asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of agricultural land were lost due to coal mining subsidence for the last year that figures are available.

I regret that this information is not available.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she consider the remarks of the chairman of the National Coal Board on Tuesday at a meeting of the Select Committee on Energy, as reported in today's papers, which imply that more needs to be paid to property owners, and especially farmers, for subsidence caused by coalmining activities? Does she agree that, especially with regard to consequential losses suffered by farmers whose land is over coalmining workings, the law and the voluntary code derived from it do not adequately compensate the agricultural community for the loss suffered by coalmining subsidence?

It is rare for subsidence damage to render agricultural land completely unworkable. I am as anxious as my hon. Friend to ensure that farmers whose land suffers from subsidence should receive appropriate compensation, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what expenditure he made in 1983 in England under the forestry grant scheme; and what percentage of this was allocated to the planting of small woods and broadleaved species.

Expenditure in England under the forestry grant scheme for the year ended 31 March 1983—the most recent date for which information is readily available—was £593,000. Of this, £332,000, or 56 per cent., relates to broadleaved planting. The records held centrally do not differentiate between the sizes of the woodlands involved and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the grants, although welcome, barely address the scale of the problem bearing in mind that since the second world war we have lost between 30 and 50 per cent. of our ancient woodlands? Were any of the ancient woodlands which are recipients of the grant included in the 956 woods which the Forestry Commission recently announced would be sold?

Any woods sold under the programme of disposals, if subject to sites of special scientific interest status, must, in consultation with the Nature Conservancy Council, be used in the same manner as all sites of special scientific interest. The recently published "Forestry Commission Census of Woodlands and Trees for England and Wales" — the most detailed survey since 1947 — reveals that in neither of those two aspects has there been a reduction in the total area of broadleaved cover. There have been some changes in the species.

Can my hon. Friend say what has been the net loss or gain of woodlands in recent years? For example, in the last year for which figures are available, was there a net loss or gain of woodlands nationally?

The figure of £332,000 which I gave for broadleaved planting represents 662 hectares, compared with 583 hectares of broadleaved planting grant-aided under the dedication scheme, which is now closed to applicants, so this is an improvement.

Will my hon. Friend pay a visit to Thetford forest in the eastern conservancy area and see what a marvellous job is being done there in felling and then replanting, with many hardwoods, in an area which previously was Scots pine and Corsican?

I am sure that I should be unable to resist such an invitation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the meeting between the Minister of State and the Council for the Protection of Rural England on Friday 10 February, on Her Majesty's Government's current European Economic Community negotiations in relation to the future of the United Kingdom's wildlife and countryside.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State met representatives of the CPRE and other conservation bodies on 10 February to hear their views on how support for conservation should be incorporated in the proposed EC structures policy. My right hon. Friend indicated that he was very sympathetic to the conservation interests, but pointed out some of the difficulties of striking a balance between farming and conservation in this area of policy.

Will not the structure proposals trigger damaging environmental consequences, such as the devastation of ancient woodlands, the drainage of wetlands, the development of moorland and all sorts of consequences to habitat which were deplored in the discussion on question No. 2?

No, Sir. On the contrary, there are a number of references to the need for environmental protection in the Commission's draft proposals. Indeed, environmental consideration is given greater prominence than in the existing structures measure.

Does my hon. Friend agree that most farmers are well aware of their responsibilities to the countryside, to conservation and to wildlife, and that anyone who thinks differently does them a grave injustice?

Yes, I support my hon. Friend in that.

Will the Minister reflect that the heart of most of our traditional market towns was destroyed in the 1930s and 1940s by developers and that only when much of the best had been destroyed did people decide to try to conserve what was left? What is she doing to make sure that the same does not happen to our lowland countryside; that we will not start to conserve it only when a few unique examples are left? Does she appreciate that what we want is to conserve the whole and not just a few isolated examples?

