asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has had any discussions with the French Government on fisheries since the Presidential election; and if he will make a statement.

We have had no discussions with French representatives on fisheries since the French Presidential elections.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition welcome the election of President Mitterrand? Does he accept that the robust stand that the President promised during the election campaign to take on fisheries should not lead to any scaling down of Britain's position in the negotiations? Will the Minister make it clear that a 12-mile exclusive limit means the phasing-out of French historic rights, as well as the historic rights of other countries?

The change of President in France makes no difference to Britain's position in the negotiations. We negotiate on terms that are in the best interests of the British fishing industry. On the question of the exclusive limit, as I have made plain on several occasions, and again this week, we must have an exclusive zone, but we should consider historic rights.

Will my hon. Friend say categorically that there will he no fishing up to the beaches after 1982?

Certainly. I do not believe that any British Government could tolerate any other situation. Although the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) referred to the new French President's tougher line on fisheries, it is significant that in at least one interview that the President gave to a newspaper that aspect was not raised.

As nothing can be done or begun to be discussed with the French until after the elections in June, what contingency plans are the Government making as it becomes increasingly unlikely that there will be a settlement of the common fisheries policy that will be satisfactory to British fishermen?

The negotiations must wait until we can meet the new French Government. We have that responsibility. That is a realistic and sensible way in which to proceed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, as interim measures, last year and this year we have given substantial aid to the fishing industry because the negotiations have not yet come to a conclusion.

As there will be a prolonged period before agreement can be reached, will the Minister undertake to introduce the independent national measures that were promised in the Conservative Party manifesto in 1979 in the event of a deadlock in negotiations? Secondly, will he in the interim introduce a long-term plan of aid and development for the British industry?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not pay attention to what I said in the House earlier this week. He must realise that under The Hague agreement, which his Government negotiated, the unilateral measures that were introduced were proved to be illegal. The Government have made sure that those unilateral measures have been taken over in a universal Community measure so that they now have the force of Community agreement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what help he proposes for farmers affected by the April snowfall.

The farmers unions have made an application to the European Commission for special assistance. The Government are helping this application by providing necessary information to the Commission, and I hope that it will be dealt with quickly and sympathetically. In addition, the advisory service will do all that it can to assist farmers and I have asked for capital grant applications arising from storm damage to be given priority treatment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many farmers are deeply concerned that the effects of the April snowfall have been underestimated, and that some farmers, often in marginal areas where they are already suffering from other difficulties, have lost hundreds of lambs? When does the right hon. Gentleman expect that those farmers will hear from the European Community about their applications?

I had a word at last week's Council of Ministers meeting with the Commissioner, who is aware of the problem and has promised to consider it speedily. The funds available in this sphere are fairly limited, but I hope that decisions will be made quickly.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that some of the worst-hit parts of the country were in the East Midlands, where some areas were cut off from electricity for four or five days and many lambs were lost and agricultural crops damaged? Will he consider whether he ought to do something for that part of the country?

I am aware of the bad flood damage in parts of the East Midlands. The NFUs have given evidence of that in their submissions to the European Commission. We have provided all the information available to us and my staff in the region have been giving all the help that they can.

Is the Minister aware that the effects of the snowfall were particularly severe in Northumberland, where the lambing season is later than in many other parts of England? Consequently, many young lambs were lost. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that into account?

The effect of climatic conditions on sectors of agriculture has, alas, always been one of the hazards of the industry, in the same way as good climatic conditions have been one of the benefits. Disastrous effects were suffered by farming communities in some areas, and we are doing all that we can to help.

In the light of the right hon. Gentleman's warning that the assistance available from the Commission may prove inadequate, what steps are open to the Government to make good the financial losses that have been incurred?

There is an element of disaster, particularly in the East Midlands and in one or two areas of late lambing, but it has been agreed by successive Governments, correctly in my view, that one cannot compensate for bad weather conditions. If one did that, it might be necessary to claw back the benefits during good weather. There is a balance of effect. The Commission has a fund, albeit small, for helping with such problems, and the NFUs have rightly made a submission to the Commission.

