asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action is being taken to reduce surpluses of food in Europe, beyond that announced on 17 December.

I continue to take every opportunity to promote necessary reforms of common agricultural policy regimes which are for products in surplus or which involve excessive expenditure.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the whole House on the settlement that he recently achieved in distributing surpluses of butter, beef, milk and sugar? Does he agree that this is a practical demonstration of a caring Government? Will he tell the House how he intends to achieve the distribution of the food surpluses and when that distribution will take place? Will he also assure me that constituents in Norwich will receive their allocation of the surpluses?

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. We are moving as fast as we can to make this food available. I cannot say exactly when it will happen in Norwich, but we hope that the first food will be made available next week. Only today I heard from the Commissioner's office in Brussels that, subject to availabiltiy, the products concerned are to be provided to a collection point convenient to the organisation—that is, the charity—in the quantities and in a form that it can use, and all reasonable costs up to that point will be borne by FEOGA.

Has there not been the most astonishing negligence on the part of the Government in their preparations to deal with this nettle of surpluses? What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that, when the nettle is grasped, Britain and British farmers will not be stung far more than their continental competitors?

As the hon. Gentleman's question was rather vague, I am not too sure whether he was referring to the food that we are making available or to the general agreement that we made in December. The December settlement was an extremely good one for Britain. We were able to preserve many of the most valuable parts of our support system, not least the continuation for two years of the beef variable premium scheme.

I welcome the scheme to distribute EEC food stocks to those in need, but why is it proposed to transport thousands of tonnes of sugar from intervention stocks stored in 50 kg bags in Italy when there is an adequate supply of sugar in Britain to enable British companies to supply consumers with 1 kg bags? Also, how is it proposed that the charities concerned will distribute the stocks of meat and butter that are held in cold storage?

I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we had our first meeting with the charities on Tuesday—the day that the Council of Ministers agreed the matter. We have had a further meeting with the charities today and they are enthusiastic about making the scheme work. In relation to sugar, the plans are still being worked out, so I think that my hon. Friend is a little premature.

Has the Minister seen the amazing story that Lord Avebury wishes to donate his body to Battersea Dogs Home?

Order. Is this a food surplus?

It is indeed, Mr. Speaker. In the event of this practice catching on, will the Minister give an undertaking that we shall not have an EEC mountain of dead Liberals?

As I have been in the House a little longer than the hon. Gentleman, I had the misfortune to sit here with the noble Lord. Having heard what he had to say when he was in this House, no nonsense that he talks now comes as any surprise to me whatsoever.

I do not wish to embarass my right hon. Friend, but does not my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) have a point? What guarantee can I give my constituents in Newark that any of the surpluses will reach them, and soon?

I had the great pleasure of addressing farmers in my hon. Friend's constituency only a very short time ago. We hope to have the food moving next week. We are awaiting the final rules and regulations from the Commission. Until we receive them, we are not in a position to move. My hon. Friend may have read in the press, however, that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State was present when the first butter was taken out of the cold store yesterday to start the thawing out process.

Is it not economically stupid to accept sugar imported from Italy when we have enough sugar in Britain to supply people in need? There is a cane sugar refinery in my constituency that would be able very effectively to package and distribute sugar in 1 kg bags.

As there is no sugar in intervention stores in this country, no plans have been finalised as to how the scheme will work in relation to sugar, but I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has just told us.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, although why the elderly and those in need should be denied access to wine and cheese I am not quite sure, as in some parts of the Community they are regarded as staple diet. My right hon. Friend said that the food would be distributed through charitable agencies. As many people are unable to get to those agencies, will he ensure that there is adequate publicity to make sure that those in need receive the goods that will become available?

Perhaps I can correct my hon. Friend. Cheese is part of the scheme [HON. MEMBERS: "What about wine?"] We can all make jokes about wine. They have been made for many years in this House. As for the rest of my hon. Friend's question, we shall do our utmost to get things moving as soon as we can.

Is the Minister aware that this morning I was in touch with my successors at Age Concern, Scotland and that they were under the impression that the scheme involved the delivery of all the foodstuffs to centres where there were cooking facilities, with the implication that meals or cooked food would be provided for the elderly and those in need? Our understanding, however, and the impression created by the Minister, is that food will be delivered to individual old people. Will the Minister clear up that point? Will deliveries be made to the homes of elderly people and those in need, or will those involved have to go to food centres and have it doled out to them as though it were some kind of poor law soup kitchen?