That was the whole purpose of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Does my hon. Friend accept that pressure is applied to wildlife and damage done to it, as well as to the countryside and agriculture, by the failure to reform the CAP, by the failure of our inner cities to remain places in which people want to live and by the loss of agricultural land? Is she aware, in other words, that the issue goes much wider than the original question?

I agree with my hon. Friend on those three matters.

Does the Minister appreciate that the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in asking the question was to show that the price support mechanism of the common agricultural policy as currently working runs counter to what we wish to achieve, and that nothing in the structures scheme will undo, or even mitigate sufficiently, the damage caused by price support at its current levels to the countryside and wildlife?

I had hoped that I had reassured hon. Members by referring to the Commission's draft proposals, in which there are a number of references to environmental protection — indeed, rather more such references than in the structures measure that has expired.

rose—

Order. There will be a statement later this afternoon about the EC Council of Ministers, and therefore I propose to go rather more rapidly over EC questions than would normally be the case.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he anticipates any shift in agricultural aids as a result of the acceptance of the present draft European Economic Community regulation on agricultural structures.

The European Commission's proposed draft Council regulation on agricultural structures is currently being discussed by officials. It is still too early to anticipate the outcome of those discussions or the likely shape of any agreed regulation.

I accept what the Secretary of State has said, but will he accept that if the present draft proposals are implemented without amendment the financial incentives of the scheme will work against the protection of both landscape and wildlife? There is not yet any clear sign that the policies for environmental and agricultural protection have been brought together by the Community to the benefit of our countryside in general.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. We are examining the proposals very carefully. I can only repeat that, as my hon. Friend has just told the House, environmental considerations are given greater prominence in these proposals than in the measures that are now in force.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has recently earned the gratitude of 28,000 grassland farmers in Britain as a result of the successful negotiations over marginal land? Could he, however, give us some more details of the success of the negotiations? In particular, when are we likely to get the money?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. As I am to make a statement on that very matter at the end of Question Time, it would be more appropriate to deal with it then.

Can the Secretary of State given an assurance that the uplands amenity budget will not come from the uplands livestock budget which is already in place?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that when we made alterations to the capital grants last year we introduced new measures to encourage the construction of hedges and walls in upland areas. That was a great move forward into new ground, and has been widely supported by environmentalists.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the adequacy of existing financial incentives available to British farmers from Community funds for environmental purposes.

Under the present EC structures policies, aid may be paid in respect of environmental projects associated with agricultural investments. Similar provisions are included in the new structures policies which are currently under discussion.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer and for the efforts that he and his Department have made. However, has he seen the recent report by the chief scientific officer to the Nature Conservancy Council, which refers to the alarming waste and destruction of wildlife habitats? Is it not time that there was a proper allocation of assistance for environmental matters, as well as agricultural assistance?

The whole purpose of the Wildlife and Countryside Act was to ensure that the situation was improved. However, under the terms of article 43 of the Treaty of Rome, under which the structures programme is run, it is not possible to use the structures programme for purely environmental purposes. Projects must also, and primarily, have an agricultural investment content.

Are not the interests of conservation best served, not by increased expenditure, but by a better balance between corn and horn? The livestock sector is at a serious disadvantage because of the high cost of cereals. Is that not bad for the countryside and for British farmers in areas such as the west country, where it is difficult to grow cereals?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. One of our principal objectives in our current discussions of the reform of the CAP, and in the price review proposals, is to get a better balance between corn and horn. My hon. Friend is also right about the impact on the west country. When we consider conservation and the environment, it is important to stress the other side of the coin. The attractiveness of our countryside is primarily due to the efforts of the majority of our farmers who, with the aid of capital grants—and our capital grant charges have emphasised the environment—are undoubtedly making our countryside more attractive. Without them, I shudder to think what the countryside would look like.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in reforming the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

I expect to make a statement on the outcome of the Council of Agriculture Ministers held on 27 and 28 February later today.

