asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in negotiations between the European Economic Community and Norway on the shareout of the herring stock in the North sea.

Negotiations between the Community and Norway on the arrangements for 1985 under the EC-Norway fisheries framework agreement are continuing. While there has been some progress, no agreement has so far been reached on the respective allocations to the Community and to Norway for herring in the North sea.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that informative reply. Will he assure the House that when the negotiations continue on 11 and 12 December in Oslo he will ensure that, if there is any question of an agreement being reached on herring stocks in particular, he will safeguard the interests of the British fleet in order to ensure that total allowable catches are not reduced?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that at the Council meeting on Tuesday this week the Council insisted on maintaining the Commission's firm line on negotiations on Norway's herring demands, which we regard as unreasonable. That was the position that we took. It is better to delay rather than rush negotiations in order to arrive at an acceptable conclusion.

While the Minister is dealing with fisheries agreements between the EEC and other maritime nations, will he tell us whether it is true that one of the major remaining stumbling blocks in the current continuing negotiations between Spain and the EEC is a fisheries agreement? What concessions are likely to be made by the EEC to Spain over fisheries, and what concessions will the EEC demand of Spain in the negotiations?

The hon. Gentleman will have seen that agreement was reached at the Council this week on the negotiating position that the Community should take in relation to fisheries and enlargement. The Community is taking a firm line to protect British fishery interests. It would obviously be unwise to reveal the entire negotiating position, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the decisions reached this week at the summit were satisfactory to us.

Will the Minister accept that it might have been to the convenience of the House if he had answered written question No. 122 today in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) on the outcome of the meeting of the Council on this question rather than try to hide it away in a written answer?

I would have much preferred to answer it now, but it is a lengthy answer which will be given later this afternoon. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and wish that it could have been taken into account today.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the Government's attitude towards the milk co-responsibility levy.

The Government are opposed to the co-responsibility levy, since it has not been effective in controlling the milk surplus.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the previous justification for the levy might have been, the introduction of milk quotas and the super levy have rendered it completely unnecessary? Does he hold out much prospect of getting rid of it in the near future?

I hope that when we reach the next price fixing in the early months of next year we shall be able to obtain a cut in the levy in the context of a tough prices policy.

Is the Minister aware that farmers in Northern Ireland will pay almost £7 million this year in co-responsibility levy on top of £5 millon in dairy quota levy? Will the Minister assure the House that he will add his weight to the abolition of the co-responsibility levy, as it is now unnecessary after the introduction of dairy quotas?

I am intrigued to hear the hon. Gentleman's comment about the level of dairy quota levy that might be payable in Northern Ireland for this year, because he is making assumptions about the amount of milk likely to be produced between now and the end of March. As I said, we are opposed to the co-responsibility levy and will seek a cut.

Which, if any, members of the EEC favour the retention of the levy following the introduction of quotas instead of financial measures?

I regret to say that some EEC member states are in favour of the co-responsibility levy in varying degrees. If none had been, it would have been easier to get rid of the thing.

As the dairy quota scheme seems to have overtaken the co-responsibility levy, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the scheme is being operated adequately by other member countries, particularly France, in the way that Britain is honouring it?

I have no grounds for supposing that the co-responsibility levy is being improperly or illegally implemented in any member state. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of that, I hope that he will send it to me with the greatest possible urgency.

Instead of hoping for a cut, will my right hon. Friend go further and press for the complete abolition of this discredited levy?

The problem that we must face is that if we were simply to scrap the levy without at the same time operating a firm prices policy we could create possibilities of there being incentives at some future time to increase milk production in the event of the quota scheme being abandoned. I still hope that at the end of the five-year period we shall be able to abandon the quota scheme and return to a market that is managed, as it should be, by the discipline of price.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the evaluation and administration of claims by his Department as a result of Aujeszky's disease; and if he will make a statement.

A number of representations have been made about the Aujuezky's disease control and eradication programme, in particular in relation to the cost of the scheme and the Ministry's handling of the salvage operation. My right hon. Friend the Minister answered questions on these points at a recent meeting of the Select Committee on Agriculture, making it clear that he did not accept these criticisms.

Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary reconsider her decision not to give further assistance to the eradication scheme? Will she accept that pig farmers are the most ill-fated of the members of the National Farmers Union, and will she do something to help them?

No, Sir. The industry opted for the scheme after a second poll and did so on the basis of the industry paying for the scheme. The second poll enforced that.

Will the Parliamentary Under-Secretary stop trying to get round the fact that the scheme has already cost more than twice as much as the Department originally estimated and is now adrift by about £15 million? Do the Government want to eradicate Aujeszky's disease? If so, why will the Minister not accept responsibility to underwrite a fair proportion of the cost?

I welcome the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to the Dispatch Box. Estimates at the inception of disease control programmes are necessarily speculative. The producer poll form—the original document—emphasised the difficulties of estimating and stated that the net cost might be at least £6 million, excluding consequential loss payments of £3·5 million, paid against Ministry advice, and interest payments.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the cost was £27 million and that at the present moment the actual debt due on Aujeszky's disease eradication is £15·4 million? Should not the Minister consider that and not penalise the producers?

As I have just said, at the second poll the producers asked for matters to be arranged in this way and they did so on the basis that the pig disease eradication fund would pay.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's response to the National Farmers Union's policy paper, "The Way Forward."

This is in general a helpful statement of the National Farmers Union's views on the directions which future agricultural policy should take. I look forward to reading the more detailed paper which the NFU is now producing.

Does not that policy paper show that the NFU is anxious to contribute to a policy of responsible use of resources on the land, but that it is confused about what the rest of society wants from it? As agriculture has been successful for many years and has produced ever more food, the NFU now regards the problem of surpluses as one on which society says that it does not want so much food. In addition to a more detailed paper from the NFU, would there not be some merit in the Government producing a White Paper on what we want farmers to produce and future agricultural policy?

The Government have worked extremely hard on these lines for several months. As part of our thoughts on these matters we are interested to have the views of the NFU and other similar bodies. We must get the general guidelines that we think it right to give clear in our minds before thinking about what method might be used to put out those views.

Is the Minister not somewhat embarrassed by the fact that the NFU is now proving to be more radical in terms of agricultural policy than the Government? Is he aware that the report calls for a better relationship and a different approach to agriculture so that environmental objectives can be properly taken into account? Does the right hon. Gentleman have any firm objectives to meet in response to the NFU's paper?

I welcome the NFU's views on conservation matters. Farmers and others have welcomed initiatives that my Ministry has taken. Perhaps I could draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to our initiative in Brussels to introduce conservation matters to the new structures directive, which we shall discuss again in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now that the NFU accepts that there is a need to restrain the production of agricultural surpluses, that represents a unique opportunity for the partnership between the Government and agriculture to plan the future? Will my right hon. Friend take an initiative in that respect?

We are all glad that the NFU has been sufficiently responsible to recognise that it is not possible to continue having an agricultural policy which is based on increasing production almost at any price. We must consider together how to cope with surpluses. The problems of structural surpluses generally arise from support price levels. I hope that we can get an agreement that action on prices is the right response to the problem.

Will the Minister tell the NFU that the Think Tank report of November 1983 forecast that subsidies for British farming in 1984–85 would be £1,000 million and that that, added to CAP assistance, would be equivalent to a subsidy of £20,000 per farmer? As farmers do not pay rates, will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Prime Minister after he has met the NFU and ask how the Government can manage to subsidise farmers to that extent when somehow or other they cannot manage to look after pits and miners? We are not after £20,000 per miner—we will settle for less than that.

I do not want to make any remarks about the current miners' dispute. If every group in Britain had made the contribution to the British economy that agriculture has made since the war, Britain would be a great deal better off.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has come to any decisions about the report of the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy on Diet and Disease.

Our officials are examining those recommendations of the report which fall within our responsibility, and are discussing their implications with interested parties. We hope to be able to make an announcement of our response to the report within the next three months.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a greater threat to the dairy industry than milk quotas is the health lobby? The continually declining level of consumption of milk products must be taken seriously by the Government. Will she also bear in mind that doctors and others have phases and fads? A few years ago we were told not to eat bread and potatoes, but now we have to eat them for roughage purposes, and some of us are chewing the cud in the evenings.

