asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the forecast expenditure under the common agricultural policy has increased since the date when he last answered oral questions on the subject; and if he will make a statement.

There has been no further change in the forecast expenditure for the United Kingdom compared with the answers I previously gave.

Will the Minister confirm that only a few days ago the other Tory Commissioner Tugendhat, said that agricultural expenditure was getting out of control? Which Tory Minister or Commissioner must hon. Members believe?

Unfortunately, there is only one Tory Commissioner, so there is no difficulty in deciding who to believe.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a major switch that has taken place in common agricultural policy funding is from funding surpluses of more temperate products, such as milk and dairy produce, to more Mediterranean products such as olive oil and wine? Does he consider there is a case for more regional co-responsibility for financing the surpluses of Mediterranean produce, which are consuming a larger proportion of the CAP budget?

The possibilities of that are interesting and important. There are two major reasons for the major increases. First, the 1982 growing year for virtually all products in the Community was outstandingly good. Production was much higher than anticipated. Secondly, the currency exchange rate agreements that took place in March, at which several countries demanded substantial revaluations and devaluations of their currencies, enabled them to make green currency changes that are costly to the Commission.

I do not wish to anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He cannot just say that there will be an additional budget statement. The House must know how much. I trust that he will give the House that information this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to distinguish between a Tory Minister and a Tory Commissioner, can he distinguish between the Tory Commissioner and the Tory Daily Telegraph, which stated this morning that farm prices are 35 per cent. above last year's figure?

I am quite certain the Daily Telegraph did not say that farm prices are 35 per cent. up——

Spending.

One of the major reasons for the increase in farm spending is the revaluation of currencies. I would hate to be in any way politically biased, but several Socialist economies have demanded large revaluations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many pigs in how many herds have so far been slaughtered under the Aujeszky's disease eradication scheme.

Authority has been given to slaughter over 94,000 pigs in 92 herds.

I am grateful for that information. Will the Minister confirm that adequate arrangements have been made to prevent the importation of both classical swine fever from Brabant and other parts of the Netherlands, and of African swine fever from Sardinia and Piedmont? Will the Minister accept that the burden of the levy for this level of slaughter on a hard-pressed pig industry is very considerable and that she should take steps to assist the pig industry by providing funds for the vet service or for other assistance?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point, is that pigmeat does not represent any significant risk. The live pig trade is very small and bilateral arrangements cover that. There is another question on the Order Paper about the pig industry, which may answer some of the hon. Gentleman's other points.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about the state of the pig industry; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now take further steps to improve the profitability of pig production.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last had a meeting with the president of the National Farmers Union; and if they discussed the subject of profitability in the pig industry.

I have been in close contact with all concerned with the situation in the pig industry.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that announcement, which I am sure will be most welcome to the hard-pressed pig industry. To what extent will it relieve those pig farmers who have heen in the most difficulty at this low point of the cycle?

I candidly admit that the pig industry faces a period of difficulty. Last year, production substantially increased and we have had to dispose of that increased production. At the request of the pig industry, slaughterings are taking place under the Aujeszky's disease eradication scheme. Therefore, I cannot say with any certainty that the pig industry will face easier times in the immediate future. However, I am sure that the crisis that the pig industry is now going through will ultimately result in its maintaining a more permanent and important export position. In the past that position has been enjoyed by the Dutch and the Danes and it would give much greater long-term stability to our pig industry.

Is my right Friend aware of the widespread pleasure that his statement will give? Is he further aware that there is widespread feeling in the industry, and certainly in my constituency, that the unfair burden placed on pig breeders because of the extra cost of feedstuffs in this country is to be deplored and that it must be put right before profitability can be restored?

In my statement on the meeting of the Agriculture Council I shall refer to that in a way that might be helpful to the industry.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind two further points? Although I congratulate him on what he has dome, will he urge producers to show restraint? With 22·7 pigs per year per sow, it is ridiculous to overproduce. Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to ensure that curers do something about an improvement in British bacon standards?

As my hon. Friend knows, there was a substantial increase in production last year. In the early part of 1982 our pig producers were enjoying good prices and very reasonable profits. The immediate result of that was a very speedy and substantial increase in production.

I welcome the Minister's statement on veterinary and other matters, but will he accept that unless the incorporation of subsidised rates of feedstuffs is thought desirable and necessary in this corn year, pig producers in this country will still have major difficulties?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are considerable problems with the incorporation process. As I have said, I shall mention that later in my statement this afternoon.