In the circumstances, perhaps I might defer my supplementary question until after the statement has been made.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his response to the European Economic Community Commission proposals for a revaluation of the green pound.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy regarding the green pound; and if he will make a statement.

The Government no not consider the Commission's proposal to revalue the green pound to be justified.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this proposal by the Commission would put our farmers at a marked financial disadvantage compared with their European counterparts? Will he therefore give a categorical assurance that this option is totally ruled out as a negotiating position?

I have made it clear in the past that the Commission's proposal to the Council of Ministers is not acceptable and that we intend to resist it.

I am sure that the House will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. In view of the sharp fall in farm incomes in 1983, will he also reject any other proposals which are likely to damage the competitiveness of British agriculture? Will he take this opportunity to deny reports in the press that No. 10 Downing street considers farmers to be a privileged sector of the economy, and confirm once and for all that if only the rest of British industry had done half as well as British agriculture we should have no economic problems in Britain?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity that he affords me with that question. I am glad to hear what he said about the success story of British agriculture. I can give him the assurance for which he asks. I utterly reject the notion that the Government are somehow mounting a campaign to undermine the capacity and confidence of the agriculture industry.

Will the Minister accept that he is also the Minister of Food? Does he accept the figure given by his erstwhile colleague, Mr. Tugendhat, that food prices have been some 5 per cent. higher than they need have been because of monetary compensatory amounts? Does he agree that the present effect of MCAs is to divide corn and horn and create difficulties and disparities within the agriculture industry?

I reject Mr. Tugendhat's figure for food prices. I believe that it is wrong. I reject also the suggestion about the green pound being used as a food tax. I remind the hon. Gentleman that only last spring we had a negative MCA and that if we had aligned the green and market rates for sterling then we would have had to increase food prices rather than being able to reduce them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the customary period of notice before changes in the European Economic Community intervention and trade prices for agriculture take effect.

Any changes in European Community common prices for agricultural products generally do not take effect until the start of the marketing year for each product. There is no customary period of notice for market management measures for which the Commission takes responsibility.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at a recent meeting of the beef management committee the export refund for beef trade to third countries was fixed at such late notice that traders were unable to take advantage of the customary procedure for advance fixing?

There are two points here. I am aware of them. The first is that the rates for export refunds were changed. My hon. Friend will recognise that, because of the budgetary and cash problems of the Community, it was necessary to take that step. I understand that it is not normal to give advance notice for that. It is rather like giving advance notice for changes in VAT in Britain. The second point is that the Commission exercises emergency and retroactive powers to decide that all applications for pre-fixing between a given period should be rejected. Perhaps that is what my hon. Friend has in mind. The Commission felt that it had good reasons for doing so in this case. I hope that that retroactive action on pre-fixing will not be necessary in future.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the marketing arrangements for agricultural produce.

I am never satisfied that we have reached a stage where further progress cannot be made, but there have been considerable advances on the marketing front. The priority that we attach to the effective marketing of agricultural produce was demonstrated a year ago in the setting up of Food from Britain with the objective of achieving a lasting improvement in the marketing and promotion of British foods. Food from Britain has made encouraging progress in its first year, and I am confident it will achieve success.

If the Minister refers to "advance" in marketing supermarket eggs, which were labelled fresh last year and are now being marketed as free-range, can he tell the House what the difference is and what they are likely to be called next year?

I knew that this question would enable hon. Members to raise all sorts of issues. Stretching into the recesses of my memory, I seem to recall that there are considerable technical disputes about the matter, which are currently being pursued with the Commission.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that tremendous improvements have been made in marketing, particularly in meat marketing, to meet the demands of the new multiple retailers? Will he also bear in mind that we could do a lot more if there was more freedom of export to the Community? There are still difficulties which need to be overcome, particularly for firms like North Devon Meat.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend on the points that he made about progress on marketing. I regard it as a fundamental aspect of what we should be achieving in the next five years. As to his question about difficulties over exporting, I am not sure whether he was referring to the problems of clawback, but we have those very much in mind. That is one of the issues that we are pursuing in the current CAP negotiations.

