scheme, which would pay them 16·3p per litre over seven years? Does he agree that that, given the 22–25p per litre that farmers can get for selling their quota on the open market, not many will take up the scheme? Why can we not top up our outgoers scheme as do the Germans, who will increase theirs to about 22–27p a litre, payable over five years?

I am sure that my hon. Friend made a slip of the tongue. It is 18p a litre. Although it it is true that the Germans are topping up theirs, the French are paying less. No other country is topping up the amount to its farmers. Already a large number of people have written in for the details, and some people already wish to leave the industry in this way. We shall have to see how the system works. There is always disagreement in these circumstances about the right level at which to pitch it, but we have to stick where we are.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to dairy farmers, some of whom are perhaps without the same benefits of intelligence and education as he has, how it is right that they are paying taxes so that the Russians can get 1 million tonnes of British corn at a third of the price that our dairy farmers are having to pay for it?

Is that relevant?

It is about dairy farming, Mr. Speaker.

Many of the farmers are aware that if the Community is 14–5 per cent. over-supplied, it is better to get something for particularly old butter, which nobody wants, than to get nothing for it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the co-responsibility levy on cereals will have on the amount of cereals produced within the European Economic Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation of the cereals co-responsibility levy.

The levy was not in force when plantings for the 1986 harvest were under way, and its effect on future harvests will be difficult to isolate because of numerous other factors at work. I have already made clear my attitude to this measure, for example in my statement to the Select Committee on Agriculture on 16 July.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the co-responsibility levy will not reduce the amount of cereal grown, and that any set-aside programme will not achieve it on its own, because the worst land will be set aside and on the best land productivity will be increased? Will he do something to alleviate the present uncertainty by announcing, or getting his Common Market partners to announce, that any future restriction on production of cereals will be based on the yields of earlier years, or a combination of years, so as to reduce the distortion and the present increase in production of cereals?

I do not think that that would be the best way to deal with the problem, given that yields have increased in this country probably faster than in any other Community country. We would be in danger of shooting ourselves through the foot if we were to do it that way. I have always agreed with my hon. Friend that we need a packet of measures to deal with the cereals problem. I do not like, and the House does not like, the co-responsibility levy, and the House would, I think, like me, prefer a reduction in price. With the package of measures, we must have a stringent price policy and tough rules for grain that is suitable for intervention. At the same time, we have made proposals for a land diversion policy so that those farmers who find it most difficult to continue to produce grain at a profit may be given alternative enterprises to grain production, which is in a huge surplus.

Is this levy not inherently discriminatory, and does not the discrimination create an incentive to take avoiding action and to look for loopholes? is not the creation of these loopholes bad government at both national and European level? Why does the Minister not become tough with the Europeans and lay down what we want rather than what they want?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have been here when I made a statement at the end of the price fixing negotiations this year. We were able to remove all the items that discriminated against the United Kingdom in lamb, beef and cereals. Unlike the original Commission proposal for the cereals co-responsibility levy, the present system does not discriminate against the United Kingdom. It is satisfactory from that point of view, but, like the hon. Gentleman, I would much rather not have had the co-responsibility levy.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his set-aside proposals? They are part of a much more satisfactory alternative for the future of cereals than co-responsibility. Will he say something about the progress that he is making with these proposals?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the land diversion proposals. This matter was discussed informally by the Council of Ministers and I was pleased by the constructive response of the other Ministers to the proposals. The matter is to be further examined by the Commission in Brussels. I hope that before too long it will emerge as a concrete proposal.

As, in a Community of 12, Britain's Presidency will always come round in the second half of the year, what steps does the Minister propose to take now to ensure that cereal prices are reduced in the first half of next year?

The early part of next year will be discussed on the basis of the proposals that the Commission will produce at the turn of the year. Obviously I cannot anticipate at this time what they will be. However, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that the price that the farmer receives for grain is based not entirely upon the support price that is agreed by the Council of Ministers. If he wants an example, he will see that this year farmers have obtained unexpectedly high prices for grain because of a buoyant export market, from which British agriculture has benefited.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best evidence of over-production of feedwheat comes from today's edition of The Times, which says that the EEC is so desperate to get rid of its surplus feedwheat that it is continuing to sell substantial quantities of it, with an export subsidy of £82·76, to Syria?