I welcome what the Minister has said. However, to revert to the rather cursorily treated question of Aujeszky's disease, does not the Minister feel in retrospect that the levy represents a substantial inposition on the industry? When it is quite clear that the disease can be eradicated, to the benefit of all, should not the Government contribute to this exercise?

Anyone who occupied my office will know that a whole range of diseases affect British agriculture. If they were considered objectively, Aujeszky's disease would not be given top priority. The pig industry made a request to me that it would like to fund an eradication programme if I could provide the cost of the services for fulfilling that programme. I agreed to it on that basis. If more money were available and I were asked to put more Government money into disease eradication, I would consider a whole range of options apart from the one under debate.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total consumption of potatoes for the months of January, February, March and April, 1982; and what percentage of the total was imported.

Approximately 2·1 million tonnes of potatoes moved into human consumption in the United Kingdom during the period January-April 1982. Imports accounted for about 19 per cent. of this total.

Does the Minister accept that those figures show that the much-maligned potato still plays a substantial part in our diet? Will the Minister monitor carefully the attempt to import inferior types of potato from our Common Market partners, and make every effort to ensure that the gap between the winter and summer crops in the United Kingdom is still filled by potatoes from our traditional sources? Those potatoes are of a high quality and often come from outside the Common Market.

The British potato is not maligned. It is an excellent food and is increasingly used as a base for other processed food products. I wish good fortune to all those who operate in that area. We have sought to encourage greater awareness on the part of producers in supplying to the processing industry as well as for direct human consumption. There is considerable scope for replacing imports there.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether a United Kingdom quota for North sea cod has been agreed for 1983.

Proposals for catch quotas for 1983 have not yet been submitted by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Until 1983 quotas are settled the Council has agreed that fishing activities should continue to be based on agreed 1982 quotas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the livelihood of Bridlington fishermen largely depends on North sea cod? When negotiations are further advanced, will he ensure that the quota will be adequate to fish throughout the year, so that there is no danger of the boats having to tie up in December, when other species are not available, as has happened in the past?

My hon. Friend is right about the importance of that stock. I am sure that he will welcome, as the House does, the fact that for 1982 we negotiated a 47 per cent. quota of that stock for the United Kingdom. I hope that my hon. Friend has noted that such quotas have staying power. Once we know what the total allowable catches are, we shall continue to negotiate for a big share of them.

Will the Minister be good enough to tell us how the common fisheries policy has worked so far? To date, have there been any cases of poaching? What does the fishery protection squadron think about the behaviour of our partners in relation to the common fisheries policy?

It is too early to make a full assessment of exactly how a policy with such major implications is working. Without being in any way complacent, I would say that there have not been too many problems, particularly about poaching. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our protection forces have shown themselves to be thoroughly effective in several ways.

Does the Minister accept that any cut in the North sea cod quota will be very badly received in Grimsby? Will he comment on the accuracy of reports that so many "paper" fish were created to up quotas to obtain a common fisheries settlement that draconian measures are now being considered to limit catches of North sea cod and other species? Will he accept that any restriction on catches, by limiting the period in the year during which British vessels can fish, would be a disastrous blow for a Grimsby and English fishing industry that is already crippled with debt, and very hard-pressed?

As I said a few minutes ago, I accept the importance of that stock to ports such as Grimsby. In return, I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept and acknowledge that, in the negotiations on the common fisheries policy, we negotiated a staying power for those quotas and intend to see that it is observed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether any measures are being taken by the Food from Britain organisation to help profitability in the pig industry.

The council of Food from Britain is well aware of the problems of the pigmeat industry. It must determine its priority areas of activity, but I know that it is actively considering projects to improve our marketing of pigmeat products at home and abroad.

I congratulate Mr. David Samworth and my right hon. Friend on their vigorous efforts to help. May I ask for more assistance to reduce the red tape that interferes with British pigmeat exports, to reduce the cost of inspections of slaughterhouses and to assist the industry to get rid of Aujeszky's disease?

My hon. Friend had not arrived in the House when, in answer to an earlier question, I announced that we were taking on the veterinary costs of inspection of slaughterhouses involved in the export trade. That problem has been dealt with. The red tape, the detail and export problems have been examined by the industry and the Government and various actions have been taken to improve matters. Also in reply to an earlier question I made it clear that the proposals on Aujeszky's disease, which the industry asked for, were accepted by the Government only on the basis on which they were put forward.