Can any marketing arrangements other than a price reduction ensure that the British consumer will eat more products currently in surplus in the EEC?

Yes, undoubtedly, by improving quality, processing and marketing itself. Indeed, under the charter bacon scheme we have increased this year the amount of bacon produced by British producers and consumed by British households from 41 to 46 per cent. I believe that there is quite a lot more that we can do in that direction.

Has my hon. Friend any plans to curb the overweening powers of the large retail chains, which are holding to ransom many agricultural producers, particularly North Devon Meat, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Sir Peter Mills).

That, of course, is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. I understand that discussions are going on with him about the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in completing the recruitment of fisheries inspectors as agreed in the Council of Ministers on 25 January 1983.

Nine of the 13 Community inspectors are now in post. The remaining four inspectors have been nominated and are expected to take up post within the next few months.

Is my hon. Friend confident that these inspectors will be competent to manage the conservation measures for the Community, with particular reference to our stocks of herring and mackerel?

As my hon. Friend knows, the primary responsibility lies with the national inspectorate, in which I have confidence. I hope and believe that the Community inspectorate will add to that. Indeed, some of them are British inspectors. The fishing industry has been pressing us strongly to get on with this. If it is necessary to develop further, we shall be prepared to argue for that.

Does my hon. Friend accept that if we need an example of the urgent need to get the additional inspectorate into post we need look no further than the south west mackerel fishery, where, despite the conservation measures in the so-called box, a number of EC boats are fishing beyond our limits for mackerel, in addition to the dodge perpetuated by Scottish fisherman inside the limit of so-called bottom trawling? When will he do something about that?

My hon. Friend knows, because he and I have been in constant touch on the matter, that we closed the box to mackerel fishing at the beginning of last month. We are continuing to watch the situation outside the box, and if it is felt necessary to take steps for conservation reasons, we shall argue for them.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will consider seriously the economic necessity for Scottish fishermen to fish for mackerel in the south west box? Will he give a guarantee that when the box is reopened it will be on the same basis and with the same fishing capabilities as formerly? In regard to the inspectors, while it is true that the logbooks and so on have to be checked by national inspectors, what can the Minister do to ensure that other countries in the EEC, which have a particularly bad record of reporting timeously the true amounts, report properly?

On the first point, I am aware of the Scottish fishing interests and I have constantly stressed that the decision on the closure of the mackerel box was taken only on conservation grounds and for no other reason. The hon. Gentleman will know that Scottish fishermen are still able to fish for mackerel outside the box.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider a review of procedures concerning tree felling; and if he will make a statement.

A review of felling licensing procedures was carried out comparatively recently and changes were announced in the House on 27 May 1982 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The revised procedures provide effective controls over tree felling and a further review is not comtemplated at present.

I accept that a majority of farmers take a responsible view on and attitude to these matters, but does my hon. Friend think that the available powers are strong enough to prevent the rogue farmer from cutting down trees, as has happened in my constituency at Little Burstead, where some very fine oaks were chopped down by a farmer, to the understandable fury of my constituents?

I am aware of the incident to which my hon. Friend refers, but that matter is now to be dealt with by the courts, so it is sub judice. I am satisfied as to the adequacy of the controls, which are linked with effective consultation procedures, and are designed to resolve any conflict in interests.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the practice of taking a heavy plough between trees that are under a preservation order may so damage the roots that it will be necessary to fell the trees in subsequent years? Is this not a singular breach of the spirit of the present regulations, and will my hon. Friend see whether there are some ways to strengthen the regulations?