Following on from that, is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers in the Vale of Ancholme to the south of Brigg in my constituency lost all their crops? As many farm fewer than 100 acres, they will have lost their livelihoods unless some help is forthcoming.

I am aware of the problems in my hon. Friend's constituency. He has been active in bringing them to our attention. We are giving all possible help, in terms of grants and advice on how to replant quickly in such areas, but no Minister of Agriculture can compensate specific farms for adverse weather conditions. The NFU once considered the possibility of setting up a disaster fund, as a sort of insurance policy, but I understand that the majority of Members were against it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what response he has had to his consultation letter setting out proposals for change to the agricultural land classification maps, as announced in his parliamentary answer on 5 May to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet.

As always, my hon. Friend is ahead of events. I cannot comment on the response until all the replies are received, and he would not expect me to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread welcome for his proposal to reclassify the grading of agricultural land so that grade 3 land, the vast majority of which is good agricultural land, is not thought of as third-class land? Will he confirm that that minor, but important, step is the first of a number of initiatives that the Government intend to take to try to conserve our good agricultural land from urban development—a highly commendable objective on environmental as well as economic grounds?

As my hon. Friend knows, this is a battle that we are always losing. The question is whether we can lose it progressively more slowly. I am grateful for his comments. A number of difficulties are involved, and although the change is relatively cosmetic I believe that it will have a psychological effect on some of those who do not understand the importance of maintaining this natural resource.

I welcome my hon. Friend's suggested changes, but can he inform us of the attitude of the farming communities, which will derive maximum benefit if the change of nomenclature goes through?

I cannot anticipate that. There is a difficulty with the individual farmer faced with the vast profits that would come from developing his land, but in general both the NFU and the CLA have consistently defended agricultural land and I hope that they will take the same view as my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the prospects for those young people wishing to enter the farming industry.

So far as openings are available, I am satisfied that there is good provision for young people to acquire the skills and experience needed for a worthwhile career in the industry.

I am heartened by my hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that there is an enormous untapped reservoir of talent within agriculture waiting to get on to the ladder of self-employment, not necessarily as farm managers? Does he agree that if the CLA and the NFU can agree on how to make more land available for letting to enable young people to get on to the ladder he should consult all other parties, including the Labour Party, to determine how the land can be brought on to the market for letting?

Rigid security of tenure, whether of housing accommodation or land, always means that the market for letting dries up. So many people will have to come to an agreement before the Government can intervene that I cannot promise that success will be achieved. Of course, we welcome the good news that has come from the CLA and NFU talks.

Will the hon. Gentleman state what prospects there are for young farmers who went into horticulture and were persuaded to convert their greenhouses to heating by gas and are consequently missing out on the oil subsidies?

I am aware of that problem. A total of 92 per cent. of glasshouse growers will have been helped by the Government's recent announcement, which had to take account of EEC rules. Only 1 per cent. of growers use gas. One is sympathetic to their problem, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not heard the welcome news that the Dutch have recently announced a small, but nevertheless significant, increase in the price of their gas.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Northern region, despite its heavy industry image, provides many jobs in farming, and that four of the five northern counties could be described as rural? Is he aware that there are fewer jobs available to young people in farming, as in every other industry, in the Northern region? What special provision is the Ministry making for the hardest-hit region in the country?

I do not believe that agriculture has been more exempt than any other industry from advances in technology, and the hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that employment in the industry has decreased. I have had the privilege of visiting the North on a number of occasions recently and I do not believe that it is less privileged. If the hon. Gentleman were to examine our record on hill farm subsidies he would find that we have consistently done more than any previous Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great strengths of efficient farming in this country is the ability of a farmer to hand on a farm to his son? Does he agree that our capital tax structure must always take that fully into account?

Certainly, and it is one of the factors that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took into account when alleviating part of the capital transfer tax on let land, which is something that we have been urging for many years.

As the CLA and the NFU have been making representations to the Minister with a view to making future farm tenants less secure, which would necessitate a repeal of the tenancy laws in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, what has been the Government's reaction so far?

We have received nothing from the talks between the CLA and the NFU, and until we do I can make no comment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making towards achieving an acceptable common fisheries policy agreement.