Many of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues have asked for this food to be made available to needy people. I am sorry that when we have such a scheme the only thing that the hon. Gentleman can do is to carp about it. We are hoping to distribute this food to people through, for instance, the meals on wheels service and in other ways. We are working as quickly and as hard as we can with the charities responsible for doing this. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the statement that I received earlier today from the Commissioner's office. It said that the food would be provided at a collection point convenient to the charity in quantities and in a form that it could use.

In looking to the future and devising means of controlling surpluses, will my right hon. Friend reject out of hand the crazy suggestion by the Leader of the SDP for a two-tier system for grain? Has my right hon. Friend taken note of the immediate reaction of the president of the National Farmers Union, Mr. Simon Gourlay, who told the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that he did not even begin to comprehend the SDP leader's scheme and that it would lead to the annihilation of British farming?

I think that my hon. Friend has repeated almost exactly the words of the president of the National Farmers Union about the extraordinary comments made in the Bledisloe lecture by the leader of the SDP. My only comment is that it must have been the most damaging policy proposal in living memory by any party in this country.

Understandably, the House does not yet have details of the food distribution scheme, but am I right in understanding that the total amount allocated for the scheme Europewide is £38 million? If that is right, it means that our share, both for the amount of food and for the cost of preparation of that food into a form in which it can be distributed, is about £3 million.

The Commission announcement earlier this week said that there would be a review if the cost of the scheme appeared to be going beyond 50 million ecus, which in pounds sterling is not far from the figure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There is no expecific allocation to any one country. At the moment it is on a first-come-first-served basis. I do not think that any other Community country could show that it is further ahead with its plans than we are.

Has my right hon. Friend yet had an opportunity to study in detail the proposals by the Labour party, which seem designed to remove the surpluses by levying a rates tax on agricultural land? In Scotland that would certainly be a most effective way of driving farmers off the land.

I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that matter. While the Labour party proposal does not compete for one moment with the horrors for the farming industry contained in the speech by the SDP leader the other day, I hope that our farmers will look carefully at the implications of the Labour party's policy on the re-rating of agricultural land, the nationalisation of agricultural land and stringent new planning policies.

Does the Minister not recognise that his existing policy on cereals, relying as it does upon continuing high levels of production, and his record of total failure to bring supply and demand into anything like balance, is a disastrous policy which fails to discriminate between users and producers and has not protected British farmers? Is it not time that he brought new thinking to the problem of surplus cereal disposal?

I suppose that the hon. Gentleman was one of the architects of his right hon. Friend's absurd speech. The leader of his party said that the vast majority of grain farmers in the community would be unaffected. He did not say that 44,000 of the 94,000 United Kingdom producers would be affected. That is a most discriminatory policy for British agriculture. It means that annual revenue for the average United Kingdom grain producer with 42 hectares of cereals will drop by £6,000 a year.

rose—

Order. I have allowed a long run of questions on this because of the implications for hon. Members' constituents, but we must now move on more rapidly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been conducted by his Department on the use of nitrogen-based fertilisers on farms and their effects on water catchment areas.

My Department is undertaking a number of studies aimed at enabling nitrogen fertilisers to be used more efficiently and reducing the nitrate available for leaching to water. These include studies specifically designed to provide better information on leaching losses from a range of different crop and management practices.

I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he realise that there is widespread and growing public concern about the level of nitrate pollution in parts of this country and that an important source of that pollution is nitrogen-based fertilisers? Is he aware that in a study by the Department of the Environment published last December East Anglis was classified as one of the worst polluted areas in the country? Does he agree that as the need for massive surpluses is well and truly over the Government should be maintaining stringent controls on the level of nitrate pollution? What is he going to do about that?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in this matter, both within his constituency, which is probably why he asked the question, and on a wider basis. The Ministry fully understands the implications of nitrogen pollution and has already set in hand a series of studies, including work on the efficiency of the use of fertilisers and the uptake of soil-derived nitrogen, the response of grazed permanent grassland to nitrogen fertilisers, predicting fertiliser needs for individual farms, modelling the interaction of nitrate leaching, the need for denitrification of agricultural soils and leaching losses from different crop rotations, management practices and soils. We are working with the DHHS, the NFU, the Country Landowners Association and others along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of the work being undertaken at the National Vegetable Research Station in computer modelling of nitrogen usage by crops, which is pointing the way to reduced pollution? Is he aware that as a result of the arrangements it has made with the growers, as things now stand the Horticultural Development Council will have available to fund this and other important areas of research only half the amount previously indicated by the Ministry? Will the Minister restore the missing £1 million?