Although I thank the Minister for what he has said so far, he will realise that it does not go nearly far enough to deal with the real problem of the pig industry, which is that of costs. I hope that he will say unequivocally in his statement that he has fought for and achieved an incorporation scheme of subsidised grain output from storage for pig farmers. He has talked too much about marketing and not enough about direct aid to that side of the industry or the processing industry.

I note with joy the eager anticipation with which the hon. Gentleman awaits my statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what acreage of winter cereals has been sown in the current year compared to the previous three years.

The only information so far available is the area of wheat and barley sown in Great Britain by 1 December 1982. That was 2·42 million hectares, compared with 2·10, 2·20 and 2·46 million hectares by the same date in 1979, 1980 and 1981 respectively.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Do not those figures show a disturbing trend in British agriculture towards more and more cereals and less and less stock? Is not the imbalance in British agriculture serious? Will he bear in mind that that imbalance has a spin-off in terms of the preservation of the rural scene? Does he agree that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we get the balance right?

My hon. Friend knows that I share his anxiety about the balance of British agriculture. I am sure he will agree that recently we have succeeded in achieving lower price increases for cereals than for other products. I am delighted that that differential is to be continued, according to the proposals from the Commission on the price fixing. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to fight for that.

Is it not a fact that, since 1973, wheat acreage has increased by about 50 per cent. and that we now export about 1 million tonnes of wheat each year, whereas in 1973 we hardly exported any? How can the Minister hope to pursue the objectives that he has just mentioned when there is an open-ended subsidy from the CAP of £70 to £80 for every tonne of grain that is exported from Britain?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to be fair and will acknowledge that one of the great successes of our cereal industry is the way in which it has adopted new techniques, varieties, chemicals and fertilisers. To a considerable extent, the increase in our production of cereals is related to much greater efficiency. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that.

Although I appreciate the undoubted efforts of my right hon. Friend to improve the differentials between grain and livestock, does he agree that we have not moved fast enough? Can he now increase the incentives for livestock, even if we cannot do anything now about grain this season?

As my hon. Friend represents an important livestock area, I know that he will welcome what we have achieved in the past few years with regard to the improvement of the beef premium, the considerable improvements in hill livestock compensatory amounts and the introduction of a sheepmeat regime, which is of enormous benefit to the consumer and producer. That catalogue does not demonstrate a lack of interest in our livestock industry.

In view of the wise words of the hon. Member for Devon, West (Sir P. Mills), is the Minister aware that, in the past year, barley grown in Sussex has been exported to the Soviet Union at about half the price that the British farmer or pig producer across the road has to pay? Is that sane economics?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the efforts that we have made in the Community to restrain price increases for products, such as cereals, which are in surplus. The Commission has set an objective, which we support, that cereals should be more closely aligned to world prices. I should like that objective to be achieved.

I recognise the force of what the Minister said about increased productivity and improvement in techniques contributing to the increase in cereal growing. With respect to the period of time that he quoted, can he say to what extent grassland has been brought under the plough?

Some extra grassland has been brought under the plough as a result of the expansion of cereal production. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have as much right as any other cereal-producing country to export cereals as well as to produce them for our own consumption. One of the most encouraging developments of recent years has been the increase in exports by United Kingdom producers to countries outside the EC as well as to other EC countries.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the likely level of demand for malting barley in the coming season.

That is not possible at this stage as it will depend on several factors, including the quality of the crop and export demand.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that British maltsters are fully aware of the excellent quality of the malting barley that is produced throughout Great Britain, especially in east Fife? Will he also ensure that they are fully aware of the excellent production levels that are being achieved? Does he agree that there ought to be no need for them to look abroad for their supplies?

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. One of the greatest recent successes is the dramatic increase in exports of malt from the United Kingdom to other Community countries and countries outside the Community. That is the result of the high quality of the barley and the quality of the malting process.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total area and value of forest land being sold or in the process of being sold under the provision of the Forestry Act 1981.

Between the passing of the Forestry Act 1981 and 31 March 1983, the Forestry Commission received £18·9 million from the sale of land and other real assets. The area involved included 9,433 hectares of forestry land and plantations.

As the original sales programme seems to have escalated from £40 million over three years to £82 million over five years, when will this doctrinaire public asset-stripping stop? Why will the Minister not tell us the purchase price and who the purchaser or potential purchaser is in each sale? Is that official secrecy designed to stop the public finding out that thousands of acres of the best forest land, most of which is in Scotland, are being hived off by the Tories at give-away prices to their rich friends?