The report recognises that the evidence is short of proof, but the recommendations are based on a careful review of all the available evidence, and the report represents the best scientific and medical advice that is available to the Government. The nation's health is of vital importance. Changes in diet resulting from that report will not take place overnight. They will result from consumer choice. The trend to healthy diet has already begun and is not an attack on a particular sector. I assure my hon. Friend that consumers are free to choose their own healthy diet.

Is the Minister not ashamed of the United Kingdom's conspicuous placing in the world's coronary league? The separate countries of the United Kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—are in three of the top five places for males — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—I am going to say it anyway. And in two — [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] of the top five for females, for cardiovascular disease.

Order.

rose—

I have not finished yet, Mr. Speaker.

Order. The hon. Gentleman may have a quick look at his question, but he should not read it.

I am going to have my say, because this is an important matter.

Of course the Government are concerned, and that is why COMA produced this considerable report, which we are studying. We are also looking at the ways in which we can implement those recommendations that require action by my Department.

I welcome the tinge of encouragement in the Minister's reply, but does she accept that not enough is done towards the prevention of disease rather than trying to cure it? Will she use her influence on her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and bring to bear whatever powers she can to make him realise the crucial need for prevention?

The import of the report was to encourage prevention. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism. At the moment we are looking at the practicalities of the problems of labelling food with a fat content. We are having discussions with consumers and enforcement authorities on the best way to do this. We are commissioning a study of consumer attitudes and understandings of labelling, because if we are to label we want to be sure that the labels are intelligible. We are discussing with the drink trade alcoholic strength labelling, and we are discussing with industry how it can introduce ways to produce food with less fat and less salt. I am sorry to answer at some length, but the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) questioned the action that we are taking, so I have told him about it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, following recent reductions in cereal prices, there has been an increase in the United Kingdom's production of eggs, poultry and pigmeat.

It is too early for the recent fall in cereal prices to have been reflected in the production levels of intensive livestock.

Bearing in mind the cyclical nature of the intensive livestock sector, does my hon. Friend believe that reduced cereal prices will have a long-term benefit for that sector, especially as regards its competitiveness in the Common Market?

I agree that it will have a considerable beneficial effect. In the many discussions that I have with the industry, especially the pig industry, we are agreed that one of the main ways in which it can be benefited is through lower feeding stuff prices. That is one of the areas where the Government can help most while maintaining our efforts in the Community to get longer-term restraint on cereal prices. That helps both with margins for producers and in making sure that the products are competitive. But I agree with the Select Committee, which pointed out that the problem of cyclical instability will not be resolved by adjustments to prices of feeding stuffs alone and therefore that it is necessary to continue to have action within the industry on marketing, processing and matching output to demand.

In reviewing the prices and the production of these commodities, will the Minister assure the House that he will not favour the closure of uneconomic farms or the obliteration of agricultural communities? Will he also commend that enlightened policy so that it can be adopted by another member of the Administration in another strategic and vital primary industry?

It is essential to get the support pricing policy right in the Community, in order to avoid excessive costs to the taxpayer. Within that there are always structural adjustments in agriculture. That has been taking place over many years, and I believe that it will continue to do so.

With regard to the future course of cereal prices, it seems clear that the guarantee thresholds agreed this year will have been triggered by the output. The rumour is that it may require a reduction in target prices of about 5 per cent. at the next price fixing. Is it my hon. Friend's intention to insist that those guarantee thresholds are honoured in full?

We have not yet seen the new Commission's proposals, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it is the Government's view that cereals are best dealt with by a clear policy of long-term price restraint. Within that my hon. Friend is right to say that guarantee thresholds will bite next year, and we shall expect them to do so.

Is the Minister aware that grain prices continue to rise in that part of the United Kingdom that I represent? Does he also recognise that if it continues it will lead to a further decrease in the production of eggs and pig and poultrymeat and possibly to further job losses? Will the Minister consider again releasing some intervention grain to Northern Ireland?

We have to follow Community rules on the release of intervention grain, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said, and I shall consider it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.