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

I have nothing to add to the statements I made to the House during the debate on 18 May.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is increased concern in the South West fishing industry as a result of remarks made by M. Mitterrand during the French election campaign about the attitude adopted by the previous French Administration in respect of the common fisheries policy, specifically regarding access? Is my hon. Friend able to assure fishermen in the vulnerable parts of the United Kingdom that there will be no weakening of the United Kingdom position?

I understand the point that my hon. Friend puts. I know the concern of fishermen in his part of the country. I met many fishermen from that area when they visited the House a month or so ago. I assure my hon. Friend that despite the change of Government in France we shall continue to negotiate as vigorously as in the past on behalf of the British fishing industry.

On the assumption that this problem will be solved, the solution will have to be enforced. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that we have sufficient fishery protection vessels and resources to implement any solution?

My hon. Friend is correct. Effective policing must be one of the most important elements of any fishing policy, both now and in the future. I assure my hon. Friend that relations between my Department and the Ministry of Defence on this matter are excellent. We shall continue to work together closely to ensure that within the waters for which the United Kingdom is responsible we have the most effective policing that is possible. I pay tribute to those in the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force who contribute towards that policing.

As there is unlikely to be an early settlement, what steps have the Government in mind to stabilise markets and protect them from the impact of inadequately regulated imports from third countries? Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the predicament of the shellfish industry?

While matters such as access and quotas are of vital importance in any fishing agreement, matters of marketing are almost of equal importance. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that we regard effective marketing measures as one of the most important elements in the negotiations. Certain proposals have been made to the Commission. They include much more effective control over imports from third countries, which we regard as vital. We shall strongly support such control, in the interests of the stability of our own market in the United Kingdom.

Does the Minister accept that the inability to agree a common fisheries policy is having far-reaching effects on every section of the industry? Is he aware that the members of a deputation representing fish merchants in Aberdeen who his noble Friend, the Earl. of Mansfield, saw earlier this week came away from that meeting angered by the lack of sympathy and response by the Government to their plight?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he talks about a lack of sympathy or response. In recent weeks the Government have given |£25 million to the fishing industry above what is paid in normal continuing subsidies. It came on top of £17 million paid last year. I do not think that such action represents either a lack of understanding or a lack of sympathy, or, indeed, any lack of belief in the future of this industry.

In view of widespread suspicions in the House and in the fishing press that the Minister is reneging on the unanimous resolution of the House on a Common Market fisheries policy package, will he allay those suspicions? Will he assure the House that in the next round of talks he will press for a 12 to 50-mile dominant preference zone for British fishermen?

I have made it clear on a number of occasions that the fishing plan proposals which the Government have put forward, and which have been discussed, show a firm commitment to the need for preference in areas where fishing is important between 12 and 50 miles. It shows the shallowness of the right hon. Gentleman's case when he has to rely on an erroneous and incorrect headline in a fishing newspaper, which he knows to be wrong, and which I have denied in the House.

I said that there was widespread suspicion in the House, as distinct from that in the fishing press. I take the hon. Gentleman's robust reply to mean that he intends to give a guarantee to the House that he will adhere to and not renege on the unanimous resolution, passed by all parties in the House, on a common fisheries policy package.

I am sorry to have to keep repeating to the right hon. Gentleman, who does not seem able to understand these things, that there is provision in the discussions in Europe, which we shall pursue to our utmost, for preference beyond the 12 miles in relation to the proposals on fishing plans. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the issue, it is at least understood by those in the fishing industry, and they are the people who matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it remains his policy to freeze the agricultural prices for those items in structural surplus.

It remains the Government's policy to contain output of products in structural surplus through action on price and such other measures as are appropriate and negotiable. Over the period since we took office, average support prices for the three main surplus commodities, milk, cereals and sugar, have fallen in real terms.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he and I gave a solemn undertaking to the British people on 3 May 1979 that we would not permit an increase in prices for agricultural commodities in structural surplus? There was no mention of future inflation in financial terms. As the poor, the unemployed, the elderly and one-parent families have to pay up to twice world market prices for foodstuffs, will my right hon. Friend ensure that during the negotiations on the restructuring of the CAP this year the Government will refuse to permit any increase in the price of foodstuffs in structural surplus?