I know about my hon. Friend's deep concern. Tree preservation orders are for the local authority but I note my hon. Friend's concern about the treatment of the land between the trees and shall raise the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in developing systems of annual performance reviews in his Department.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to performance assessments of staff. As my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for the Civil Service said on 28 November last year in reply to my hon. Friend the Member of Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), the Management and Personnel Office has been discussing with Departments and Civil Service unions major revisions to the procedures for staff reporting and appraisal. My Department is currently considering how it should develop its own systems in the light of these discussions

I welcome my right hon. Friend back from the Antipodes and ask him whether his experiences there help him to comment further on the benefits expected from these ideas?

The new systems are intended to give a more accurate assessment of each individual's strength and weaknesses and will be used in improving and developing staff and in identifying those whose performance is not up to standard.

In terms of annual performance reviews in his Department, will the Minister accept that the table that he has published in the annual review of net farm income, size by size and commodity by commodity, is a welcome step forward? Will he continue that in future and can he give us comparable figures for the past five years?

I am afraid that I am not able to apply this question to the annual review of farm incomes that we put out a few weeks ago, but perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the Nature Conservancy Council about agriculture and the protection of sites of special scientific interest.

My colleagues and I maintain regular contact with the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council on matters of mutual concern.

What are we doing to plug the three-month loophole?

I am sorry, but I should need notice of that question, as I am not sure what is meant by the term "the three-month loophole".

Does my hon. Friend agree that the relationship between farming and the Nature Conservancy Council has never been better, and will she do all that she can to encourage that harmony so that each will understand the other's problems?

Yes, indeed. I suspect that my hon. Friend has as deep a knowledge as anyone, having piloted the relevant legislation through the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a simple step that she could take to further conservation would be to make cost-benefit analyses in drainage schemes available for public scrutiny?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about that. He will know that there has been an important review of drainage schemes and I shall raise the subject of his concern before the review is completed.

May I assist the hon. Lady by saying that the three-month loophole referred to by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is the time allowed while matters are being considered? There are three months during which farmers can do terrible mischief to wildlife and conservation efforts. Will the hon. Lady answer my hon. Friend's question, now that she understands what the gap is?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I do not have details of the so-called "terrible damage" that farmers are claimed to do between the declaration and finalisation of SSSI status. If the hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Member wishes to bring particular cases to the Department's attention, we may be able to pursue them with the NCC.

Is the Minister aware that the view of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) of the relationship between farmers and the Nature Conservancy Council is not a reflection of the views of farmers in my constituency, who feel that the council is being starved of the resources necessary to enable it to give compensation for land that has been designated? As a result of that lack of funds, the council cannot do its job. The matter is urgent, and will the Minister give it her full attention?

The funding of the NCC is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. So far as I am aware, the NCC has experienced no difficulty to date in funding its management agreement.

asked the Minister of Agricultural, Fisheries and Food whether it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to secure the long-term future of hill farmers and the less-favoured areas; and if he will make a statement.

The Government have amply demonstrated their concern for farmers in the less-favoured areas and their determination to safeguard the future of those farmers by the high level of support that they have given them since taking office in 1979, despite the severe pressures on public expenditure. We have also shown our determination by pursuing the case for extending the United Kingdom's less-favoured areas, and I shall be making a statement on that later today.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Will he acknowledge that, although hon. Members from both sides of the House welcome the decision to go ahead with payments under the hill livestock compensation allowances, the threatened delay is causing serious concern to hill farmers who require a reassurance from the Government that there will be a sustained, long-term commitment to hill farming, which is vital to many areas of my constituency and throughout rural Scotland?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, in cutting the red tape surrounding the Community legislation and directive, we decided to continue those payments although the Community directive had not been renewed. I hope that my statement will give an ample and clear demonstration of the Government's determination to look after farmers in our upland areas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers in highland Perthshire and Angus are very appreciative of the Government's efforts to ensure that farming will continue in those less-favoured areas? Is he further aware that many ewes were lost in the recent ghastly weather suffered by our area and that there will be a substantial reduction in lambing this year?

I am aware of the difficult weather conditions that hill farmers have had to put up with in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is responsible for these matters, will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.

