asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the present food stocks held by the European Economic Community.

The number of days' supply of public intervention stocks in the European Community at recent dates were approximately 15½ days of beef and veal, 11 days of butter, 25 days of skimmed milk powder, 24 days of cereals, 51 days of olive oil and eight days of oilseed rape.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he aware that nothing angers the British taxpayer more than the continuing stupidity of the food surpluses in the EEC? When will we rid ourselves of that stupidity and stop selling them, as we often do, at giveaway prices? Why cannot those surpluses be made available to the elderly within the EEC or to the starving millions of the world? That would receive far more support than the present stupidity.

The Community is developing an increasing food aid programme for third countries and more recently especially for Poland. That has been of considerable importance. As for helping consumers, the United Kingdom enjoys a unique consumer subsidy in the major areas of surplus, namely, butter and dairy products.

Is it not time to put an end to the con trick about the common agricultural policy being such a disaster? Is it not clear that, with all its imperfections, the policy has ensured for the people of Western Europe a steady supply of food and a reasonable standard of living for farmers at less cost than that paid by the United States or Japan for the maintenance of their agriculture?

My hon. Fried is correct in saying that the CAP has secured for Europe a security of food supplies and a degree of economic stability of considerable importance, but the Government consider that there are areas of surplus and potential danger that still need to be tackled. Certainly there is only one thing worse than a surplus, and that is a shortage.

Does the Minister agree that the best way to measure a surplus is to consider the amount exported with Export refunds? Can he confirm that there are between 10 million and 15 million tonnes of cereals to be exported from the EEC this year and that there is a risk that some farmers producing food at cost will be put out of business?

I cannot give the figures. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will table a specific question about cereals. Certainly when measuring a surplus one has to look also at what is exported with export refunds

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress being made towards an equivalence of energy costs in the glasshouse industries of the United Kingdom and other member countries of the European Economic Community to ensure fair competition in horticulture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the response of the Dutch Government to the requirement upon them to end the unfair advantage their horticulturists obtain from the provision of cheap gas supplies.

I understand that a further announcement by the Dutch Government on gas prices to horticulture is imminent. Meanwhile I am taking every opportunity to press for the ending of the distortion of competition.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the horticulture industry is not satisfied with the progress being made to equivalence of competition? What has happened to the undertakings that my right hon. Friend gave to the industry on 13 and 17 March when he said that there would be a more definitive statement within two weeks, based on the report of the energy task force? Does not that task force report highlight the fact that horticulture has the highest proportion of energy costs to total costs—at 40 per cent.—of any industry in the country? When will my right hon. Friend take action to remove from the British producer the appalling handicap of unfair competition?

It is an appalling handicap which needs to be tackled. When I met the horticulturists on 13 March I said that I hoped to make a statement by the end of the month. I was given to understand by the Dutch Government that they would announce their new gas prices before 31 March. Because the Dutch Minister had the Presidency of the Council of Ministers during the price fixing, that was not possible. I am told by the Dutch Government that the announcement is about to be made.

Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members with horticulture interests believe that the Dutch Government are prevaricating, in spite of the excuses by the Minister? Has his attention been drawn to early-day motion No. 317, which has been signed by nearly 70 hon. Members, most of whom are his Back-Bench colleagues? Is he aware that we had hoped that he would today announce an Easter present for horticulturists? Will he please ensure that an announcement is made before the end of the month?

I understand the frustration, which I share. However, I do not think that on this occasion the Dutch Government were prevaricating. The cause was the demand on the Minister during the price fixing, when he had the Presidency. The latest information from the Dutch Government is that they hope to make an announcement either this week or next. Soon after that I shall make a statement to the House.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if justice delayed is justice denied, the years of waiting while the European Community has failed to resolve the fuel price question represent a grave injustice to British growers? Does he accept, therefore, that the EEC procedures for dealing with charges of unfair trading practices must be thoroughly overhauled and speeded up?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the light of the common fisheries policy deadlock, whether he will now introduce unilateral national conservation measures on mesh sizes, one net rule, beam trawling, and restricted access to specified areas.