My hon. Friend will realise that there is no embargo on United Kingdom exports to Syria, but no special export refunds exist for the sale of cereals to Syria. The United Kingdom will oppose any proposal to introduce such a refund.

That was rather a pathetic answer.

I cannot anticipate next week's business. As for the co-responsibility levy being a tax on consumers, the hon. Gentleman should know that as the levy is charged on sales into intervention it will affect market prices across the board, especially those for feed grains. It should reduce the cost of grain to livestock farmers who mill their food, and it should not increase the cost of grain to compounders. The hon. Gentleman must check on the facts before making such statements.

Does the Minister accept that the inclusion of oats in the co-responsibility levy scheme is wholly and grossly unfair, because it is not a commodity that is in surplus? Will he use his good offices to try to get oats out of the scheme for next year?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that in certain circumstances oats, barley and certain feedwheat are interchangeable. If, therefore, we are to have a co-responsibility levy, the exemption of oats would create the danger of distorting the market.

Will my right hon. Friend deal with a problem in operating the levy that is worrying farmers? If a merchant buys grain from a farmer he collects the levy, but if he sells that grain to a farmer who mills on his own farm he receives the rebate. However, there is no way of ensuring that that rebate is paid to the farmer. Is it possible to institute a method of auditing the books of merchants?

I have talked to my hon. Friend's constituents about this matter. I do not think that it will be possible to change the rules this year to enable such an audit to be introduced. However, we are prepared to look at the possibility and to discuss it with the Commission to see whether it might be possible in future to have a different system for operating the levy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of agricultural land in England has been used for growing cereals in the current year: and what was the proportion 10 years previously.

The provisional results of the June agricultural census shows that cereals were grown on 34 per cent. of the total agricultural area in England in 1986, compared with 30·7 per cent. in 1976.

What is the Minister's estimate of the land that needs to be taken out of cereal production in order to align supply and demand?

No, because, as the hon. Gentleman will know, such an estimate depends upon where the land is, what sort of land it is and the circumstances. If we could have a package of measures, including restraint on price, to ensure that there are alternative crops, thereby providing some kind of land diversion, probably with rotation by fallowing, that would meet the need.

Do these figures not clearly demonstrate that cereal farmers have done far too well for far too long? What proposals does my right hon. Friend intend to produce to the European Commission to reduce substantially the subsidies on cereals?

As my hon. Friend knows, the measures taken this year will substantially reduce the price below what it would have been. That will be done by a mixture of changes in quality control and the intervention rules, coupled with the effect of the co-responsibility levy. We would have much preferred not to have this co-responsibility levy, because it is an odd and unacceptable way of doing it. We would have preferred a reduction in price, and that must by the basis of any future policy.

Why did the Minister not hold an inquiry into the the allegations by Mr. Pedley that witnesses in the BBC trial were interfered with when he was chairman—

Order. What has this to do with cereal levies?

I should like to return to the original question. Has my right hon. Friend reached any conclusion about the acreage that he would like to see in cereals in 10 years?

No. We can deal with cereals by providing the farmer with alternative uses for land by reducing the price of cereals in order to bring about a much better balance between supply and demand. It was a pleasure to have a question from a sane Member.

I am not clear whether the last remark by the Minister is in order, Mr. Speaker, but no doubt if you heard it you will rule on it.

The hon. Gentleman would need carefully to qualify what he means by overall production control. If he means some sort of quota system, I should like him to explain how one could reasonably quota, for example, over I million grain farmers in Italy. That is not a sensible way to operate. The real difficulty about overproduction is that it is not a problem today nor will it be a problem in two to three years. The difficulty is that the problem increases almost exponentially as technology improves the situation. As my right hon. Friend said, we must have a system which meets the problem not in one way, but through a whole package of measures.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his forecast for cereal production for 1986.

United Kingdom production of cereals in 1986 is estimated at 24·6 million tonnes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the uncertainty about the nature of the measures to reduce surpluses has been the principal source of anxiety among cereal producers? While proposals to encourage the use of marginal land for other purposes such as forestry are very welcome, above all a clear and firm sign is needed on how the problem of surpluses is to be tackled.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why the United Kingdom is taking the lead in seeking a package of measures which will relieve that uncertainty. The uncertainty arises primarily from the fact that we have moved from the position in which a farmer was certain about a market because there was a shortage in the world, into a situation today where there is uncertainty in the market because we are in a world of surpluses.