Is the Minister aware that there is also considerable concern among farmers about possible proposals for a three-year price freeze? Will he give urgent attention to this and to any protestations on the subject from the fanning community?

I think that farmers throughout the country realise that, as I have said many times before, they have no God-given right to go on producing more and more food that we can neither eat at home nor sell abroad. However unpalatable that may be, it is a basic fact of life. Nevertheless, we shall do our best to ensure that the difficulties that will be faced by the whole agricultural community will not be unfair to British agriculture and that the restrictions are lifted as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy for 1984 as far as sheep scab is concerned.

The Government's policy is to take all practicable measures to control and eradicate the disease. The support of the industry and local authorities is essential. Dipping requirements for 1984 will be announced shortly and it seems likely that strict measures will have to be followed for several years.

I thank my hon. Friend for her robust and construtive reply. Does she appreciate that there is great concern among sheep producers about the spread of scab? Will she ensure that enforcement is 100 per cent. and that adequate publicity is given to the fact that sheep scab is a malicious and evil killer disease?

I give my hon. Friend that assurance. We shall certainly ensure adequate publicity. As I have emphasised, however, we must have absolute support from the industry and local authorities in the attempt to eradicate the disease.

May I assure the Minister that she has the total and absolute support of Labour Members for the strictest possible regime to ensure effective dipping and the eradication of this very dangerous disease?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. This disease must be eradicated. We have recently had the worst series of outbreaks for the past 11 years.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to get agreement on new European Economic Community support prices for the 1984–85 marketing year; and if he will make a statement.

I hope that agreement will be reached soon.

When agreement is reached, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, unlike last year, commodity prices — especially for beef — are paid from the beginning of the market year rather than when the announcement is made?

We are doing our utmost to achieve settlement of the 1984 price changes. We are working very hard on it. There are further meetings of the Agriculture Council next week and the following week. We are going as fast as we possibly can.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the current draft of the proposed new European Economic Community regulation on agricultual structures; and if he will make a statement.

I am concerned about the high cost of the proposals and one of my objectives in the current negotiations is to reduce it.

Is the Minister aware that that reply will be most disappointing to the agriculture industry and to those concerned about the future of the rural environment? Does he accept that out of the present £4 billion total community funding for agriculture it would be reasonable to make some resources available under the directive to improve and preserve the countryside and thus provide work for local people, who are not the best employed in increasing surpluses?

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give a little more attention and credit to the changes in capital grant structure that we announced last year, whereby we stopped grants for the grubbing-up of hedges in lowland areas, introduced new grants for hedge and wall construction in upland areas and stopped grants for the improvement of grassland in lowland areas. That is a major step forward and has rightly been welcomed by environmentalists.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will instruct the Forestry Commission not to sell land in England designated as sites of special scientific interest.

The transfer from public to private ownership of land designated as an SSSI does not affect such designation or the protection given by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. My right hon. Friend does not propose therefore to instruct the Forestry Commission to exclude such land from the disposals programme.

Will my hon. Friend accept that local trusts for nature conservation feel that they must bid for this land, thus using their scarce resources, which should be used for their many other vital activities to protect the countryside within their area? Will she look at this problem sympathetically?

I assure my hon. Friend, in the terms of the original answer I gave, that I cannot accept that private ownership prejudices the nature of the SSSI. I am well aware that some conservation groups clearly hold different views, but I am trying to reassure them that this is not so.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 1 March.