My hon. Friend refers to what he adhered to in the Conservative manifesto at the last election. I am delighted to hear that he adheres to all the enthusiastic passages about the Common Market that appeared in the manifesto. I shall remind him of them on frequent occasions. What matters in real terms is that we have succeeded in reducing the price of all items in surplus. That is a considerable achievement. My hon. Friend is totally and completely wrong about the difference between prices here and world prices.

Has the Minister informed the Prime Minister of his various U-turns, because she goes on saying that the CAP should be reformed?

The Prime Minister and I are totally at one on this issue, as on all others.

Will my right hon. Friend try to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that in many cases surpluses are good housekeeping? Will he try to explain to him the fact that if expressed in terms of weeks' supplies there is no problem; indeed, that this helps the consumer?

A dairy surplus is not defensible on the grounds of good housekeeping or anything else. It is an expensive surplus that is not required. Sugar represented the second worst surplus when I took office, but there were crop failures in other parts of the world and it became a commodity in great shortage. The European price turned out to be well below the world price. That is an illustration of what my hon. Friend says.

Why does not the Minister go back to his constituency this weekend, make a speech like that of his hon. Friend the former Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy and say that he loyally supports Conservative statements in the election manifesto for keeping down food prices, and risk getting the sack, as happened to his hon. Friend?

I should much prefer to go to the hon. Gentleman's constituency to describe how the rate of increase in food prices has halved since the Labour Government went out of office.

Prices are still rising in Bolsover.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the control of dogs in the countryside, having particular regard to the problems of sheep worrying.

Apart from inquiries from hon. Members, including requests for statistics of livestock losses, there have been representations from the National Farmers Union about the need for improved control of dogs in the countryside.

Will my hon. Friend use his powers under the Local Government Act 1966 to introduce a better system of dog identification, which would be a great help in contributing to the overall control of dogs?

As my hon. Friend knows, there has been an interdepartmental working party on dogs and all the problems that go with them. The Government are still considering its report.

Will the Government ensure that any measures introduced to deal with the problem are on a United Kingdom basis?

The Government are still considering the interdepartmental report. I am sure that that point will be taken into account.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the answer to the whole problem of dog control is to implement the terms of the 1976 report, increase the dog licence fee and have a proper dog licensing system?

I must repeat that the Government are still considering the report.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of beef cows in the United Kingdom compared with a year ago.

The provisional results of the December 1980 census show the number of beef cows in the United Kingdom to be 1,469,000 compared with 1,536,000 in December 1979.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the trend seems to be serious and that it is developing into an imbalance in British agriculture in that corn is up and stock is down? What steps can be taken to reverse the trend in the interests of farming and the consumer?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the relationship between the livestock and arable sectors of our farming industry. We can be encouraged by two matters. First, the trend was recognised in the price review in Europe this year, in the price awards for different commodities. Secondly, the Government have put more money into the hill areas and hill cows than at any previous time. I do not read much into it, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged by the fact that the numbers of in-calf dairy heifers and in-calf beef heifers were slightly increased at the end of last year. The increase is slight, but it is an increase.

Does my hon. Friend accept that nothing would be gained if Britain were to add to its unemployment by including farmers engaged in the milk and beef industries? Will he ensure that those industries continue to prosper, bearing in mind that Britain's consumption of these products is below their production figures?

I agree. That is why we believe that, in the interests of the economy as a whole, a strong agriculture industry has an important part to play.

Will the Minister confirm that the switch is not so much from beef to cereals but out of beef in the hills and uplands? Does he agree that that is a disturbing trend? While the Minister has taken some steps, does he agree that he must continue to make more help available in the hills and uplands if the trend is to be reversed?

I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency and I am sure that he will welcome the fact that, for a hill cow, taking into account the suckler cow subsidy, the hill farmer this year receives slightly over £54 per cow, compared with £29 two years ago.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the measure of support he has provided to United Kingdom poultrymeat producers is sufficient and is equivalent with the support given to European competitors.