Does the Minister accept that to dispose of the expected surplus to Syria under the arrangements—which we cannot now change — in the Community, is offensive? Does he also agree that to dispose of those surpluses to Russia and allow Russian pig farmers to buy British grain at £36 a tonne, when we have to pay for them to receive it at that price, is disgraceful?

The hon. Gentleman is only underlining the reason why we have made a major effort and are taking the lead to ensure that we bring supply and demand into balance.

Will my right hon. Friend explain precisely what are the Government's objections to a compulsory set-aside system? Do the objections stem from the fact that more than only marginal land would be taken out of production?

My hon. Friend has to accept that Britain is one of the most efficient producers of cereals in the Community and the world. We do not want a system which so restricts cereal production that it causes unfair discrimination against the good producer. That is one of the dangers of having a compulsory system. It is much better to have a voluntary system where those who wish to go out can do so and so enable those who can produce cereals competitively and efficiently — as many of the United Kingdom farmers do—to continue to do that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning progress during his Presidency of the Agricultural Council of Ministers with regard to EEC fisheries policy.

I am delighted to report that at the first meeting of the Fisheries Ministers under the United Kingdom Presidency on 22 and 23 September, I was able to secure a decision on the package of technical conservation measures which had been outstanding since the beginning of the year. This clears the decks for further work on control and on structural measures, on which I hope for decisions before the end of the year.

Does the Minister agree that the heart of any fisheries policy is the need to conserve stocks of fish? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that officers and skippers of vessels in Spain in the port of Vigo organise a kitty from which they pay the fines that arise on the rare occasions when a Spanish fishery vessel is caught by our fishery protection vessels? Efficient policing will deplete the Spanish kitty, but what will happen to that policing effort when two or three fisheries protection vessels are taken out of service to police the waters in the south Atlantic?

The fisheries protection squadron of the Royal Navy and the arrangements operated by the various Departments in the United Kingdom are the envy of many countries in the Community. We intend to ensure the continuation of the rules on conservation which were agreed in Brussels, and which safeguard the opportunities for fishermen to get the maximum yield from the waters of the Community. We hope that those fishermen who are tempted to transgress the rules will realise that that does not pay.

Surely my right hon. Friend cannot be satisfied with the monitoring and policing of the fisheries policy. Is he aware that fishermen in the south-west feel particularly vulnerable over this aspect?

That is why we have been pressing the Community and the Commission in Brussels very hard indeed to increase the size of the inspectorate within the Commission so that countries which do not have as efficient an enforcement policy are made to observe the rules properly.

What consultations has the Minister had with his fellow Ministers in the EEC about arrangements for the Falkland Islands? Given that the authorities there will have the power to issue licences and quotas, does our membership of the EEC oblige us to give priority to members of the EEC?

The responsibility for fisheries protection and arrangments for the Falkland Islands is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Is the Minister aware that many people in the industry believe that far too much of the British fleet is antiquated, inefficient, ineffective and unprofitable? Does he agree that much more investment in the British fleet is needed to make it competitive and modern? Is he aware that many people regard the Government's restructuring policy as a dismal failure? What does he intend to do about that?

The hon. Gentleman could not have heard me when I said that I hoped that the success of the first meeting of the Fisheries Council will enable us to clear the decks for further work on structural measures, among other things, on which I hope we shall have decisions before the end of the year.

On the subject of the negotiations between the Commission and Norway over the share of North sea herring, does the Minister agree that last year British fishermen were dismayed by the 40 per cent. deal which the Norwegians won and that they are now alarmed that the Norwegian fishermen see that as a minimum settlement for this year's negotiations? Can the Minister assure the House that during his Presidency the Community, and, through that, the British fishing fleet, will get a better deal with Norway than last year for North sea herring?

We are discussing the negotiations with Norway with the Commission in advance this year agree that the way in which the Commission conducted the negotiations last year was less than satisfactory.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve safety on farms.

Responsibilities for farm safety rest primarily with the Health and Safety Executive. However, considerable emphasis is placed on safety considerations in advice given by my Department to farmers and particular attention is paid to safety in the training courses run by the Agricultural Training Board. The safety record in the industry must be improved. It is essential that everyone who lives or works on farms, and especially those responsible for children, should become much more safety conscious. I hope that they will read the chilling but excellent report of the Health and Safety Executive, "Agricultural Black Spot—A Study of Fatal Accidents".