A satisfactory EEC regulation covering all the matters mentioned by the hon. Member is in operation now, and has been since 1 October 1980.

Did not the Conservative manifesto promise such conservation measures on a national basis if negotiations did not get anywhere? Does the Minister accept that, unless he maintains and exercises our right to impose national conservation measures, we shall surrender control of our fish stocks to a regime that is largely unworkable and is operated by countries that have demonstrated by their attitude to fishing that they are untrustworthy? Does he agree that if that happens we shall have abandoned our control over that vital national resource?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard what I said. These measures, some of which were originally national measures, have been taken over by a Community conservation measure. In view of the hon. Gentleman's attitude to Europe, I can understand that he is disappointed that the common fisheries policy can operate such measures.

Although there should be concern about conservation, is not another matter more important? When does the Minister intend to report the findings of the inquiry into cheap fish imports? When is there likely to be an agreed Common Market solution to cheap fish dumping in the United Kingdom?

The investigating group met for the last time on Tuesday. We expect to receive its report shortly. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are extremely dissatisfied with the Commission's action on imports at below reference price from third countries. We shall continue to press the Commission extremely hard on that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about negotiations over the common fisheries policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on negotiations for a common fisheries policy.

I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House on 30 March.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the great anxiety in the port of Grimsby about the proposal to establish a box to the north of Scotland from which vessels over 80 ft in length will be excluded? Is he aware that that, will affect not only such vessels but the port of Grimsby as a whole, where many of my constituents work?

No proposals have yet been agreed on that aspect of the common fisheries policy. I accept that what has been discussed has an effect on ports such as Grimsby. At the same time, my hon. Friend should appreciate that we must examine the overall benefits of such proposals for the United Kingdom fishing industry as a whole.

the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it is still the policy of the Government to insist on the United Kingdom 50-mile dominant preference zone in the negotiations for a European Economic Community common fisheries policy.

As I have made clear to the House on many occasions, the Government's objective is to obtain an adequate zone of exclusive access with preference beyond that designed to benefit coastal communities particularly dependent on fishing.

Does that mean that the Government have surrendered the condition of a 50-mile dominant preference zone, which was one of the most crucial points in the fisheries negotiations?

There are a number of different ways in which preference beyond an exclusive zone can be interpreted. It is interesting to note that the proposal for boxes, which might help communities dependent upon fishing, commands considerable support in the fishing industry.

Is the Minister aware that the House gave him and his right hon. Friend unanimously agreed negotiating objectives for a common fisheries policy? Was not one of those objectives the 12 to 50-mile dominant preference zone for United Kingdom fishermen? Is he saying that, in spite of talks with the fishermen, he has dropped that objective?

Not at all. I said that there were a number of ways in which preference beyond 12 miles could be achieved. It is significant that the industry broadly supports us in our approach to particular areas where communities are dependent on fishing to ensure preference for our fishermen. That proposal has the support of the fishing industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the acreage of land designated for agricultural use lost to other development or uses in the last 12 months for which figures are available.

The average yearly loss of agricultural land to development or other uses, excluding woodlands, in England in the five-year period ending June 1980 was 18,500 hectares, or 45,800 acres.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is far too much land lost for agricultural purposes? Does he agree also that it is ridiculous to expect our farmers to produce more and more on less and less land? Does he further agree that the overall policy assumes absurd proportions when, by my calculations, at least 250,000 acres of land lie derelict in our towns and cities?

Part of my duty is to seek to ensure that development is steered away from high quality agricultural land and therefore I can willingly answer in the affirmative to the first part of my hon. Friend's question. Derelict land is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and we are in touch about that. It is to the great advantage of both parties if derelict land is redeveloped.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the local fishing plans which are being considered by the Government; and if he will make a statement on his general policy on such plans.