I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about the horticulture industry and the institute which I believe is based in his constituency. Research and development are important, and it is doubly important that those who benefit from research and development also contribute to it.

Will the Minister tell the House which parts of the country are unlikely to comply with the EEC directive?

The way in which we implement EEC directives will mean that all parts of the country will comply with them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was achieved during his presidency of the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress in the reform of the common agricultural policy was made during his presidency of the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

The Council in December took an important step towards the necessary reform of the common agricultural policy. During the course of our presidency the Council also agreed on a number of measures contributing to the completion of the internal market.

:Will my right hon. Friend accept warm congratulations from Conservative Members on his success in securing further steps towards realism in the common agricultural policy? With regard to recent proposals for a two-tier pricing system for cereals, does my right hon. Friend agree that while a social policy for European agriculture is necessary, if it is to be acceptable and equitable it cannot be based on the sort of flat rate concept that appears to be advocated by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), but must be tailored to the particular circumstances and structures of each member state?

My hon. Friend has made his point accurately. If the policies outlined by the alliance leader the other day were put into effect, 75 per cent. of the Community's grain production would qualify for the full support price, but in the United Kingdom only 30 per cent. would qualify.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as being a successful start to tackling the problem of surpluses, his set-aside scheme has a welcome environmental impact?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, because in December we agreed, among other things, the general principles of the socio-structural package, which opens the door much further than before to the implementation of our ideas for putting land aside from producing grain that we can neither eat nor sell.

Why was there no mention in the Minister of State's statement on that agreement to the House on 17 December of the fact that the bulk of the saving in the milk sector will come from delayed reimbursement to member states of the cost of disposing of surplus dairy produce? There is not a word about that. Why did the Minister seek to mislead the House on that important issue when more than 100 per cent. of the saving is being thrust on to member states and is not a net saving to the policy?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman says that. If he looks at Hansard he will see that my right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement of 17 December that the cost of the additional programme of stock disposal for butter would be met over the four years beginning in 1989. The provision in the proposed budgets for 1987 and 1988 for those disposals will not, therefore, be used. That will result in a saving this year and next. From 1989 there will be large and increasing savings to the budget as a result of the milk package, even when the certificate of disposals has been met.

Will the Minister consider the plight of beef suckler cow producers? Will he match the £6 that he obtained from the Community with the £6 that he is allowed to give per head on the beef suckler cow premium in Britain? In particular, will he reverse his decision on hill livestock compensatory allowances for beef suckler cows?

We shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point on the suckler cow subsidy, although we have already made our announcement about the hill livestock compensatory amounts. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is pitching his question about beef when everybody else is particularly interested in his party's policy on grain.

I sincerely congratulate my right hon. Friend on his tremendous achievement in the EEC, but what does he believe the fall in the value per carcase of beef will be over the next couple of years? It is estimated by some people that it will be £50 per carcase. Will he do anything to fill the gap for those two years so that we do not lose our stock of beef up to that point?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that some tough steps were taken with regard to the beef sector, which has been costing an enormous amount of money and considerably overreached last year's beef budget. I remind my hon. Friend that as part of the settlement that we achieved in December we managed to obtain a 6 per cent. devaluation of the green pound for beef. By the harmonisation of bull and steer prices, that figure was equivalent to a price rise for British beef producers of about another 3 per cent. The effect of the weakening of intervention, which has always been a system barely used in Britain compared with other countries—2 per cent. in Britain compared with 25 per cent. for beef in Ireland—puts the hon. Gentleman's point in rather better perspective.

Necessary as the 17 December decisions were as a start, will the Minister confirm that that merely cuts the overrun on the agricultural budget from 3·5 mecu to 2·5 mecu next year?

Yes, I would not attempt to deny that the hon. Gentleman is entirely right, but we still have a long way to go to deal with the danger of overspending on the agricultural budget during 1987. No doubt Ministers will be very much applying their minds to that during the price-fixing negotiations in the next few weeks.

Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the set-aside proposals? What form will they take, and when are decisions likely to be made? In particular, will my right hon. Friend accept that there should be a voluntary element in any scheme, whereby farmers with good land are able to participate just as well as those with poor land?

Yes, we have always envisaged that our scheme would be voluntary at farm level, but that the whole scheme must be compulsorily available in each country within the Community. We believe that it should be available for any farmers who feel that it would be in the interests to take it. However, I envisage that farmers who find grain-growing to be at only marginal levels of profitability would find it more attractive.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of national consumption of dairy products is met by domestic production.

The extent to which our consumption of dairy products is met by domestic production varies from product to product. But in 1985 domestic production of butterfat and solids not fat, the two main components of milk, was equivalent to 89 per cent. and 113 per cent. respectively of total domestic production.

Why did we have 269,000 tonnes of United Kingdom butter in intervention in August 1986—a 33 per cent. increase on the previous six months? Why do we still import some 70,000 tonnes of butter from fellow EEC countries when we are cutting milk production in Britain?

Because we live in a democracy and people are allowed to choose the butter that they want to buy. If the British housewife chooses to buy butter made in another country, she must have the right so to do. I want to see an attempt in Britain to get the British housewife to realise that British butter is the best in the world.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, according to the figures for the last year for which they are available, over 40 per cent. of butter produced in Britain was sold into intervention? Therefore, is it not time that the Milk Marketing Board gave less emphasis to computers and statistics and more emphasis to the purpose for which it was set up, which was incorporated in its title, marketing, thereby better serving the hardworking British milk producer?

My hon. Friend has made a most important point. How can we argue against cuts in quotas in Britain if we put such a large amount of the milk that we produce into intervention?

In the course of the negotiations on milk, has there ever been any consideration of special provision for those regions which are net importers of milk? Does it not add insult to injury for regions, or in some cases nations, to see reductions and losses in jobs on dairy farms and in creameries at the same time as they see more and more imported butter in their shops?

I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that many of the countries in the EC make such arguments. We have decided that we must bear the burden of Community costs right across the Community, not only because so many could argue in that way, but because we find ourselves wishing to export our surpluses in other products to other Community countries.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect on agriculture of supporting only standard quantities of production.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the ideas put forward by the SDP/Liberal alliance whereby farmers would get a support price for only a certain quantity of production. As outlined, this scheme would mean that CAP support would go to only about one third of United Kingdom cereals production, yet would apply to as much as 80 per cent. of continental production. Under the scheme two thirds of our cereal production could well become uneconomic. The effects of the proposals of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on our rural economy would be catastrophic.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Will he assure the House that any idea of introducing quotas on cereals or limitations on a per farm basis would be damaging to British farming interests? While he and his right hon. Friends have been most tenacious in defending British interests in the European negotiations, [Interruption]—irrespective of how boring or embarrassing this may be for Members of the alliance—may I ask him to spell out clearly to the farming community the effect on its income if it follows the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman?

My hon. Friend might be interested to know that the likely effect on the annual cereal income of British cereal farmers would be £850 million. That would be the effect of the policy put forward by the SDP and supported by the Liberal party spokesman for agriculture when he spoke to the Farmers Union of Wales.

Why do Agriculture Ministers this afternoon find it necessary to misrepresent the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and fail to draw attention to the fact that he made it clear that any such scheme would depend crucially upon a tough negotiating stance on the issue of the British share of the cereals market? Does he not realise the weakness of the Government's position on national shares in the light of their failure to secure a fair share for British milk producers?

The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend made absolutely clear exactly the point at which the cut-off would take place, in advance of the negotiations. He told us the figures. All we have done is to work out the figures which he gave at Cirencester to an audience which included the president of the National Farmers Union, who said about the right hon. Gentleman that he clearly did not understand the matter at all and that his proposals were utterly catastrophic. The hon. Gentleman must go back to his right hon. Friend and ask him why he is not here to defend himself.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect on farm incomes and food prices of de-rating agricultural land and buildings.

I estimate that in broad terms the value to the farming industry of the derating of agricultural land and buildings might amount to some £430 million. However, if agriculture was brought into the rating system the effect on farm incomes, and on food prices, might be very different, as this would depend on the response of individual farmers to such a massive additional burden.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that any policy that sought to rate or tax agricultural land, as evidenced by the policies of the Opposition parties, would substantially increase the cost of food to the consumers, which should be a matter of importance to every hon. Member in this House?