May I congratulate, or commiserate with, the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Government Front Bench?

I am aware of the number of fatalities last year. I am glad to report that to date such deaths are at a much lower level this year. The inspectors are nine understaffed at 165, but I believe that the Health and Safety Executive is doing all that it can to recruit more inspectors.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his first speech from the Dispatch Box. Will he confirm that there will be no cuts in health and safety provision for farm workers and that the HSE service, which does such a good job, will be sustained and closely monitored by the Government?

I can confirm all that my hon. Friend has asked.

Is the Minister aware that one hazard faced by farm workers is that of noise? I understand that farm safety inspectors are supplied with decibel meters. How many times have they been used, and have there been any prosecutions in the past two years?

I do not know the answer to either of those questions, but I shall write to the hon. Lady.

May I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his appointment? I hope, however, that it will not be too long before he and all his colleagues are sitting on the Opposition side of the House.

I agree that one third of accidents involve self-propelled vehicles. The Health and Safety Executive is continually looking at such suggestions as the hon. Member has put forward.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate the business of the next meeting of the Agriculture Council of the European Community.

The agenda for the next EC Agriculture Council is expected to include items on the reform of the beef regime and emergency measures in the milk sector as well as a number of internal market items.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that he has a fight on his hands over the beef sector proposals and that it will be every bit as tough as the annual price-fixing round? Is he ready for that?

Yes, Sir. We have been holding constructive discussions at an official level in the Community. I have made it clear that several of the beef proposals are unacceptable to us because of discrimination. I shall continue to resist them. [Interruption.] I think especially of the limit of 50 head for the proposed beef premium.

Order. Will hon. Members please refrain from chatting, as I cannot hear.

Does the Minister agree that retaining beef variable premiums is the best way of securing the beef industry for the years to come? As President, will he ensure that they will be maintained beyond the present financial year?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that in our discussions so far the British delegation has made it clear that the variable beef premium system has served us well and has led to beef being eaten instead of being put into cold store. I am glad that the Commission has proposed a premium system. In the weeks ahead we shall work hard to amend the existing proposals on beef premiums so that they are more acceptable to us.

Will the Minister put before the Council the scandalous position of Irish beef exports to Britain? The Irish are getting a subsidy of £151 per cow. That cannot go on. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a devaluation of our green pound in order to rectify the problem?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have made an official proposal to the Commission in Brussels that there should be a devaluation of the green pound, particularly in the beef sector, where massive distortions have arisen as a result of a 6 per cent. devaluation of the green punt. So far the Commission has not reacted to our request, but we continue to press very hard.

Is the Minister aware that the all-time record butter mountains both in Britain and elsewhere in Europe will be a fitting monument for this British Presidency of the Council of Agriculture Ministers? Now that we have 2·4 million tonnes of butter and skimmed milk powder in intervention stores around the Community, will the Minister accept that a deteriorating butter mountain is not a good investment for the taxpayer and that we need positive incentives to restructure the dairy industry?

So far we have had 750 inquiries from farmers to whom we have sent application forms. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's snide remarks at the beginning of his question regarding the size of the butter surplus, he will be aware that nobody has done more than successive Ministers in this Administration to try to bring the milk regime back to a degree of rationality and reality. Before the hon. Gentleman makes any more remarks of that sort he should look at the records to see in how many months during the time his party was in power the butter mountain reached record levels.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 October 1986.

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.

Has the Prime Minister studied the community care manifesto published during the party conferences by Dr. Barnardo's, MIND, MENCAP and the Spastics Society, which calls, among other things, for legislation to abolish discrimination against disabled people? Is this not an opportunity for the right hon. Lady to redeem her Government's pledge to disabled people after the disgraceful manoeuvres against the Bill I introduced three years ago and the disgraceful introduction this week of availability for work tests, which is already denying supplementary benefit to some of the most disadvantaged, disabled people in our society?

This Government's record of help for the disabled exceeds that of any other Government, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

In view of several statements this week on mortgage tax relief, including one from the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister make it clear that the Government will continue broadly in its present form mortgage tax relief and thus reassure many millions of people who have become owner-occupiers since 1979 and whose family budgets critically depend on the continuation of this provision?