The dairy industry is showing that it has the enterprise and will to cope with the quota system constructively. When we have achieved a better balance in the market, the industry will be on a more sound and stable basis for the future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure British dairy farmers that he will abolish the basic co-responsibility levy in 1985. Can he give the House the latest information about which countries in the Community are collecting the super levy, and what is the position in Britain?

I answered the hon. Gentleman's first question earlier. I hope that in 1985 we can get a cut in the levy in the context of a tough price policy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great desire in the industry that the uncertainty over future quota levels should be resolved as soon as possible so that some stability can be returned to the industry?

I am aware that problems still exist because some producers do not know the final level of their quota. It is to quicken this process that we have agreed to treble the size of the tribunal from 30 to 90 members.

Is the Secretary of State satisfied with the effect that the outgoers scheme is having on the price of stock within the industry? As the Treasury appears to be in a concessionary mood this week, will he take steps to try to persuade it to relieve dairy farmers in the scheme of the capital gains tax imposition, which falls so heavily on the first payment?

I invite the hon. Gentleman to compare the price of dairy cows for the current period with that of a year ago. He will find that, whereas a few months back prices were running somewhat below last year's, the gap has closed considerably and the difference in price is now very small.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the unnecessary stresses within the industry is caused by the lack of flexibility between the wholesale quota and the direct sales quota? Can he sustain pressure on his colleagues within the Council of Ministers to achieve this very necessary flexibility?

My hon. Friend is right to highlight this lack of flexibility as perhaps the greatest single difficulty in implementing the scheme. I have been drawing the attention of the Council of Ministers to the problem of inflexibility between direct and wholesale quotas ever since the summer. I shall raise the issue again when I go to the Council next week.

Does the Minister accept that the fact that we are not likely to achieve the quota in the United Kingdom this year speaks volumes about the haste and the lack of forethought preceding the introduction of the milk quota scheme? Will he direct his mind to two further questions, one of which follows previous supplementary questions? When does he think that the uncertainties over quotas and appeals will be ended for the dairy industry? Secondly, as dairy workers are losing jobs because of their efficiency, and not inefficiency, should not the Government be turning their mind to proper redundancy terms so that these workers can be helped at a difficult time?

I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new duties. I hope that he will enjoy his wide-ranging and highly complicated brief. I am sure that we shall have a good many tough debates between ourselves.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hours of training his Department's farm wardens will require to enable them to carry out their responsibilities effectively.

Farm wardens would be appointed from people with a good knowledge of farms and farmers in their area. Their job would be to provide a link between these farmers and the Department's wartime organisation. Their training would be simple and I am confident that appointment and training could be completed within a few days.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. How many individuals are involved in the scheme and what will be the total time needed for implementation?

We believe that we shall require about 6,000 farm wardens for the United Kingdom as a whole. That is about one warden for each 20 farms. We do not think that it will take long to get them together, and the areas are being delineated roughly on that basis.

What arrangements, if any, has the Minister made to ensure that the 6,000 wardens will be spared in the event of a nuclear attack? What plans does the Ministry have to update the ludicrous advice that it gave to farmers a few years ago to protect their dairy herds from the effects of a nuclear attack by spreading tarpaulins over the top of the lanes?

The Government's duty is to make plans to defend the people. Of course we cannot guarantee that all will live. I am answering a specific question later about the hon. Gentleman's second supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the source and level of the financial resources to he made available to meet the commitments arising from the delay in the collection of the milk levy.

Receipts from the milk supplementary levy are credited to the guarantee section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. They represent, however, only a very small proportion of total expenditure. The decision to defer into 1985 half of the levy payment originally due this year will therefore only marginally reduce the funds available to offset guarantee expenditure in 1984, the net provision for which is fixed in the Community budget at 18,376 ecu. The actual level of expenditure requirements to the end of the year cannot, however, be predicted with any accuracy at this stage.

As Minister responsible for food and a jealous guardian of the public purse, is my right hon. Friend not concerned about the level of public financial resources expended on agriculture support at a time when other Government programmes are being severely cut?

My hon. Friend refers to delays in collection. The amount of levy postponed to 1985 represents only about one day's expenditure, and therefore the effect is not likely to be significant.