I confirm that if agricultural land were to be rated or taxed in the ways that the alliance say there would be an additional burden, lower profits, more unemployment and higher food prices.

Would the Minister care to give an assessment of the effects of de-rating in Lewisham, East?

The people of Lewisham are eating more cheaply because agricultural land in this country is not yet rated.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures will be taken to compensate dairy producers for cuts in quota and related measures.

Compensation under the European Community outgoers scheme has been increased by 50 per cent. to a total of 27·5p per litre, payable over seven years. In addition, compensation of 6·5p per litre per year will be paid for the 4 per cent. temporary suspension of quota.

Although I in no way minimise the impact of quotas and the toughening up of quotas on the farming industry, and indeed on the whole rural economy, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that the compensation to which he has referred provides something of a reasonable cushion for the problems presented by those cuts?

That is right. The compensation of 6·5p a litre for the temporary suspension must be compared with the profitability of milk at 3p and 4p a litre. As my hon. Friend says, the compensation is generous by any standard.

Does the Minister agree that not only dairy farmers but dairy workers on the farm suffer from milk quotas? Does he accept that, in 1984–85, there was a threefold decrease in the full-time labour force in the counties with the highest milk production compared with previous years? Is it not high time that farm workers who lose their jobs because of milk quotas were compensated beyond the redundancy payments scheme, especially as some of the older farm workers will never get another job?

The purpose of quota cuts is to eliminate surpluses and to secure a viable future for the dairy industry as a whole. I accept that that will be a painful process. It could involve job losses, but the extent of job losses is not yet clear. I do not think, according to the evidence of the changes during the previous round of quotas and the reduction in milk production, that there was a huge number of redundancies among farm workers. There were some, but I think that the hon. Lady will agree that it was not a huge number.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that should the existing voluntary outgoers scheme for milk fail to achieve the objective of a 2 per cent. reduction producers would still receive the 27·5p a litre payment under any subsequent compulsory scheme?

No. I think that that would not be possible under the Community's rules. I hope that the new arrangements and the increased outgoers payments—whereby a producer with a 40-cow herd would receive £7,800 a year for seven years compared with £5,200 a year for seven years under the previous arrangements—will allow us to spend all this money paying people to go out of milk production so that we do not need to reduce the quotas of those who wish to remain in it.

Will the Minister and his agriculture colleagues address the issue of the transfer of quotas between regions and nations in the United Kingdom? Is he aware of the concern that the increased potential number of bankruptcies among farmers may result in quotas being sold separately from farms, thereby increasing the transfer of quotas?

The hon. Gentleman might like to study the settlement that was made. He would find that, although the Commission proposed that the transfer between regions should be eliminated, in the end we agreed to allow those transfers to remain.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the effect on farm incomes of the changes in arrangements for intervention buying of beef and support of production.

The agreement reached in December reduces the price levels at which intervention buying is triggered and will set buying prices at levels related to market prices. But we in the United Kingdom have relied more on the operation of the variable premium to secure our producers' returns. This is being extended for two years and payments have already been increased by 5 per cent. as a result of the devaluation of the green pound.

My right hon. Friend has given some figures which will mean that farmers will receive £35 a head less. Farmers have always lived in the real world, but they would like to know why Irish farmers have access to our deficiency payments, thereby undermining prices here?

The situation is difficult, but it appears that the price of Irish beef will decrease by £70 a head, compared with the figure given by my hon. Friend. German farmers will receive £119 a head less, Italian farmers about £115 a head less and French farmers between £85 and £45 a head less, depending on whether they are bulls or steers. In this difficult situation the United Kingdom has come out very much better than other countries in the European Community.

Has the Minister calculated by how much it will accelerate self-sufficiency in the sheepmeat regime if beef producers switch to sheep production?

Various things cause people to move into sheep farming, so the direct effect cannot be shown. The hon. Gentleman is right. So long as there are major surpluses in some areas and not in others there will be a tendency to create surpluses where they do not presently exist.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the House is grateful for the devaluation of the green pound which was secured in the December negotiations in the Community? Does he recognise the important part played in the rural economy by the hill livestock farmer and the hill suckler cow herd? Will he monitor carefully the consequences on farm incomes in this particularly valuable sector of the rural economy?