As my hon. Friend is well aware, under this Government the present system of mortgage tax relief will continue. I believe that ours is the only party which stands four-square behind the system.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 October 1986.

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

Will the Prime Minister, in her moments of reflection between engagements, reconsider the answer that she gave in a recent interview to Colin MacKay of STV? She said:

"I am not satisfied that there is a fundamental desire for devolution."

I confirm what I said in the interview and I would repeat every word again today.

Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction on his reported comments yesterday to the effect that the Government are to make a specific form of assistance available to many young people in the south-east who find it so difficult at present to obtain housing? Does she appreciate that many of us welcome that wholeheartedly?

I understand that that is a reference to a breakthrough in housing finance under which it will be possible to build for assured tenancies with a mixture of public and private finance. I believe that it is a breakthrough and that it will help many young people, as well as helping to take a number of people out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which they would otherwise have to occupy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 October.

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

Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's obvious lack of judgment and credibility are causing increasing embarrassment, even to her own party? How much would it cost the Tory establishment to see her off at Victoria station?

The hon. Gentleman is whistling in the dark, whether at Victoria station or elsewhere.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is not just in Brent and Hackney where the thought police are on the march in education? In Birmingham teachers are being threatened that if they advise on what is best for their students and parents in the way of grammar school education they will be disciplined. Does she not think that it is an evil practice when Socialists say that if all cannot be eagles then all must be sparrows? Is not the pursuit of excellence what the country needs?

Yes. I warmly support my hon. Friend in what he said. Grammar schools are an extremely important part of our education system and they stand for the pursuit of excellence. Many of us owed our future to those schools.

The Government have not volunteered a statement on their views about the Reykjavik talks or responded to our request that they should do so. Will the Prime Minister tell me whether she recalls saying to the United States Congress last year that nothing in the ABM treaty precludes research but that if research led to the

"possible deployment of new defence systems"

"a matter of negotiation under the treaty"?

Order.

In view of President Reagan's clear reassertion yesterday that he intended to persist, very sensibly with his proposals on ballistic missile systems in future negotiations, will the Prime Minister tell us—[Interruption.]

Order. We have only 15 minutes and points of order do not help.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I repeat, had we had a statement from the Government, these questions would not have been be necessary.

I seem to remember that the other place was sitting at the time of the Reykjavik talks and a statement was made there. So a statement was made by Her Majesty's Government to Parliament on those talks.

Will my right hon. Friend explain today why the European Commission is selling cut-price grain to Syria? Does she recognise how irritating that is and the considerable anger that that subsidy to state terrorism has caused?

The question of sales of European grain to Syria has arisen before. Normal refunds apply to all external sales and I am afraid that there is nothing we can do about that. However, I understand that there will be no special rates of refund to Syria following the meeting of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary with the Foreign Ministers a few days ago.

Does the Prime Minister agree that if President Reagan was successful in negotiating the withdrawal of all ballistic missiles, both Soviet and American, it would be unlikely that the United States would be happy to go on selling us Trident? Is that not one more case for looking seriously at the cruise missile option?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be the first to understand when I say that the defence of a nation consists not only of its nuclear stance and independent nuclear deterrent, but also of chemical and conventional weapons. For anyone to suggest that one can get rid of ballistic missiles without considering conventional weapons and the impossibility of achieving equality in conventional forces in the alleged time scale is utterly absurd. President Reagan did not agree at Reykjavik, as the House knows.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that our defence is based upon deterrence — the deterrence of alliances and of massive retaliation if attacked—the crucial pillar of which is the Atlantic Alliance? Does she now see that our key alliance is under threat from within, when partners within that Alliance are not only not prepared to support actions against terrorism but unilaterally to negotiate with terrorists? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend not see that our Alliance is under threat from within the Labour and so-called alliance parties—parties that march to the same drum, the drum of Socialism—which is a serious threat to our national security?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the NATO Alliance is under threat and under attack from the Opposition. Any change in the fundamental doctrine of flexible response, of which nuclear weapons are a fundamental part, is a matter for the whole Alliance to discuss and could not be decided separately. The fact is that the nuclear deterrent has kept the peace for 40 years—peace from nuclear weapons and from conventional war—and that is the most important factor of all.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 30 October.

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

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House how an increase in the bank rate will lead to a reduction in unemployment and a reduction in the cost of living?