The aid that I recently provided was a short-term measure to help our industry meet its hygiene inspection costs in 1980–81. I am pressing in Brussels for Community arrangements that will ensure that our industry can compete on reasonable terms with those of other countries.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the urgency that is creeping into the problem in that the major customers of the poultry industry are thinking about placing their orders for the Christmas trade, especially for turkeymeat? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong evidence that the French are, even now, able to undercut substantially the prices quoted by United Kingdom producers? Is he aware that United Kingdom producers face the future with great fears?

I am aware of that. A particular plant in Brittany has been supported by heavy regional and central Government aid. It is now offering on the London market for delivery at Christmas substantial supplies of turkey at prices way below the costs of production. We have given full details to the European Commission. If such turkeys were allowed to come in with such subsidies it would be in violation of the trading spirit of the Community.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, due to the unfair competition from the EEC and America, the British poultry industry is still suffering from a tremendous recession which is creating high unemployment among members of my trade union in the industry? Will he take steps to ensure that action is taken to abolish unfair competition to give our industry a fair chance?

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions what was unfair competition from the American industry. I took the necessary action on that and banned all imports from America that did not comply with European standards of hygiene. In spite of fierce protests from the American Government and a reference to the GATT authorities, I believe that that action was correct. In terms of the differences in hygiene inspection I have given substantial grants to the poultry industry. We are taking up the current disparities with the Commission.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if we go on this way for much longer we shall not have an industry to boast about? When can we expect some action from the Commission?

In terms of the current position of the industry—for instance, the imports in the last year-—we still maintain the great proportion of trade and we deserve to do so,. due to the efficiency of our industry. I hope that the Commission will take action quickly against the specific French plant.

If the Commission is too slow, will the Minister assure the House that he will allow for national provision to enable the turkey industry in particular to supply British turkeys to British housewives this Christmas?

With the hon. Gentleman's experience of European matters, he knows that it would be the height of stupidity for any Minister to say what he would do if the Commission does not do what it should do. I look to the Commission to act quickly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet received recommendations from his special advisers about improving the marketing of fish.

No, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the marketing problem is real and that the new sea fisheries industry will have to take marketing seriously, especially in relation to wet fish? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if North Sea herring fishing is opened up, in addition to the Clyde herring fishing, good herrings might be landed but the market might not be there to cope with them?

Yes. I expect positive proposals from the marketing advisers. Widespread talks with the trade have taken place, as well as with the fish and chip shops and fast food industries. I have no doubt that improvements can be made in the marketing of fish in Britain.

If the right hon. Gentleman has not received the report on the marketing of fish, has he received the report on fish imports? If he has, what are its findings?

We have received a report on fish imports. We are meeting the industry to discuss the subject of that report at the beginning of June.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of his Department towards the removal of hedges and woodland in order to achieve a high level of production in agriculture.

Decisions about the removal of hedges or woodland are for individual farmers and landowners. We do not grant-aid the removal of hedgerows except where it is necessary for the proper functioning of a field drainage system. The felling of woodland usually requires a licence from the Forestry Commission.

Does the Minister agree that the destruction of hedges has gone much further than is necessary for agricultural efficiency? Does he agree that under the present grant system farmers remove the hedges first and apply for grants later? Is he aware that that means that they do not receive advice unless they are in areas of special scientific interest in a national park? Does not the Minister think that it is time that we took advantage of the opportunity to make it clear that excessive removal of hedges and woodland should be deplored in the interests of preserving the amenities of our countryside?

That would not be the only pendulum to swing too far. I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view. The Department has not grant-aided the removal of hedges since 1976. There is good evidence that the rate of removal has slowed to almost to nil.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that if there is a sensible discussion, such as that being promoted by the Wildlife and Countryside [Lords] Bill, there will be a community of interest between conservationists and farmers, which my hon. Friend's Department can do much to promote?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Antagonism between the two interests, which are inevitably separate, makes matters much worse. My Department does everything to seek proper discussions between the agricultural and countryside interests.

Is the Minister aware that clause 34 of the Wildlife and Countryside [Lords] Bill, now in Committee, is of significance in respect of this question? Will he assure us that he will discuss that clause with the Minister responsible at the Department of the Environment to find out what can be done to help?