I refute utterly the absurd allegations of the hon. Gentleman and point out to him that the original programme of disposals to a value of £40 million over the three years to 31 March 1984 has been revalued to take account of inflation, and a further two years added. That gives a revised disposals programme of about £82 million. I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the absurdity of his exaggerated charges by telling him that just under 1 per cent. of forestry land has been disposed of.

Does the Minister accept that hon. Members of other Opposition parties regret the Government's decision to sell forestry land, which provides badly needed work in rural areas? Forestry land has been abandoned in my constituency. What are the future plans for sales? Will there be further sales during the next two or three years?

I do not accept the allegations in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. All of those who have bought forestry land have done so as going concerns for forestry. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Forestry Commission has the authority to give licences for the felling of trees, and has the power to insist on replanting. That shows the absurdity of his comment that forests are being abandoned. The original disposals were planned to be carried out over three years. This matter is dealt with each year when we discuss public expenditure, and it would be impossible for me to forecast future sales.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that where forests are to be sold in areas of outstanding natural beauty, perhaps adjacent to land owned by the National Trust, those concerned with protecting the integrity of the landscape are given the earliest possible warning by the Department?

Especially for apple trees.

Notification of sales is given in the Estates Gazette. Neighbours of such plantations would be informed about sales.

Is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in reply to a question from me on 30 March about the use of funds raised from the sale of forestry land, told the House:

"All the money is ploughed back into the forestry industry?"—[Official Report, 30 March 1983; Vol. 40, c. 336.]

It is reasonable for the Government to make the most efficient use of public assets in the context of restraining public expenditure generally. The hon. Gentleman should know that the commission receives adequate sums of public money each year by way of grant-in-aid to fund its agreed programmes. The money that it receives is almost four times the amount retrieved by the disposal programme.

I am not sure whether that is a denial of the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland—

Yes, it is.

The right hon. Gentleman asserted that the money was being ploughed back into the industry, but the hon. Lady says that there will be no such hypothecation in relation to the Treasury. Will she ensure that the two Departments liaise so that we no longer get such misinformation either from her Department or from the Scottish Office?

The hon. Gentleman's comments will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress in the common agricultural policy price negotiations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what stage of agreement has been reached in the Council of Agricultural Ministers on the current year's agricultural price fixing.

I shall be reporting fully to the House on the progress of discussions on the price axing in the statement which I intend to make later this afternoon.

rose——

If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall call him early on the statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how many weeks in the current year the maximum premium has been paid on fat cattle.

The maximum rate of beef variable premium is estimated to have been payable in 14 weeks so far this year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure shows the absolute necessity of having the beef premium scheme if we are to have a healthy and strong livestock industry in Britain? Will he confirm the Government's total commitment to its continuation?

Yes, Sir. Last year we obtained almost a 50 per cent. increase in the maximum that we could apply under this scheme. It is of immense benefit to the industry and we shall continue to stand by it.

In view of the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and even by my right hon. Friend himself this afternoon, does he agree that it is essential that our livestock producers are assured that the scheme will continue, so as to prevent a greater imbalance developing between the livestock and cereal sectors?

The scheme must continue, because it is of immense benefit to the industry. Although I am anxious about the numbers in our specialist breeding herd, it is significant that there has been an increase in availability from the dairy herd, which provides about two thirds of our beef supplies.

As we all agree that the scheme is of great benefit to the livestock industry, why cannot a similar scheme be introduced for pig producers?

As the hon. Gentleman will know from his experience of agriculture, the speed with which numbers can increase in the pig industry and its cyclical nature are such that a similar scheme is not appropriate.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the correspondence that he had with me and others about the difficulty of getting clean cattle, especially black and white cattle, certified under this scheme? As he said that he would meet the National Farmers Union to consider the matter, will he inform the House of the latest state of play?

Anxiety about this matter has been expressed by farmers in many parts of the country. If there are complaints, I should be happy to investigate them. We monitor the way in which the grading classification is carried out, and I wish it to be done without unfairness.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that United Kingdom growers of wheat are securing equivalent advantage of intervention arrangements to those being utilised by other countries of the European Community.