In the view of Her Majesty's Government a revised common fisheries policy should include fishing plans involving access restrictions outside the 12-mile limit at North Scotland and in the Irish Sea.

Does the Minister accept that local plans and real positive help for communities that depend on the fishing industry are vital to the settlement of a common fisheries policy? Harking back to earlier replies and answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins), will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to stand by their commitment to secure dominant preference for British fishermen in the 12 to 50-mile band round our shores?

I have made it clear that I believe that preference beyond 12 miles, to which the Government are committed, can be taken care of in our proposals for boxes. That approach has the support of the fishing industry.

Does the Minister realise that recent and planned conservation measures, which do not take sufficient account of the situation off the North-East coast, make any fishing ban impossible to operate? I refer in particular to the mesh sizes for whiting and shrimps and the lobster restrictions. The restrictions make it almost impossible to catch any fish at all.

The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. Fishermen become anxious when mesh sizes are increased, but the increases have taken place on the best scientific advice in order to conserve our fish stocks. If we are prepared to look to the future and not merely live in the present, we must adopt more effective conservation measures, and I believe that the majority of responsible fishermen accept that.

Is the Minister aware that on 23 March in The Times, in an interview with Hugh Clayton, he said that the Government's stance was very flexible and that it ruled out the desire of British fishermen for dominant preference in waters from 12 to 50 miles off the British coast? He shows one side of his face to fishermen, and the other side to the House. Is the hon. Gentleman misleading the House?

Not in the least. I have been completely open with the House and with the fishing industry about the Government's objectives on fishing policy. The right hon. Gentleman's statement is simply sour grapes because the Government's approach is supported by the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent recent trends in the commodity price of coffee have been reflected in its retail price.

In the last six months both the green coffee price and the retail price of soluble coffee have shown a downward trend.

If one goes back more than six months—to twelve months—has there not been a substantial downward trend whereby the commodity world price of coffee has dropped by about 30 per cent.? Does it not mean that people are still paying far too much for coffee, which is an important item in many people's budgets, particularly those who have to stay up late at night or get up early in the morning? Can anything be done about it? Does my right hon. Friend foresee the retail price of coffee dropping?

I take the point made by my hon. Friend at this hour in the morning. The retail price of soluble coffee is lower now than it was three and a half years ago and is only slightly above the lowest level in that period. The international coffee agreement appears to be working adequately. My hon. Friend will know that the price of coffee is regulated by other things, including transport, wages, and so on. I am satisfied that the picture is not quite as my hon. Friend paints it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when expects to receive the report of the Food Standards Committee in respect of possible amendments to the cream regulations.

The Food Standards Committee is at present engaged on its review of the cream regulations, and I do not expect to receive its report before the end of this year.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the committee will consider the interests of consumers, who find that double cream is virtually indistinguishable from single cream, apart from a 50 per cent. higher price? Should not the committee at least lay down that the fat content of cream should be clearly displayed on cartons?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Under the current compositional regulations, a minimal fat content of 55 per cent. is required for clotted cream, 48 per cent. for double cream, 18 per cent. for single cream, and 12 per cent. for half cream. The committee will study the figures and, I am sure, take note of what my hon. Friend said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage increase in farmgate prices for each of the main agricultural commodities consequent on the European Economic Community price review.

Percentage increases in institutional prices for the main agricultural commodities are shown in the note on the settlement, which I have deposited in the Library of the House. It is not possible to determine precisely the effect on farm gate prices.

I regret that the Minister is unable to give the figures to the House this morning. He announced a fortnight ago that £325 million would be given to farmers as a result of this package. Can he now tell us how the mathematical calculations of that award affect prices in the shops by only 1 per cent? Why has the right hon. Gentleman refused to answer questions on that subject on two occasions?