We shall certainly do that carefully. I hope that my hon. Friend will remind the farming industry that the United Kingdom Government achieved a better deal for beef farmers than did any other Government in the European Community.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.

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.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when, on 29 July last year, the Financial Services Bill and the insider provisions in it were being debated by their noble Lordships, the noble and learned Lord Silkin described the insider trading investigation provisions as both enormous and draconian? So draconian were they that he thought they exceeded the principles of natural justice. Does my right hon. Friend not find it surprising that Opposition parties should take the attitude that they do over revelations of insider trading today which would probably never have come to light if the legislation had not been enacted?

My hon. Friend makes his own point. I remind the House that this Government are fully committed to rooting out financial wrongdoing wherever it occurs, because this Government made insider trading a criminal offence and provided that upon conviction it should carry a prison sentence.

You will know, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of this morning you, and we, took what action we could to uphold the Government's view that the showing of a particular film would prejudice national security. It is now apparent that earlier today a magazine published what we understand to be the substance of that film and that the 1 o'clock ITN news covered the matter in illustrated detail. Given the failure of the Government to take effective action to prevent publication of material prejudicial to national security, will the Prime Minister tell us what she now proposes to do to try to mitigate the effects of the Government's incompetence?

I understand the position to be as follows: yesterday the Attorney-General obtained in the High Court an interim injunction restraining Mr. Duncan Campbell or his servants or agents from disclosing or publishing or causing or permitting to be disclosed or published to any person all or any of the information within his knowledge about a defence project. You, Mr. Speaker, have ruled upon this matter. With regard to the specific matters which the right hon. Gentleman raised, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is giving consideration to the New Statesman article. I should point out that, in any case, one action that undermines national security does not justify another. In the meantime, I am sure that the whole House will wish to uphold your authority, Mr. Speaker, Furthermore, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will have something to say about this matter later this afternoon.

I agree fully with the Prime Minister that one breach, or threatened breach, does not justify a further breach. Yesterday the Government properly took out an injunction against Mr. Campbell, but if they thought that it covered all eventualities, why did they have to go back to court this morning? Is it not the case that the injunction covered neither publication nor the showing of the film? I repeat my question: what will the Prime Minister do now to mitigate that incompetence?

I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman heard the terms of the injunction. The interim injunction was granted restraining Mr. Duncan Campbell or his servants or agents from disclosing or publishing or causing or permitting to be disclosed or published to any person all or any of the information within his knowledge. Regarding matters in the House, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there are specific circumstances when the courts will say that the matter is for Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has ruled and I hope that the House will wish to uphold his authority. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will wish to uphold the authority of the Speaker and that he will carry all his party with him. Unfortunately for all of us, some people seem to be more interested in trying to ferret out and reveal information of use to our enemies than in preserving—[Interruption.]—our defence interests and thus the freedom which we all enjoy.

Naturally, we fully uphold your ruling, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister knows, this morning we did whatever was possible with complete readiness to try to ensure that if the Government sought to take action in court it would not be impeded by proceedings in the House. On that basis I must ask the Prime Minister why the Government took no action when it was clear for days that there was a strong possibility of the usual habit of the viewing of a film in the House? Why was that delayed until this morning? Why did the Government delay until yesterday seeking to take action against Mr. Campbell? Why did they fail to secure the prevention of the publication in a magazine? Those details are now out. What will the Prime Minister do to mitigate the effects on national security?

The Government took out and obtained an interim injunction yesterday, the terms of which I have made clear. A question arose about matters relating to the House upon which it was necessary to take action this morning, and the Government took that action. The matter was referred to Mr. Speaker, who made a ruling which I understand the right hon. Gentleman will uphold. I hope that he will carry all his party with him. As I haw said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is giving consideration to the New Statesman article.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that we are concerned, not with the competence of the Government, but with the irresponsibility of an organ of Left-wing opinion? Does she further recognise that this is one more example of the failure of the Left to distinguish between the privilege of freedom of speech and a licence to peddle the nation's security?

I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. Unfortunately, there are people who try to use freedom in order to destroy freedom.

Reverting to a previous question, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that the director of corporate finance at Morgan Grenfell, who resigned recently, is a former director general of the Takeover panel? Is she further aware that the chief executive at Morgan Grenfell who resigned—[Interruption.] is a former member of staff of the Bank of England? If people from these backgrounds—[Interruptions.]