I keep in close contact with my colleagues at the Department of the Environment about this matter.

Is the Minister aware that there is much feeling, among those concerned with the beauty of the English countryside, about the removal of hedges which converts vast areas of land into areas resembling prairies? Will he comment on the fact that last year more trees were destroyed by the removal of hedgerows—often with grants from his Department—than were destroyed by Dutch elm disease?

I cannot accept that point. There has been no grant aid for the removal of hedges since 1976, except in association with drainage schemes. Few hedges are removed as a result of that. I agree with the general tone of hon. Members' questions. My Department is doing everything possible to ensure that our advisory services, leaflets and work for the countryside groups promote the interests of both those quite disparate views.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much is spent annually, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product, on agricultural support by the European Economic Community, the USA and Japan.

Such comparisons are difficult to make, but the Commission has recently published figures suggesting that annual expenditure on agriculture is 1 to 1·5 per cent. of gross domestic product in the Community and the United States of America and 5 per cent. in Japan. The figure for the Community includes both national and Community expenditure.

Is it not clear from those figures that all the talk about the crippling cost of the CAP is ballyhoo? Is it not of greater importance to concentrate on correcting the absurdities, many of which have been exposed during today's Question Time, rather than trying to destroy a policy that clearly is essential if effective European co-operation is to continue?

It is important that where there is unnecessary wastage of expenditure, such as the cost of unnecessary surpluses, it is in the interests of Europe to take action. It is good that the proportion of the Community budget connected with the CAP has come down from more than 80 per cent. to 69 per cent. since the Government took office.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in world terms it is absolute nonsense to speak of food surpluses when a large proportion of people in the world have far too little food? Does it not make good sense to support food production, especially in countries such as ours which have to import about half the food that they eat?

It is correct that there are food shortages world-wide. It is important to increase world food production. However, it is also important to understand which products we should increase and which we should reduce. I see no point in having a substantial surplus of dairy products in Europe that, basically, nobody wants.

Is there not some distinction between support designed to keep down consumer prices and support designed to hold them up?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman rejoices because the Government have doubled the butter subsidy, the sheep premium scheme and the beef premium scheme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage change in the United Kingdom consumption of liquid milk over the past 10 years; and what is his estimate of the aggregate cost of liquid milk distribution at the beginning and the end of that period, respectively.

Total liquid milk consumption in the United Kingdom fell by 2·9 per cent. between 1971–72 and 1980–81. My estimate of the aggregate costs of liquid milk distribution in the United Kingdom in these two years is £244 million and £1,046 million respectively. In the same period, the retail price of milk has declined by about 4 per cent. in real terms.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Does not he agree that that lends some colour to the suggestion that the present arrangements for the distribution of liquid milk are not good either for the producer or the consumer? Can he assure the House that he will take careful note of the point made by his marketing adviser, Sir John Sainsbury, that the present system provides a featherbed for the incompetents in the dairy distributing industry and a gold mine for the efficient?

I very much disagree with that analysis. Britain is fortunate in having a doorstep delivery service which is socially good, good for the dairy industry, and which delivers fresh milk to the doorsteps of the majority of houses in Britain every day at a cost in real terms that is 4 per cent. less than it was 10 years ago.

rose—

Order. I shall call one more question from the Opposition Benches. I shall allow an additional one minute at the end of Prime Minister's questions.

The Opposition welcome the ruggedness of the Secretary of State's reply. Is he fairly confident of the success of the British case now before the European Court?

I would be the last to predict decisions of the European Court. Obviously, I consider our case to be fully justified and feel that the European Court should decide in our favour.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 21 May.

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, including one with the Kenyan Foreign Minister.

Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the report that the treasurer of the Labour Party plans to apply strict cash limits, to impose a tough pay policy on its employees, to privatise Labour Weekly and to increase subscriptions to the old and sick by 300 per cent.? Now that the Labour Party has seen the economic facts of life, may we take it that the official Opposition will support the Government's economic strategy?

If I know anything about the official Opposition, they will find a way for the Shadow Cabinet to move two different amendments.