I have not refused to answer questions. It is clear that the beef premium, butter subsidy and lamb premium schemes substantially reduce prices. The hon. Gentleman will know that the price of agricultural products is only one part of food prices in general.

Is it not true that the farming industry needed the level of farm price increases that was achieved in that way? Last year, when inflation was 15 per cent., food prices rose by 9 per cent. and farmgate prices rose by only 6 per cent. Is it not an amazing track record that the farming industry managed to survive at all?

Yes. There is no doubt that over the past three years there has been a considerable squeeze on farm prices, not only in Britain but throughout Europe. British agriculture has made a considerable contribution to the battle against inflation.

Is it correct that the increase in EEC expenditure arising from these price changes is about £500 million or £600 million?

I forget the exact figure. With regard to the increase in Britain, a combination of the EMS changes and the overall position will mean, if anything, that our contribution will be slightly lower.

Did the Minister notice that the Prime Minister's immediate reaction in the House of Commons to the settlement was to stress the need for an urgent reform of the CAP? Will the Minister reconsider his attitude to the milk prices, particularly the French increase? Does he accept that that increase, combined with French national aids, will lead to increased production and cannot be justified in view of the massive structural surplus in that commodity?

It can be argued that the increase in the input costs of the dairy industry is still greater than price increases generally. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the French national aids will stimulate milk production in France. That is why the Commission is taking proceedings against the French Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has come to a decision on the question of temporary aid for the United Kingdom glasshouse industry while it is facing competition from growers in other parts of the European Economic Community who enjoy subsidised fuel prices.

I am giving the matter urgent attention and hope to reach a decision shortly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. Does he accept that speed is now of the essence?

I appreciate the serious situation of the glasshouse industry. As I said earlier, I had hoped to have the details of the Dutch gas prices so that the appropriate comparisons could be made. I hope that we can act quickly once the announcement is made.

I urge on the Minister the need for urgent action in this connection. Will he confirm that there is no truth in the rumour that foot and mouth disease was brought to the Isle of Wight in horticultural packaging of any sort?

I take advantage of that supplementary question to say how pleased I am that we have been able to lift the appropriate restrictions. I was grateful to receive a letter from the farmer who was originally primarily concerned, and whose stock had to be destroyed, in which he paid tribute to the swift action taken by veterinary staff in my Department.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Through you, I thank the Minister for making that statement on foot and mouth disease. However, is it not a great discourtesy to the House that so many Conservative Members who profess a great interest in agriculture are not present?

Order. Even on Maundy Thursday it is not a point of order if hon. Members are not here now.

asked the Secretary of State for Employment what are the prices in Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Sweden and Finland of (a) a pound of butter, (b) a kilo of sugar and (c) a pound of steak; and how these prices compare with those in the United Kingdom.

I shall be writing to my hon. Friend with the exact statistics that he requires. The latest available information, based on a survey carried out in October 1979, demonstrates that butter was cheaper in the United Kingdom than in all the other countries inquired about, except Norway. Sugar was as cheap, or cheaper, in the United Kingdom than in any of the other countries, and beef was cheaper than in all the other countries, with the exception of Finland.

It is manifestly preposterous that this question, which was addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has been transferred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The question deals with food prices and relates to the CAP. Merely because it affects the retail price index it has been transferred to the Department of Employment. I sympathise with my hon. Friend for having to deal with my supplementary question, but——

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will get around to asking his supplementary question.

It would appear that my hon. Friend has been abandoned by his Front Bench colleagues. Does not this question demonstrate the absurdity of the contention that the British consumer would be better off if we were outside the EEC, because European countries outside the EEC appear to be paying higher food prices than we are?

I am grateful for the sympathy shown to me by my hon. Friend, but my Department keeps the statistics. The figures appear to bear out what he has said in his supplementary question.

As food is generally available more cheaply outside than inside the Common Market, will the Minister tell us at what prices mutton, cheese, and butter, which are available from New Zealand, have to be sold on world markets in competition with dumped products from the Common Market? How much levy is paid on that produce when it comes into this country in order to increase the price to the British consumer?