Does not the Council of Agriculture Ministers' approach to the milk levy illustrate once more its complete lack of financial responsibility when dealing with Community funds? Is that not one reason why the Council was not asked to approve the financial guidelines on budgetary discipline, which, presumably, it regards as not being worth the paper they are printed on?

I am sure that the recent agreement on budgetary discipline will be helpful in containing the burgeoning rate of agriculture expenditure, which has got us into so many difficulties related to surpluses and overspending in recent years.

Was not the Minister's gesture of refusing to pay the milk levy rather futile, since Great Britain is likely to fall 400 million litres short of the present year's quota? Do we not need an urgent review of this shambles to ensure that the British dairy industry meets it production quota?

The hon. Gentleman appears to have forgotten that Northern Ireland dairy farmers exceeded their quota for the first six-month period. The hon. Gentleman referred to Great Britain, but he should remember that it looks as though we are due for payment of some levy in Northern Ireland for the first six months. I have said time and time again in the Council that it would be intolerable if farmers in one part of the Community were asked to pay the levy while those in other parts of the Community were making no effort to stick to the rules.

During the Minister's recent and welcome visit to Northern Ireland, did he develop any greater understanding of the problems facing Northern Ireland dairy farmers? Will the right hon. Gentleman now accept that Northern Ireland dairy farmers did not receive the 65,000 tonnes and that that is causing great hardship to the Northern Ireland dairy industry?

I enormously enjoyed my visit to Northern Ireland. I was glad to have the opportunity to clear up misapprehensions that Northern Ireland had not had the benefit of the 65,000 tonnes which I was able to negotiate on its behalf.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that, instead of clearing it up, he enlarged the problem facing the dairy industry? Does the right hon. Gentleman now understand, after his visit, that it is the Northern Ireland dairy farmers who, alone in the United Kingdom, will have to pay this iniquitous levy? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee to those dairy farmers that the statement made by the Prime Minister from the Dispatch Box will be adhered to and that no money will be collected until every Community partner collects the same money from its dairy farmers?

My great disappointment when I visited Northern Ireland was that the hon. Gentleman was not able to meet me to discuss these matters. With regard to the words used on 20 November by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about the payment of levies, all I can say is that I could not have said it better myself.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall hear points of order after questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was answering today he implied in his reply to me that I deliberately did not meet him when he was in Northern Ireland. Is it right for the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House? When he invited representatives of farming communities to meet him at a dinner—in Stormont I think it was—he deliberately left out the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson) and myself. If he wants to meet us, why did he do that?

Order. I am responsible for what goes on in the Chamber. I cannot be responsible for who is invited to dinner parties.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has discussed with the European Commission the possibility of leasing milk quota.

Leasing quota separately from the land is one of several possible methods of improving the quota system that I wish to discuss thoroughly with the industry and the professional bodies in the United Kingdom before approaching the European Commission.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the urgency of this matter, we should decide, before it is too late, that this country should not go it alone?

The truth is that it is perfectly clear that leasing a quota would, if permitted under the regulations, allow a producer with a temporary excess quota to let his quota to another producer for a fixed term, at the end of which the quota would return to the original holder. There is an advantage in that approach, because it would make the quota system more flexible and would help to ensure that the available quota was fully utilised. At the moment that is against the rules, and there is no way that we can operate against the rules.

The Minister will know that there is widespread concern and anger in farming circles about the apparently unjust discrepancies between the decisions taken by the various panels. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to assist farmers to assess the nature of this problem by publishing the amounts of secondary quota allocated by each of the various local panels?

We set up the tribunal because we foresaw that there might be some discrepancies between the panels. In the event of dissatisfaction, appeals can be made for a second look at those decisions by the tribunal.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total tonnage of United Kingdom grain that has gone into intervention storage in the current year.

A total of 2·16 million tonnes of grain have been delivered into United Kingdom intervention stores in the current marketing year to 1 December.

Is it true that, if the Government want to send grain to Ethiopia, it is cheaper for them to buy it on the open market than to take it from our intervention stores and from our farmers who have been paid for the grain? Many of my constituents, especially those who contributed to the Ethiopian famine appeal, find that absurd and offensive. Will the hon. Gentleman talk to his European colleagues with a view to reforming the system?