Let us move aside from those trivial questions. The right hon. Lady treated them with proper contempt—almost as if they were Under-Secretaries of State for the Royal Navy the way she cast them aside. May I ask her a serious question about a serious matter? At the Cabinet meeting today, did she have the opportunity to look afresh at the appalling unemployment figures? Did she have before her any report from the Secretary of State for Employment along the lines of the evidence that he submitted to the Select Committee about a much higher figure than the Government have so far mentioned as being possible, indeed even probable? Will she now reconsider the reply that she gave a day or two ago to a request from the representatives of the People's March for Jobs? Will not she have the grace, courtesy and courage to meet them and discuss the issues with them?

I read what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was reported to have said before one of the Select Committees. He is worried, as I am, about the number of school leavers who will come on to the employment market. This year as a whole about 700,000 school leavers will be looking for jobs or some form of youth opportunities.

I ask the right hon. Lady once again: will not she meet the representatives with the Secretary of State for Employment or any other Ministers responsible? Will not she consider that? What she has given them so far is a pretty mean and miserable reply. These are people who are voicing not merely their own opinions but the opinions of growing millions of people throughout the country who are protesting against the outrage of mass unemployment. Apparently she agrees with the figure mentioned by her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—namely, 3 million. That is the first time that that has been mentioned officially by a Government spokesman. Will she define exactly the precise circumstances in which her Government are contemplating an increase in unemployment to 3 million?

I did not confirm that as a forecast and neither did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. Last year, there were about 700,000 school leavers. There will be another high number this year and there will be another high number next year. We are doing our best to try to provide work opportunities and training for these young people. We shall continue to do our best. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would accept it in that spirit. After all, he faced very similar problems of increases in the unemployment figures. With regard to the offer of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to meet the march, I do not regard that offer as mean and miserable.

During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend give some thought to the anxieties and sufferings of many families due to the growth of religious sects, the Moonies especially—

The most dangerous sect in this country is the Tory Party.

Will my right hon. Friend consider whether a Royal Commission or some form of inquiry should be set up to investigate their entry, their activities, their fund-raising methods and their charitable status in the United Kingdom?

I note that my hon. Friend is obviously very concerned about the activities of the Moonies, as indeed are many of us. He will be happy to know that the Charity Commissioners are reconsidering charitable status. The Attorney-General has also considered what action might be appropriate to take in relation to trusts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has asked his officials to examine the evidence as presented, as far as it relates to mental health and family life. These are three very positive things that are already taking place. I shall, of course, consider my right hon. Friend's suggestion with regard to the other matter.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her public engagements for 21 May.

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

Will the Prime Minister confirm today's reports that the Cabinet intends to axe £900 million from local authority spending because of alleged over-spending by certain local authorities? Is the right hon. Lady aware that this decision will cause great damage to local authority services, be they education, housing or employment? Will she explain why the announcement of this decision has been delayed until after the local authority elections?

If I were asked to confirm or deny every report of what Cabinet is supposed or not supposed to have done, I would be giving a great deal of misinformation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will give his decision when he has made it. One of the real problems is over-spending by local authorities, which bears heavily on both the taxpayer and the ratepayer.

Will the Prime Minister advise those of us who have been saying to civil servants that they should not go on strike and should accept 7 per cent. now that the Ministers negotiating with them, and Members of Parliament, are to get an 18 per cent. increase? Will the Government make it clear that they do not consider themselves bound by previous arrangements about pay? Does this mean that they will examine these matters again?

I do not very often find the right hon. Gentleman giving what I consider to be a very unfair account of increases for hon. Members and Ministers. I hope that he will accept that civil servants had their last staged increase, the third stage, last year. Hon. Members and Ministers did not have their last staged increase, which Edward Boyle accepted that they should have, two years ago. They have had to wait two years for it. The last stage comes into operation this year. I think that it would have been grievously unfair if hon. Members and Ministers, having forgone that increase for two years, were now to be criticised for taking it, and therefore for adding what other people are getting—6 per cent—which is less than that which has been offered as an increase to the civil servants.

As 30 per cent. of our imports are paid for in dollars, will my right hon. Friend consider the effects that high American interest rates are now having on the value of sterling? Will she assure the House that, in our determination to fight the battle against inflation, she will take whatever action is required to protect our currency?