The requirements for the acceptance of wheat into intervention are laid down in European Community regulations, which are applicable in all member states, and there is only very limited scope for national variations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety within the British poultry industry that British-grown feed wheat is being exported to the Community to replace French feed wheat that has been placed in intervention at a higher price due to a differential standard of application of the test between hard and soft wheat? Can my right hon. Friend assure the poultry industry that there are adequate stocks of British-grown feed wheat for our poultry industry for the rest of this season, and that poultry farmers will not be financially disadvantaged by the curious anomaly that has arisen because of the different interpretation of standards?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the problems in relation to cereals, not only for pig producers, but for poultry producers, who are equally affected by the serious position. My hon. Friend is right to say that there appears to be a discrepancy in some of the results of the tests. We have discussed the matter with the Commission, as has the trade, but so far an appropriate test that could be introduced throughout the Community on an equal basis has not been identified. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to pursue the matter, because I am not satisfied with the present position.

Why are the tests applied in Britain more strict than those applied in other countries of the Community?

If the hon. Gentleman has evidence that they are stricter, I should be grateful if he would show it to me. From my inquiries I have found that, although there appear to be some discrepancies in the results, the standard of the test is not always the reason.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the current level of expenditure in the European Community on agriculture.

Between 1978 and 1982 the common agriculture policy's share of the Community budget fell progressively. I have, however, expressed my concern in the Council of Ministers about the increased rate of agricultural spending that has occurred this year and is forecast for next year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of increasing expenditure under the common agricultural policy is not just a question of costs but of the increasing possibility of a trade war between the European Community and the United States of America on surplus food exports? I do not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement later this afternoon, but can he satisfy the House that our colleagues in the European Community have taken the matter on board?

Yes, I think that they have. As my hon. Friend knows, a few weeks ago I went to Washington and spoke to American Ministers about this problem. We have obviously discussed this with the Commission. I am glad to say that the last talks between the Commission and the American Government were considered by both sides to be constructive and to have moved in the right direction. However, I share my hon. Friend's view that this is a matter of real concern, which the Commission must tackle.

The Minister spoke of forecasts of next year's expenditure. Is it not a fact that, because of the unknown level of world prices, it is impossible to forecast the expenditure, which could rise beyond the resources of the EC? Will the Minister confirm that those two facts are correct?

Yes, it is difficult to forecast. I know how shocked the hon. Gentleman was last year when the expenditure for the CAP turned out to be 1·3 billion ecus less than was forecast.

Will the Minister confirm that he is virtually the only Minister in the EC who wishes to see agricultural expenditure as a share of the Community budget reduced? Does that not show that there is no future for Britain in that organisation, because agriculture will always pre-empt the largest share of Community resources?

As long as agriculture is the only marketing scheme in the European Community, it will have a major share of the total expenditure. It is not the case that we are the only country that takes this view. West Germany, Holland and the United Kingdom made a declaration to that effect.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place between his officials and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds about the new heather and grass burning regulations.

In reviewing the 1949 heather and grass burning regulations for England and Wales my officials sought and received comments from more than 30 individuals and organisations, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales took all views and opinions carefully into account when deciding the form of the new regulations.

Will the Minister confirm that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, gave special protection to various categories of birds, but that the Government seem to be undermining all the good that they did there by allowing the burning of grass and moorland at times when some protected birds could well be at risk and nests, eggs and fledglings could be destroyed? Would it not be far better to discuss with the RSPB specific ways in which such birds can generally be protected, and not destroyed by burning, under these regulations?

As I understand it, the RSPB was not against the extension of the period. It had other views in response to the consultation paper, which we carefully took into consideration.

I accept the necessity for the new regulations on muirburn, but will my hon. Friend assure me that there will in future be consultations with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's advisers on wild life?

There were consultations with the Nature Conservancy Council. I reiterate to my hon. Friend that we consulted more than 30 organisations and he will know that it is difficult, with such disparate views, to satisfy everybody. However, I assure him that all the views that were put forward were carefully taken into consideration.

Will the Minister reconsider her answer over the next few days? Is she aware that the RSPB was not consulted by her Department, despite being perhaps the major conservation body in the matter? Will the hon. Lady accept that the RSPB found out about the matter just before the period for consultation closed and that those consultations should have been taken rather more seriously?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not so. It is true that, because of a regrettable oversight, the RSPB was not on the original circulation list for the consultation letter, and I regret that, but that was quickly noticed and corrected and the deadline date for receiving comments was extended to ensure that the RSPB had sufficient time to reply.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has plans to introduce further controls on the manufacture and use of pesticides.