Order. I ask the House to allow the hon. Gentleman to finish his question.

If people from these backgrounds can be responsible for such serious shortcomings in that institution, does the Prime Minister not agree that there is an overwhelming case for more independent supervision of the City now that the Government have allowed untrammelled competition there, after the big bang? Will the Prime Minister consider introducing more independent supervision than that contained in the Financial Services Bill?

With regard to what the hon. Gentleman said about a particular bank, he knows that these matters are under investigation, and if he has any information to lay he should lay it before the appropriate authorities.

Bearing in mind the debate earlier this week on the north-south divide and the Opposition's proposals to tackle unemployment in the north, is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent decision by Barrow district council to declare Barrow, of all places, a nuclear weapon-free zone? What words of comfort can my right hon. Friend offer to the 3,000 people and employees in the area who last month added to their existing shareholdings in Vickers?

My hon. Friend has made his point very effectively. I may add the point that the shipyard flourishes. It is in charge of and responsible for building the new Trident submarines which will hold the nuclear deterrent that is vital to our security. Those employees, along with many other people if they are interested in defence and national security, must be interested in returning a Conservative Government for a very long time in the future.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that on the ITN lunchtime news yesterday there was report about the arrest of Kelvin Chapman in connection with the vicious stabbing of the little girl down at Margate? In that broadcast it was said that the media had been asked to keep the name confidential. Unfortunately—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the sub judice rule, in respect of this case.

I will. Only one newspaper in the country released that name, The Sun. Despite the fact that it had been specifically asked not to release the name, The Sun newspaper did so. Will the Prime Minister join with me in condemning this Murdoch publication for releasing that name and undermining the police operation? A quotation from the Maidstone police was that

"the police are furious with The Sun newspaper".

I understand that the case is sub judice, but I make it clear that when requests of that kind are made I believe that they should be honoured.

In the light of yet another horrific and fatal accident on the M2 yesterday, will my right hon. Friend take time today to commend the majority of heavy goods vehicle drivers who drive with care and discretion, and condemn those who seem to think that it is either clever or funny to harass smaller vehicles by driving much too close to them?

Yes. I gladly join my hon. Friend in thanking and congratulating those lorry drivers, and others, who have driven carefully, as we all should, on the motorways. I should also like to thank the many people who, during the very severe weather, made great efforts to get to their places of work to carry out their jobs.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 January.

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

Was the Prime Minister aware of, and will she comment on, the telephone call made last Sunday by the press office at No. 10 Downing street to Mr. David Stevens, the chairman of United Newspapers, berating him for the publication in the Star of the roll of dishonour of Ministers and Conservative Members who defeated the private Member's Bill last Friday? Does the Prime Minister think that it is a proper use of public funds for a civil servant such as Mr. Bernard Ingham to bribe, berate and blackmail—[Interruption.]—to bribe, berate and blackmail that small section of the Fleet street press which does not already kowtow to the right hon. Lady?

I know of no such telephone call. [Interruption.]

I do.

As I understand that hon. Members—[Interruption.]

Order. The Prime Minister.

As I understand that hon. Members who ask such questions are responsible for the facts which they allege, I challenge the hon. Gentleman to give me the evidence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise out of questions?

You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that you served a ruling on me this morning preventing me from proceeding with a private showing to me and colleagues of the BBC banned film. Your ruling turned on the injunction which was granted yesterday against Duncan Campbell. You will be aware that I and my colleagues have, of course, observed your ruling, but now that the chance to discuss that ruling with you has come round, you will understand that we wish to put to you considerations why we would invite you to reflect on that ruling. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe that I am perfectly in order if I put such considerations to you, Mr. Speaker. May I put to you two considerations which may not have been available to you when you made your ruling this morning?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We heard the Leader of the Opposition say a few moments ago that he abides by your ruling. We have heard as well that he abides by the injunction that was applied for by Her Majesty's Government. Yet now we have heard from one of his closest advisers, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who seeks to challenge your ruling. Perhaps we could have a full statement from the Labour party.

This is a matter of very considerable importance to the whole House. Perhaps the House will allow me to say a word about it.

It might he helpful if I indicate that the Government recognise that this is a topic of the utmost importance which the House should have the opportunity to debate at an early date. The matter is now being prosecuted through the usual channels.