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, including one with the National Pensioners Convention.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security situation in the Gulf is deteriorating rapidly, with the likelihood of the gravest consequences for the world in general? Will she assure the House that Her Majesty 's Government are taking firm steps to ease this situation by working through the United Nations, and that she is working closely co-ordinating intelligence, planning and actions with our allies, in particular with the United States of America?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about the situation in the Gulf. We are working closely with the United States and with our other allies on this matter, and we are also supporting efforts of mediation, especially those made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Is the Prime Minister aware of the conspicuously evasive answers given on Tuesday by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in the other place, about the removal of certain documents relating to the Falklands from the Public Records Office? Will she accept that, now that the Argentine has returned to democracy, open and informed discussions on the future of the Falklands is surely in order? Will she look into this and see that these historic documents are put back as soon as possible?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that a number have been put back, or are about to be put back.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that she has the admiration of the nation for the courage and determination with which she won a great victory at Cheltenham, in its way no less significant than the victory she won in the south Atlantic? Does she agree that the fruits of both victories are more likely to endure if she now shows a spirit of conciliation towards the vanquished in both those conflicts?

The decision at GCHQ was urged upon us by the management of GCHQ. It was very welcome for some. I realised that it caused difficulties for others, and I am very grateful to the overwhelming majority who have now signed their forms at GCHQ, numbering well in excess of 90 per cent.

Will the Prime Minister take further time today to reflect upon the decision that her Government took at GCHQ and, if she will not take note of what has been said from the Labour Benches and from the TUC, will she take note of the many Conservative Members who have disagreed with her policy on GCHQ, particularly her right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who obviously disagreed with the action taken by the Government?

I had hoped that I had answered the hon. Gentleman's question in my reply to the last question. There were differing views. I realised that it caused some difficulties for some people at GCHQ, and I am grateful to them for signing the forms as they have done. I believe that the decision was right.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.

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

In between her engagements, has the Prime Minister noted that seasonally adjusted unemployment has increased by 28,600 while the Government are receiving £900 million a month in tax from oil revenues? Why does she persist with a policy of paying people to be unemployed instead of using oil revenues to create jobs by investing in public works and British industry? Does she realise that these policies of waste will be decisively rejected by the electors of Chesterfield today?

I agree that the unemployment figures are disappointing. The seasonally adjusted figures have increased while the raw figures have diminished. The Government take extensive special measures to try to alleviate the problem. We cannot spend the oil revenue twice over. It is already being spent either on current expenditure or capital expenditure, and a good deal of it is being used to help the creation of small businesses. About 300,000 people a month go off the unemployment register—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many go on?".] I was about to give that precise figure. I am so grateful to Labour Members for asking the question. Between January and February, 336,000 people became unemployed while 346,000 were leaving unemployment.

Did my right hon. Friend note that during the day of protest on Tuesday no meals on wheels were delivered in the London borough of Southwark, funerals were jeopardised and there was serious disruption at the Glasgow royal infirmary? Does she agree that it is disgraceful that the elderly, the sick and the bereaved should suffer in this way? Is this not another example of militant trade unionists' inhumanity to man?

Yes. I thought that those who went on strike on Tuesday hit out at members of the public who were entirely innocent. It was they who suffered, whether the travelling public or those who rely on meals on wheels or social services. I thought it was very bad that the Labour party, which prides itself on compassion, backed the strike.

On the subject of man's—or should I say woman's — inhumanity to man or woman, I understand that the Prime Minister is meeting a deputation from the National Pensioners Convention this afternoon. When she sees Mr. Jack Jones and his colleagues, will she be undertaking to scrap the fuel price increases and the housing benefit cuts?

No.

Is that not disgraceful when, a few moments ago, the Prime Minister, on behalf of the Conservative party, made claims to humanity, especially when we bear in mind that if the Prime Minister had not got rid of the link between pensions and earnings a single pensioner would be £1·25 a week better off and a pensioner couple would be £2.50 better off? When will she stop filching from the pensioners in this way?

Housing benefit costs about £3·7 billion a year. It goes to 7 million households including, after the adjustment, 3.65 million pensioner households. The special fuel allowance costs about £360 million and about £200 million of that provision goes to pensioners. Both figures are vastly in excess of any record achieved by the Labour Government.