The Government keep the pesticide safety controls under continuous review, in consultation wih all interests concerned, and modify them whenever necessary.

Does the Minister agree that as the EC has ruled that the protection scheme that was run in Britain was against the EC free trade regulations, and given the tragic example of 2,4,5—T, there is now a need to introduce new, tougher regulations?

No. In the light of the latest report from the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the Government are satisfied that there are no medical or scientific grounds for such action. The Commission's objections relate to the competition implications of our safety arrangements and I am discussing with the Commission how its objections might be met.

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

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be presiding at a dinner for Chancellor Kohl.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the House hopes that she has made a complete recovery from the hysterical outburst that we saw in the House on Tuesday? If she has, is she aware that no amount of smear or abuse against the leaders of the CND will deter the millions of people who see her policies as turning Britain into Reagan's European nuclear fortress? Will she take up the challenge to debate publicly with the CND why she will allow the siting of cruise missiles in Britain, yet refuse to seek any control for Britain over any possible use to which those weapons of mass destruction might be put?

If one wishes to retain freedom and justice in this country, including that for the CND, we must have the will, the means and the courage to defend ourselves. Conservatives have. The place to negotiate on nuclear weapons is at the negotiating table in Geneva.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed this week that a constituent of mine—Mike Gratton—won the London marathon? In doing so he demonstrated that there is nothing wrong in cutting and running, provided that one wins. May I venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend that should she consider having a go in the near future, she would walk it?

I congratulate my hon. Friend's constituent on winning the marathon, which raised a tremendous amount for charity and was a successful occasion.

As the electionitis that the Prime Minister has started can only be damaging to Britain, why does she not announce the date of the election?

I do not think that I have ever done anything except answer questions that have been put to me, and I shall therefore answer this one now. Such questions were first put to me towards the end of last year. May I make it perfectly clear that when I decide to have an election it will be announced in the usual way? Until then, in spite of all provocation, I shall not cut out any options. I have nothing further to add.

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

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on being so frightened—or should I say frit?—of the bishops, doctors and journalists that she has decided to make an irresolute U-turn on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. What are the right hon. Lady's intentions on that Bill now that she has avoided bringing it back to the House for its Report stage for three consecutive weeks? Will she drop the whole thing now that there is no chance that the Bill will get through Parliament? Is giving way to the bishops and the doctors just a cosmetic act because she no longer intends to take the Bill through Parliament?

May I receive the hon. Gentleman's congratulations in the spirit in which they were offered? We shall continue with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in the normal way. It is an important Bill and I hope that it will receive Royal Assent in the usual way by completing its passage through both Houses. I wish to make it perfectly clear that we shall carry on with the Bill.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recent reduction in interest rates? Does she agree that interest rates, in both real and comparative terms, are still too high if industrial investment and the competitiveness of British industry are to flourish? Will she therefore confirm that further reductions in interest rates remain a prime objective of the Government's economic policy?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am a believer in having interest rates as low as possible. I believe that the Government have done everything to try to bring down interest rates to ensure that the recovery gets well under way. What other nations do has an effect on interest rates, but I hope that they, too, will run their policies in such a way as to keep their deficits, as a percentage of GDP, as low as ours.

May I please congratulate the right hon. Lady on the brilliant piece of Government planning whereby the next unemployment figures are to be published on the Friday after the local elections? That is a rather curious choice of date, because normally they are published on a Thursday. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the colossal rise in unemployment and the consequent doubling of those forced to apply for supplementary benefit puts an enormous additional strain on the local authorities, and in particular on their social services and housing policies? How will she help that situation, which she has helped to create, by restricting the resources going to those authorities?

The dates on which the unemployment figures are due to be published are made known weeks in advance. The date has nothing to do with the reason that the right hon. Gentleman gave—nothing whatsoever.

On the first point—just a minor matter, of course—did the right hon. Lady and the Government not know the date of the local elections when they selected the time to make the announcement? If the right hon. Lady examines the matter, I think she will find that that is the case. In view of the appalling burdens that have been placed on the local authorities, how much of the increase in rates since her Government came to office could have been avoided if they had not reduced Government grants?

The most important thing is the total expenditure of local authorities. That is the most important matter if one is considering that part of the burden of taxation that is accounted for by the rate support grant and rates. It is always the burden of taxation on our people about which the right hon. Gentleman never hesitates to complain. But the most important thing is to keep the expenditure down.