An increase in bank rate is occasionally necessary to hold down the long-term rate of inflation. As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, inflation breeds unemployment — it does not cure it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition —[Interruption.] It is the most important matter that we could be discussing. It is a matter of life or death. Will the Prime Minister—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should address his point of order to me.

May I ask whether the right hon. Lady will tell the yah-boos on her side that she takes this matter seriously?

That is not a matter for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of order, will you consider consulting Back-Bench Members as well as the usual channels on whether it would be in the interests of the House to return to the practice of Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster, whereby an hon. Member when called asked only one question of a Minister rather than a series? It would mean that many more hon. Members could ask questions and the House could proceed much more quickly.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, if he is here regularly for Prime Minister's Question Time, that is what I do, but it depends on how the questions fall on the Order Paper. I should point out, however, that it has been a long-standing convention that the Leader of the Opposition has an opportunity to ask more than one question. Today he asked only one question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope I am wrong, but I thought I saw you reading from a list of names of Conservative Members and calling them to ask supplementary questions of the Prime Minister. Is that because representations are made to you — [Interruption.] I am asking for guidance from Mr. Speaker, not from Conservative Members. Is it the case, Mr. Speaker, that Members make representations to you before Question Time to be called to ask supplementary questions, or do you genuinely look around and choose at random?

I am delighted to have the opportunity to clear up the matter. I must say to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House that if representations are made to me beforehand that an hon. Member wishes to be called during Prime Minister's Question Time, that hon. Member will not be called. I make that absolutely clear. As to what goes on here—[Interruption.] I hope that the House will listen to this. My secretary lists the number of times that hon. Members have been called to put a supplementary question—

Well, I should be next then.

There is nothing secret about it. The hon. Gentleman can have a look for himself. Against those names is marked the number of times that hon. Members have been called to put a supplementary question. I seek to ensure that every Member who seeks to put a question to the Prime Minister during a Parliament has an equal opportunity. I hope the House will agree that that is fair. [Interruption.]

Further to—

rose—

Sit down.

Order. I think I am the only one who says that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We elder statesmen occasionally get impatient with these younger puppies. While absolutely understanding and accepting your explanation, Mr. Speaker, with the deep and due regard that I hold for you, is it not a disproportionate way of choosing who should be called in Prime Minister's Question Time, for the following reason. Some of us assiduously attend Prime Minister's Question Time—

And nothing else.

Order.

It is very heartening to see this occasional stranger. The point I was trying to make when that rather ludicrous comment was made about those of us who attend this Parliament daily was this. Is it not an incorrect way to assess the eagerness of hon. Members simply to have a list and see that they are all called in due proportion, when some of us are here every Prime Minister's Question Time, rise at every Prime Minister's Question Time, and make a much more frequent and regular effort to be called? Would it not be fairer to count our appearances in attempting to be called than simply to go through a list?

Order. This is a matter for my discretion. I seek to treat the House fairly. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but as most of the questions originally addressed to the Prime Minister appear on the Order paper in identical form it does not seem unfair that hon. Members whose questions are reached should be called.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker I am interested to learn that you have a list of people who have asked questions of the Prime Minister. Can you tell me when I last asked a question of the Prime Minister?

Order. The hon. Member has been called three times this Session on Prime Minister's questions.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I noticed that a moment ago you said that when an hon. Member has put down a question to the Prime Minister he will get some consideration. Are you aware that many hon. Members put down questions, but when we see that we are beyond Question No. 10 we immediately withdraw them? Does that enter your mind at all?

It does enter my mind. That would be unwise. The hon. Gentleman did not know the way in which I was dealing with this before today, so perhaps he will not do that in future. The hon. Member has been called five times.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate to prolong this issue and, as you know, I rarely do so. Is it possible to make an opportunity available so that the Prime Minister can clarify the comments she made to the effect that the defence of the realm depends on chemical weapons. This is something that we find disturbing.

Order. That is not a matter that can be considered today. There will be other opportunities next week.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. By way of a constructive suggestion, may I say that if we had a form of extra time as a consequence of prolonged and pointless interruption during Prime Minister's Question Time it might assist the conduct of the House, because the alternative is to have extra time which takes the form of points of order, and that is as tedious for you, Mr. Speaker, as it is for most hon. Members.