In many, many respects what the Prime Minister alleges is not true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in making her comparisons with the previous Labour Governemnt. Does she think that the National Pensioners Convention would be seeing her this afternoon, demonstrating in London, or constantly urging upon all hon. Members that larger pensions are needed, if what she provides was anything like enough?

I am not quite sure which figures the right hon. Gentleman is challenging and I doubt whether he knows, either. The proposals of the National Pensioners Convention for pension increases would cost over £15 billion a year. That would add £24·30 a week to national insurance contributions for those on average male earnings. The right hon. Gentleman is usually taking me to task for increasing the national insurance contribution, and now he is proposing to increase them for the working population by an intolerable amount. Does he challenge any of those figures?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that later today the Minister with responsibility for sport will answer questions about the entirely predictable behaviour of our so-called soccer fans? Will she say for how many more years our neighbours on the Continent must suffer violence to their people and cities and for how long we must suffer this disgrace before the Government take direct responsibility at the highest level to end this shameful position?

The Government and, I believe, right hon. and hon. Members of all parties would condemn the appalling behaviour of a small minority of the visitors to France, who disgraced our country's name abroad. My hon. Friend will reply later. He took an initiative after previous incidents in Luxembourg, and special measures were taken this time to ensure that such events did not recur. Clearly, they were not successful. My hon. Friend is in touch with the French Minister for sport and is requesting a full report of the incident. He will also meet the chairman and secretary of the Football Association tomorrow afternoon to discuss the matter. We must all make strenuous efforts to ensure that these appalling incidents do not occur again.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.

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

If Liverpool city council brings in an illegal rate, will the Government use their powers of direction under section 22 of the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Act 1982 to command that an extraordinary audit takes place? Does the Prime Minister agree that the problems of the city are made worse by the cuts in rate support grant—about £140 million—since the late 1970s? Does she agree that threats of violence and rioting will do nothing to enhance the image of Liverpool, but will drive investment and jobs from the city?

I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman with regard to the last part of his question. Threats of violence do not help Liverpool. Indeed, they do Liverpool and the name of Liverpool great damage. I hope that nothing further will be heard about them and that nothing further will be done. With regard to what Liverpool might do, no illegal rate has been made. I hope that it will not be made, because the consequences of such action would be serious for services, the people of Liverpool and the councillors. I hope that more moderate and responsible opinion in the council will prevail, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will use his influence to that end.

Will my right hon. Friend today consider making a new approach to the Soviet Union to see whether an initiative to work for world multilateral disarmament can be started? Could she build on the success of her visits behind the iron curtain to make the Soviet Union understand that, while we are determined to remain strong, equally we wish to do everything we can to work for world disarmament?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, which all hon. Members share because we all wish to see a reduction in the amount spent on armaments. We want to see disarmament take place in a balanced and verifiable way. We are more likely to achieve success at the several disarmament talks if we try to get greater general understanding between the Soviet bloc and the Western Alliance. That is what we are striving to do. Meanwhile, discussions continue at the Stockholm conference, which is a valuable forum.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 March.

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

Does the Prime Minister accept that the first report of the Select Committee on Energy for 1983–84 is openly contemptuous of Government economic policy on heating costs? Does she accept, with her hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery), that it is disgraceful that old people should suffer in that way? Instead of coming to the House with facts and figures about what the Labour Government did, and with selective figures that purport to show what she may or may not have done for old-age pensioners, will she go back to the Cabinet and ensure that the aged and the infirm can afford to pay for gas and electricity?

I can understand why the hon. Gentleman does not wish me to give facts and figures about the Labour Government's record, but of course I shall do so. This Government increased the price of domestic electricity by 2 per cent. for the first time for two years, compared with the Labour record of a 2 per cent. increase every six weeks.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Council for Social Democracy in Scotland recently produced a policy proposal on devolution that called for the abolition of the Secretary of State for Scotland? Does she agree that such a step would deny Scotland an effective and influential voice in the Cabinet and in national and international affairs?

Yes, wholeheartedly. I cannot have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland abolished.