The original question referred not to New Zealand, but to Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Sweden, Finland and, of course, the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman referred to butter. In October 1979 butter cost 72p a pound in the United Kingdom, compared with £1·81 a pound in Switzerland. That seems a significant difference in favour of the United Kingdom.

When my hon. Friend writes to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), will he put the answer in terms of the minutes worked by a married man, on national average wages, 'with two children under 11 years of age, so that proper comparisons can be made?

My hon. Friend has bowled a rather fast ball. I shall not be able to acceed to his request because I do not think that we shall have the statistics available.

In view of the thirst for knowledge on these matters by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), will the Minister tell us the prices of these commodities in Australia and the United States as well as in New Zealand?

If the right hon. Gentleman will table a question, I am sure that I shall be able to help him.

Is not the average standard of living in Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Sweden and Finland significantly higher than that not merely in the United Kingdom but in the European Community as a whole?

That is a matter of opinion, which my hon. Friend obviously has. I should not like to comment upon it.

Will the Minister confirm that the current levy, even at a specially reduced rate for New Zealand butter, is about 30p a pound and for other countries about 50p a pound?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Will the Minister confirm, first, that some non-EEC countries have cheaper commodities—indeed, he mentioned one in his answers—secondly, that wage rates in the other EEC countries listed in the question are much higher than in this country and, thirdly, that cheaper food supplies would be available to this country if we were not in the EEC?

I confirm that in October 1979 a pound of sirloin in Finland cost £1·88 compared with £2·07 in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, it cost £3·20 in Norway. It will vary from country to country.

We recognise that the Common Market has a bad image, but the Minister does not seem to have improved it, or his own, today.

That is a matter of opinion. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman believes, as many of his hon. Friends believe, that we should remain in the Common Market.

We shall have time to consider that remark. The House will be suspended until 10·15 when we shall take Prime Minister's questions.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 16 April.

I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is making an official visit to India.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing worry about the levels of lead in the air and elsewhere coming from petrol? Will he consider the recent report of the Inner London Education Authority, which suggests that lead levels in 23 school playgrounds are above the accepted safety levels? Is he aware that there are some who fear that the high levels of lead are a contributory factor to under-achievement and behavioural difficulties among children in inner city schools? Will he ensure that the views of the Department of Energy do not prevail over those of the Departments of Health and Social Security, Transport and Environment, and that the health of our children is the first consideration?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government as a whole take a serious view of this matter and are carefully considering what is right to be done.

During the course of his busy day will my right hon. Friend advise the House on the standards that local councils should apply to proposals to build large-scale nuclear underground shelters? Will he condemn the methods used by some fly-by-night operators who put forward such schemes using terror as a method of selling their dubious, highly unsatisfactory and probably unnecessary wares?

The Home Office has issued detailed guidance for shelters in two recent publications, which set out what it believes to be the most suitable form of domestic nuclear shelter. If there are people acting as my hon. Friend has described, they are wrong. There are reputable shelters that can be purchased.

What advice has the right hon. Gentleman been giving to the Prime Minister over recent days, or even today, on the relationship between high unemployment and the crime rate? Does he agree with the somewhat extraordinary view that the Prime Minister seems to hold that high unemployment, especially high youth unemployment, is not related to, or is not primary cause of some disturbances? Does he agree with the recent report made by the chief constable of Northumbria, which points a very different moral?

Surely the whole House will agree that there can never be any justification for crime, whether it be social conditions, unemployment or anything else. There can never be any excuse for criminal activity.