What is the extra burden that the right hon. Lady's Government have placed on local authorities?

Local authorities determine their level of public expenditure, not, unfortunately, the Government. Under the present law there is no way in which the Government can determine the total expenditure of local authorities. Indeed, one reason why the public sector borrowing requirement is way above what one expected is the increasing amount of borrowing by local authorities.

During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend look at Forbes Magazine — the leading American business magazine—which states that the sick man of the industrial world, Britain, is likely to produce a minor miracle in the coming year? Will she, perhaps, refer that article to Opposition Members, because it is a very long and detailed analysis which shows that Britain's recovery is really under way?

I saw reports of that magazine, which I know goes to top business men, particularly in America. I note that, having looked at the economy of Britain, the magazine is very optimistic about Britain's future. I am cautiously optimistic. Such news, of course, is not good news for Her Majesty's Opposition.

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

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

Is it not time that the Prime Minister recognised that the BL workers have a real grievance in defending their six minutes' washing up and bathing time? If the Prime Minister supports the idea of the management of BL and of many other boards having two to three hour expense account lunches, if Members of the House of Lords can walk through and pick up £48 a day tax free for two minutes' nodding through the corridor, and if Members of Parliament do not have to clock on at all, why is it not right that British Leyland workers should fight to defend that six minutes' washing up and bathing time?

The management of British Leyland is a matter for British Leyland. The company has two excellent cars—the Metro and the Maestro. Both have been financed totally by the taxpayer. Taxpayers, therefore, have put a great deal of faith in those who work for British Leyland. I hope that those workers will not return that faith by striking themselves and many other people out of jobs.

asked the Prime Minister what recent progress has been made over rehabilitation and reconstruction in the Falkland Islands and in improving the arrangements for unloading ships delivering equipment and supplies there.

There has been encouraging progress. For example, the islands' civil air service is now fully operational, the schools are functioning, new specialist staff are in post, and work is well in hand on road repair and new housing.

I thank my right hon. Friend for her continuing close attention to these important matters. Will she confirm that urgent action is being taken to ensure that our armed forces are warmly and decently housed in the coming winter?

The Chief of Defence Staff has just returned from a visit to the Falklands and has reported that things are progressing excellently. I understand that Portakabin-type camps around the islands are now all but complete, and three floating hotels have been obtained to provide both accommodation and recreational facilities. One has been in use since January, another will arrive by the end of this month, and the third will arrive shortly afterwards. I therefore hope that, very shortly, all service men will be warmly housed, except where operational circumstances dictate otherwise. The news is good and the Chief of Defence Staff is very pleased and very complimentary about the excellent work of the armed forces.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that there will be no backtracking on the issue of principle that the relatives of Argentines who lost their lives in the Falklands will be able to visit the dead and pay their respects? Will she confirm that that is the British Government's position and that, provided satisfactory arrangements are made, she will allow those visits to be made and not put any untoward obstacle in their way?

We stand by our statement that there is nothing against—indeed, we would be prepared to facilitate—a totally humanitarian visit to the graves of the Argentines on the Falkland Islands. We said that that visit should be organised and supervised by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The International Committee of the Red Cross has issued a statement saying that it cannot arrange the visit because it cannot secure compliance with the essential conditions for ensuring that the expedition will be of an humanitarian nature only, and that if it were to go ahead the neutrality of the International Committee of the Red Cross would be compromised. However, the principle remains the same.

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

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

Is it not the case that the Prime Minister's record on inflation—down from 22 to 4 per cent. and then rising to 6 to 7 per cent. — is almost identical with that of the Labour Government — down from 26 to 7 per cent. then rising to 9 to 10 per cent.? Is not the real difference between the right hon. Lady and the Labour Government the fact that for exactly the same record on inflation she has brought about a three times greater rise in unemployment plus an 8 per cent. fall in living standards since 1979, compared with a 13 per cent. rise in living standards under Labour? Is that not the true measure of her failure?

No. The hon. Gentleman cannot in any way challenge our record on inflation. The Labour Government did not get anywhere near a 5·3 per cent. rate of inflation, which is the present figure. New figures will come out tomorrow. The figure last month was 4·9, and at the moment it is 5·3. The hon. Gentleman cannot mention any figure in the last 12 years that came near to that. What is more, under his Government inflation went up to 26·9 per cent., far above our worst, which was 21·9 per cent. Thus, his worst was far worse than ours and his best was nowhere near as good as ours.