I think that American interest rates are probably having an effect on the value of the dollar in relation to the value of several European currencies. At the same time, I think that if the United States were to go in for a policy of inflation that, too, could be important and could have a devastating effect on world currencies. I do not think that we can argue with them about the measures that they should take to protect their currency. I think that it would be most unwise to do so.

If the Prime Minister wants to increase trade, will she withdraw the Employment and Training Bill, the purpose of which is to destroy the training boards?

No. What we are trying to do is to find very many more training places for young people who leave school, and we are already looking at the facilities that the education service offers.

asked the Prime Minister whether she will reconsider the decision to introduce a European passport.

No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal pointed out on 8 April, the proposal is not for a European passport but for a British passport in a European Community common format.

Can I say to my right hon. Friend—

No.

Can I ask my right hon. Friend—

That is better.

and put a point of view and ask for her response to it—

No.

If we have a burgundy coloured passport —

Claret.

—with the European Community stamp, whatever anybody says it will be looked upon, not as a British passport, but as a European passport. However far in the future it may be, it will be looked upon by many people as a threat. It will bring joy to very few and offence to a great many people. Can my right hon. Friend put many hearts at rest by saying that she will reconsider her decision and stop the introduction of this European passport?

The common format is in maroon. The cover bears the Royal Coat of Arms, which, of course, has on the bottom on it, in Latin:

"Evil be to him who evil thinks".

"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

"Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."

Rather than worrying about the colour of passports, would it not be better to worry about whether people are free to pass from place to place? On this, the sixtieth birthday of Professor Sakharov, will the right hon. Lady deplore on behalf of all of us his lack of freedom to move out of Gorky and the Soviet Union?

I gladly join the hon. and learned Gentleman in doing so. I deplore the way in which the Helsinki Accords have not been honoured by the Soviet Union, which signed them.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 21 May.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the catering services of British Rail are currently running losses of £8 million a year? Does not she accept that those services are always expensive and invariably appalling, in stations and trains? Does not she agree that it is high time that those services were turned over to private industry, to improve the standards and to make sure that they make money?

It is true that the catering services on stations and on trains are losing substantial sums of money. I think that it is about £6½ million. I believe that British Rail is looking at privatising same services. It would be much better value for money if that were done.

Does the Prime Minister know that the male unemployment rate in the town of Flint now approaches a disturbing 38 per cent.? Why are the Government vacillating on whether to give the go-ahead to the coal liquefaction plant in North-East Wales? Would not the go-ahead help technology in Britain and help to tackle rising unemployment in North Wales?

We must consider those plans along with other demands for capital spending. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have tried to help in many ways, with finance to his area to try to create new jobs. We have done so through advance factories and the area is also a special development area.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that after the withdrawal of the grant to Covent Garden by the GLC it is now threatening to withdraw grants to the Royal Opera and the Festival Ballet? Does not that show the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the new government of London? Is not the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) right in what he says about the GLC?

Substantial grants have been given to Covent Garden and to the ballet by the Arts Council and hitherto by the Greater London Council. Many of us believe that it is important that this country should continue to have one of the best opera houses in the world and some of the best ballet facilities in the world. They add to and enhance the reputation of this country as a great centre for the arts and opera.

Business Questions, Mr. Foot—

rose——

Order. I believe that I heard the hon. Member stammer. With the permission of the Leader of the Opposition, as it is the last day for questions-—but not as a precedent, however much the hon. Gentleman stammers in future—I shall call the hon. Member.

Stammering is not my usual mode of speech. I shall deal with those other matters in my own time when I feel so inclined. Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her earlier misguided obstinacy? When the people's march reaches London, made up—[Interruption.]

Order. Like everyone else, I was misled, but I called the hon. Member. He must have his question and then we can move on.

When the people's march, made up of people of most political persuasions and of every faith, reaches London on Sunday 31 May, would it not be more advisable for the right hon. Lady to forgo her Sunday roast and go out to meet them, because she is directly responsible for their plight and for the many millions of unemployed whom they represent?

If you were misled, Mr. Speaker, your faith is greater than mine. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is "No, Sir".