We are not talking about justification of crime. We are trying to deal with the causes. A commission has been set up that will try to examine some of the causes. Has the right hon. Gentleman read some of the studies that have been undertaken? I am sure that he should have done. If not, I hope that he will read yesterday's edition of the Daily Star, which gave a full account of what was said by the chief constable of Northumbria. He said that half of the crimes recently committed in Northumbria were committed by young people who were unemployed. Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the report raises serious matters and confirms what I should think is obvious to most people—namely, that high unemployment, especially among young people, causes grave events, or contributes to their cause? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on this report from a chief constable in his own area?

In my capacity as Home Secretary I study all these reports most carefully. I consider the various evidence that is brought forward on criminal activities. It is important for me to do so. There are different reasons for crime in our nation today which many people rehearse and which I study carefully. I return to my simple point that once we start saying that there is some excuse for criminal activities we shall be making a great mistake.

That is something altogether different. Why does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the rate of unemployment has gone up 48 per cent. in his area? The chief constables are talking about that. Cannot he and the Government listen to what is being said all over the country on those matters? When will the Government do something about that rise in unemployment?

Of course I am listening to such matters. I can only add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers have said consistently, that the Government believe that the policies which we are pursuing are the best way, in the long run, of providing real jobs. That must be our purpose.

As the Sandwell local government workers have thrown out the closed shop rule under which Miss Joanna Harris was deprived of her job, will the Home Secretary ask the Prime Minister to congratulate Miss Harris on the stand which she has taken? Will he also ask the Prime Minister to go back to Strasbourg and tell the European Commission of Human Rights that it was never the Government's intention to defend British Rail's sacking of three people on the same basis, and that they will do everything in their power to give back the jobs to those people?

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Government's position was made clear at the time. Many people will applaud the action of the employees of Sandwell council. They will also hope that, as a result of that, Sandwell council will take back Miss Joanna Harris.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 16 April.

I have been asked to reply.

Will my right hon. Friend join with many of my hon. Friends in deploring the activities of certain Socialist-controlled towns in the so-called "Republic of South Yorkshire," which have banned recruiting by local regiments in schools controlled by them and which have also prevented local regimental bands from performing at local council functions? Is that not a disgraceful slap in the face to all those brave men and women from South Yorkshire who fought during two world wars and at other times?

If the Sheffield council were to take that course, I should have thought that that would be thoroughly unwise. I do not believe that it would carry the people and the ratepayers in that area with it. There are good military traditions in Yorkshire which many people in that part of the world support. Therefore, I hope that, if the Sheffield council were minded to pursue that course, it would realise what a stupid and unwise action it was taking.

Will the Government submit evidence to the Scarman inquiry in support of the Prime Minister's contention that unemployment is not only not an excuse for the Brixton riots but is not a cause of those riots?

I shall carefully consider what the Government will say to the Scarman inquiry. Those matters come into my area as Home Secretary.

In view of the threat from the Civil Service trade unions to British people who wish to travel abroad this weekend, does my right hon. Friend know whether the offer by the Minister of State, Civil Service Department, to the unions has been taken up yet?

Not yet. With regard to the threat of disruption of traffic over Easter, it is worth remembering that, at the start of this unfortunate dispute, the Civil Service unions said that they did not want to harm the public. If they proceed as they apparently intend to over the weekend, there is no doubt that they will harm the public. I hope that they will decide to talk and will not go back on what they promised.

What Easter message will the Prime Minister send to the thousands of young people and school leavers in my area, many of whom are leaving school when there are only four job vacancies? How does he suggest that they should share the joys of Easter when their first job will be to join the dole queue, which in my area already consists of 5,000 unemployed?

If he was fair, the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge how much the Government have done through the youth opportunities programme and training schemes for young school leavers. Such schemes are important and right at times of difficult employment conditions.

With regard to the Brixton riots, will my right hon. Friend stress that the large number of police in Brixton is inevitable because of the extent of crime, such as mugging and robbery, in that area?

