[column 588]

PRIME MINISTER

EC (Agricultural Spending)

Q1. Mr. Teddy Taylor

asked the Prime Minister if she will raise, at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, the issues raised by the monthly reports submitted to the Council by the Commission on trends in agricultural spending in accordance with the 4 December 1984 agreement.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)

The Commission has produced these reports partly in response to my hon. Friend's persistent questioning. The issues raised by these reports have been considered by the Budget Council in its discussions on the 1986 budget.

Mr. Taylor

As the 1.4 VAT rate, which was meant to last for several years, has now been fully budgeted this year, and as the Council has clearly abandoned any attempt to control agricultural spending, can the Prime Minister now give some indication to British farmers, to the Third world countries that are savaged by Common Market dumping, and to the Soviet Union, which benefits hugely from Common Market dumping, as to what will happen when, almost inevitably later this year, the Common Market is bankrupt once again and runs out of funds?

The Prime Minister

The revised Community budget for 1986 has now been adopted and this replaces the budget ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice. We believe that the new, revised budget makes adequate provision to meet all the Community's agricultural obligations. We do not expect any significant overrun into 1987. I must say that I agree with some of my hon. Friend's strictures on the effect of dumping surpluses on other countries.

Mr. Skinner

Is the Prime Minister aware that at Whitwell in my constituency the Coal Board has just closed a pit even though it has made a profit—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question is about the EEC.

Mr. Skinner

Yes—even though it made a profit for the greater part of the 100 years that it was open. The Common Market has been bankrupt for about five years out of the last 10——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question is about agricultural spending, in the EEC.

Mr. Skinner

Yes. The Common Market has been bankrupt for about five years out of the last 10 and, if it [column 589]had been a coal mine, this Prime Minister would have shut it. Why does she not get on with it and save the British taxpayer some money for a change?

The Prime Minister

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the taxpayer this year, in spite of the closing of a number of pits, will still pay something like £1.5 billion for the coal industry. With regard to the common agricultural policy, this year's price fixing was estimated to reduce spending by 320 million ecu in 1986 and 457 million ecu in 1987. Community financing of intervention was also cut, saving the budget 350 million ecu a year, so we are in fact steadily dealing with the problems of the common agricultural policy, in the same way as we are dealing steadily with the coal industry.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I remind the House that this is a definitive question, a rare occasion for Prime Minister's Questions. We must stick to the subject.

Mr. Ralph Howell

May I refer to the approach that has been made to my right hon. Friend by Sir Henry Plumb, the leader of the European Conservative parliamentary group, asking her to call a world food conference on the twin problems of embarrassing food surpluses in the Western world and starvation in the less developed countries? Will she give the House an assurance that she will take the lead and call urgently a food conference in London at the earliest possible moment?

The Prime Minister

The question of surpluses between the major producing countries was, as my hon. Friend knows, discussed at the Tokyo summit. We are in touch and in close consultation with the United States about those matters. We also agreed there that the proper forum for it to be discussed was in the new GATT round, which we are hoping will began in September. That should, and indeed must, include the whole question of agricultural surpluses and how to deal with them.

Engagements

Q2. Sir John Biggs-Davison

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 July.

The Prime Minister

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.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

Does the Prime Minister agree that today's Westland report does not live up to the juicy leaks and well-trailed publicity? Will my right hon. Friend not spend too much time on it on this busy day?

The Prime Minister

The Government will, of course, respond to these reports in due course, but I should like to make two things clear straight away. First, my right hon. Friend Paul Channonthe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have total confidence in our officials referred to in the report. As the House will be aware, those responsible for decisions and disciplinary action have already concluded that there is no case for such action. Secondly, I do not accept the Committee's comments on the role of Sir R. Armstrongthe head of the Home Civil Service. He continues to enjoy the Government's total confidence. He is a very distinguished public servant, who has performed great service to Governments of both parties.

[column 590]

Mr. Kinnock

The members of the Select Committee on Defence, of all parties, have been fastidious in their report on Westland plc. In that report, published today, they raise the most profound questions about the conduct of senior officials serving the Government, describing their conduct as “improper” and “disreputable” . As head of that Government, does the Prime Minister accept ministerial responsibility for those officials, particularly as some of those named are directly accountable only to her and are personally associated very closely with her?

