asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many hours in February he spent on his ministerial duties.

Sixty hours, Sir.

Has the Chancellor considered a slightly less arduous job which would give him more time for moonlighting, despite the fact he receives more than £50 per hour wearing his present hat? Has he considered today's report from the Labour research department which suggests that perhaps the real reason why he and the Government take little action against the pimps and sharks in the City of London is that, in his other hat, as chairman of the Tory party, he gets a quarter of the company donations from that source?

Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his questions to the Chancellor's responsibilities for the Duchy of Lancaster.

Once again, the hon. Gentleman is clearly labouring under one of the many misapprehensions that he probably shares with a number of his colleagues. My ministerial pay is £2,000 per year, which works at to rather less than £3 per hour. As ever, the hon. Gentleman has leapt from a wrong premise to an unfounded conclusion.

As to the City of London, if the hon. Gentleman can cast his memory back that far he may recollect that I was the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who introduced the White Paper which brought about much tougher sanctions in the City and much tighter regulatory procedures which will soon be in force generally. Some parts are already in force. That is why we are having success in prosecuting for insider trading, which was not an offence under the Government which the hon. Gentleman would have supported had he been in the House.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that on 1 April the boundary commissioners start their work on the boundaries between metropolitan borough councils. When his official duties next take him to Manchester, will he tell the leader of Manchester city council that the people of Stockport are appalled at what is happening to that once proud city and do not want Manchester city council to encroach one inch into Stockport? With his usual delicacy of phrase, will he tell the leader of Manchester city council to turn his attentions elsewhere?

I am not sure whether it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to get into such questions. However, I would always make it plain that the people of Stockport and, indeed, most of the people of Lancashire resent sharply the gross excesses perpetrated by Manchester city council. Indeed, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition also resents those excesses.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many public meetings he has addressed in the last month.

On the basis of experience during February, about 15 hours a week.

In view of all the rosy optimism that Ministers, including the right hon. Gentleman, show about the economy—

Order. This is question No. 24, about public meetings.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who should have asked question No. 22, is probably still celebrating St. David's day.

My answer to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is : in the course of my duties as Chancellor of the Duchy, none.

In view of all the rosy optimism that Ministers show about the economy, how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the fact that whenever elections give people the opportunity the Tory vote virtually collapses, as it did at Greenwich? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of his numerous political opponents hope that he will continue his job as party chairman, though not as Chancellor of the Duchy, for many years to come?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. Presumably it is an expression of his hope that the Labour party will shortly lose many more of the seats that it has held for more than 40 years. I share that hope.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he would be most welcome if he could find time to address a public meeting in my constituency of Suffolk, South? It would provide him with a valuable opportunity to tell my electorate, especially the farming community, which is prominent in my constituency, what a disastrous future it would have if Labour or SDP-Liberal policies were ever put into practice.

Once again, I am not sure whether it would be the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster speaking in Suffolk or one of my other incarnations. However, in any of my incarnations I should certainly tell the farmers about the Labour party's proposals to introduce rating of agricultural premises and the great split within the alliance between the half that wants to introduce the rating of agricultural land and the half that does not.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of his meetings in the past month dragged him away from the county palatine into Greenwich and how he would assess his success rate per meeting in Greenwich?

The Chancellor of the Duchy did not attend any meetings in Greenwich, so once again the hon. and learned Gentleman's question has gone sadly adrift. I shall be happy to come to the Dispatch Box after the general election and tell the hon. and learned Gentleman about the statistics of the general election if he has the good fortune to be here.