Those matters will come into Lord Scarman's inquiry. Therefore, I do not wish to prejudge much of what will follow from that. It is true that there was a high crime rate in Brixton. It is the job of the police to deal with criminal acts and to protect law-abiding citizens. That is their job, and they must have the necessary resources to carry it out.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have time to consider with the Prime Minister the problems of cities such as Leicester, with large immigrant communities which are remarkably well and happily integrated and far removed in condition from the sad borough of Brixton? Nevertheless, such cities are anxious about the growth of unemployment, homelessness and hardship. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those conditions provide fertile soil for unrest, unhappiness, violence and extremism in all its forms?

I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in paying tribute to community relations in Leicester, which have been conducted with care. He and many of those concerned with such affairs in Leicester can take credit for what has happened there. I hope that that will long continue. Of course, there are difficulties with social conditions, upon which extremists thrive. We must make sure that the extremists are not successful, as, alas, they seem to be sometimes in different areas.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 April.

I have been asked to reply.

When the Prime Minister returns from her travels, will my right hon. Friend tell her of the grave concern felt about her reply in the House last week to the effect that the Civil Service had been reduced by only 35,000 since the Government came into office? Is not that a derisorily small total? Would it be possible slightly to increase the 7 per cent. pay offer to the Civil Service provided there was a massive reduction in their numbers?

I would not have thought that 35,000 was a derisory number. I remind my hon. Friend of our target reduction figure of 100,000 by 1984, to which we must adhere and which is right. My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President has made clear the Government's belief that the 7 per cent. offer is fair and that we are standing by it.

As the Government profess to be anxious to resolve the Civil Service dispute and as, presumably, considerable discussions have been taking place in Government Departments on a new pay system, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if the unions were to meet the Government, the Government would now be able to put specific proposals before the unions for proper discussion and negotiation?

My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord President has offered the unions the opportunity to come to talks. When they do so, that is the moment such discussions should take place.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to condemn retrospective legislation, both in principle and practice?

Yes, Sir.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report published yesterday by British Rail, containing the threat that fares are likely to go up again next November? As this matter is before the Cabinet at the moment, does he appreciate that the poor, hard-pressed commuters are not prepared to pay more unless they receive a better service and more modern facilities which go with it? Will the Government come to a rapid decision on that matter?

The hon. Gentleman echoes the views of many people who use our railway services, which are now facing considerable problems. There must be discussions so that those problems can be resolved.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 April.

I have been asked to reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most welcome news that last year the United Kingdom had a balance of £700 million in its trade with the rest of the Common Market, as opposed to a deficit of £2,600,000 in 1979? Does not that show the advantages of being a member of the Common Market and highlight the ludicrous position of the Labour Party in talking about taking Britain out of the Common Market?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Those figures are important. The Labour Party has threatened to take the country out of the Community. Mercifully, I do not believe that it will ever have the opportunity, but even if it did I do not believe that it would do so. That would be too mad, even for that party.

Does the Home Secretary accept that, until action was taken by the Civil Service, it faced a continuing campaign of sneers and denigration from the Government and Conservative Back Benchers? If he is so anxious to avoid difficulties over Easter, why does not he treat the civil servants' claim in the same way as the Government treated the miners?

I do not accept the accusation about a campaign of sneers and denigration. I certainly pay tribute to the very important work of the Civil Service in providing a service to the public as a whole. What I regret is that, having made very clear at the start of the dispute that they did not wish to harm the public in any way, civil servants' actions are now, unfortunately, doing just that.

Does my right hon. Friend share the concern that I am sure is common to hon. Members on both sides of the House over the unlawful killing of Barry Prosser in Winson Green Prison? Is it not the case that Prosser must have been killed either by inmates or, more likely, by prison officers? Is it not a disgrace to the British prison system that this should have happened? Is it not clear that a full inquiry must be instituted? Does he agree that the fact that a senior prison officer has been acquitted of the offence is not a sufficient disposal of the matter?

I understand that the papers in this case have gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the coroner has made various statements. It would be quite wrong for me to comment on these matters in those circumstances.