The Prime Minister

I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman's question before he asked it. The Government will, of course, respond beyond that to those reports in due course. At present I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Kinnock

This is not a usual Select Committee. All of us obviously understand that the Government will require time to compile their full response in the normal fashion, but there is one question to which the Prime Minister can and—I believe the country also thinks this—must given an answer now in a direct fashion. It is: will she accept the direct ministerial responsibility for officials that everyone understands goes with the office of Minister at every level, or will she be part of a cover-up?

The Prime Minister

I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have total confidence in our officials referred to in the report. Secondly, I do not accept the Committee's comments on the role of the head of the Home Civil Service. He continues to enjoy the Government's total confidence. He is a very distinguished public servant who has performed great service to Governments of both parties.

Mr. Kinnock

By her repetitive replies and her failure to respond to the one issue upon which she can definitely respond today, it is difficult to escape the feeling that the Prime Minister is seeking to hide behind officials. If that is the case, is the Prime Minister aware that she is in great danger of herself attracting the reputation of being disreputable and improper?

The Prime Minister

No, but clearly the right hon. Gentleman asked that question because that was what he wanted to say at the end. The fact was that I volunteered the two points properly that we have total confidence in our officials, and we are proud to be able to stand up for them at this Dispatch Box.

Mr. Lyell

With the approach of the holidays, will my right hon. Friend congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on expelling another minor official from the Labour party, but will she agree with me——

Mr. Speaker

Order. That has nothing to do with the Prime Minister's responsibilities.

Q3. Mr. Litherland

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 July.

The Prime Minister

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

Mr. Litherland

I refer the Prime Minister to paragraph 160 of the report of the Select Committee on Defence. It says:

“Since the information was passed by telephone to Westland in any event, the reason given by the Prime Minister for releasing the information to the Press Association begins to look flimsy, to say the least.”

[column 591]Will she now say what will happen to those five senior officials, because the buck stops here?

The Prime Minister

I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's question before he asked it. Beyond that, as I said earlier, the Government will of course respond to these reports in due course. I have nothing further to add this afternoon.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement that the Commonwealth is more important than the issues that temporarily divide it?

The Prime Minister

Yes. I believe firmly in the Commonwealth and I am sure that it is strong enough to withstand any differences between us in the future, as it has withstood them in the past.

Mr. Cartwright

Will the Prime Minister tell the House clearly whether she accepts or rejects the unanimous finding of the Select Committee on Defence that two key officials in her Department, Mr. Ingham and Mr. Powell, were deeply involved in the planned leaking of the Solicitor-General's letter, yet apparently failed to tell her what was going on? If that is so, how can the Prime Minister continue to express confidence in the officials concerned?

The Prime Minister

I have answered the points about my officials, but let me answer them again. My right hon. Friend Paul Channonthe Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I have total confidence in our officials referred to in the report. As the House will be aware, those responsible for decisions on disciplinary action have already concluded that there is no case for such action. Secondly, I do not accept the Committee's comments on the role of Sir R. Armstrongthe head of the Home Civil Service. He continues to enjoy the Government's total confidence, and I am glad to express our confidence in his distinguished service.

[column 592]

Sir Anthony Grant

Does my right hon. Friend recall that the appalling Soweto uprising in South Africa occurred when there was a Labour Government here and that, at that time, apartheid was in its full, rigorous force, but, nevertheless, under the Labour Government, no fewer than 75 trade missions were sent to South Africa to encourage trade, at a cost to the taxpayer of more than £410,000? Have we not heard enough humbug from the Opposition on South Africa?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

Q4. Mr. Snape

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 24 July.

The Prime Minister

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

Mr. Snape

Does the Prime Minister agree that Mr. Bernard Ingham is normally very good at telling the rest of the world what is going on, and yet we are expected to believe that on this occasion he did not even tell the Prime Minister what was going on? Will she now answer the question, because it is her reputation that is directly under threat?

The Prime Minister

I have already indicated that the Government will be replying in due course. I have nothing further to add this afternoon. I am delighted that on this occasion, the last day when I am answering questions, the Opposition appear to be satisfied with health, education, social security, the welfare state—[Interruption.]—and between them they cannot muster a single question. My goodness, they are ready to go away!

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I shall take it after the private notice question.