There are two main points to be made. We are sending—and have been doing so all through the year—considerable quantities of cereals out of intervention stores to Africa to deal with famine. My hon. Friend will know that at the European summit earlier this week a commitment was made to send 1·2 million tonnes next year. While we have those stores in intervention it is right to use some of it for that purpose, but it is a good deal more expensive to give it as food aid than to keep it in intervention stores. That point has also to be taken into account.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 6 December.

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.

As the Prime Minister ponders the implications of yesterday's shabby U-turn in favour of the better-off, has it not occurred to her that any future indication by her of the Tory spirit of one nation must serve only to highlight her own entrenched position on unemployment? "There is no alternative", as she puts it. [Interruption.] Does she not see that the danger ahead, as her rebellious Back Benchers become increasingly rattled, is that having turned her Secretary of State for Education and Science and her Chancellor of the Exchequer this week, they may ponder whether the lady herself may be for turning?

The hon. Gentleman clearly worked very hard at that question, although I think he lost his way a good deal long before he came to a conclusion. I thought that yesterday's statement was received rather well. [Interruption.] I think it was well received rather widely. There is an increase in the science budget, and it is far above what it was in 1978–79.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what has just been said, and contrary to what was said in the press this morning, the decision yesterday on student grants enhanced the reputation of her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science? [Interruption.] It enhanced the reputation of this House. Will my right hon. Friend have a word with some of her other right hon. Friends and ask them to be equally forthcoming and flexible on other things in the coming year?

I thank my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. With regard to the second part, no, I shall not urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow more public expenditure. I remind my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends that there is a great need to lift taxation at the threshold to help those who are on comparatively low wages, and to increase the gap between those on social security and those on earnings.

Is it not the fact that, in the course of making a desirable concession yesterday, the Government robbed science in order to save their own skin, regardless of the damage thereby inflicted on British engineering, medicine, industry and technology? The Secretary of State for Education and Science said last week that

"the desparate plight of the scientists could not wait longer."

The science budget for the coming year is greater than the science budget for this year. Under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the science budget for 1984–85 is £530 million, compared with £274 million in the last year of the Labour Government. The right hon. Gentleman must have been very angry with his colleagues on that occasion.

The right hon. Lady is misleading the House and the country. She should know that if one compares like with like the annual rate of growth in investment in science under the Labour Government was four times as high as it has been under the Tories. Does she admit that for four years the Government have been cutting research expenditure? Is she aware that only last week the Advisory Board for the Research Councils reported that worse was to come because the decrease in investment in science would continue as a result of Government policies? When will the right hon. Lady give up her obsession with cuts, and wasting national assets, and act in the national interest?

The right hon. Gentleman talks about an obsession with cuts, but the biggest cuts in public expenditure in the past 10 years were made by the Labour Government between 1976 and 1977. Those cuts were bigger than anything ever known. Taking everything at 1982–83 prices, the Labour Government cut public expenditure by £9 billion in one year. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that his party cut public expenditure by a far greater amount than ever before.

rose—

One moment—I have not yet answered the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. He is too anxious. After that £9 billion cut, the best that the Labour Government could do for the science budget in 1978 was £274 million. It has now gone up, by far more than inflation, to £530 million. The right hon. Gentleman should be congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

I should very much like to be able to do that, but I should have to congratulate him, again, on misleading the House. Does the Prime Minister admit that, whereas in 1979, under the Labour Government, all the alpha projects were paid for, only half of them are paid for now? If she is so proud of the Government's record, will she undertake that there will be no further cuts in the research budget in the future?

The right hon. Gentleman is no person to say that there should never be Government cuts, when his party holds the record for cuts in public spending. They were very hard cuts—cuts in the real value of the Health Service, and real cuts in aid. My right hon Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has done excellent things for science, as I have shown. If the right hon. Gentleman's argument is true, perhaps I may point out to him that there are far more alpha projects now as a result of what the Government have done for science.

I applaud the action of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science yesterday, but would it not be a good idea to undertake a long-term review of public expenditure as a whole, across Departments, and to bring that forward along with a review of revenue at the beginning of the year so that the fullest consultation with the House can take place? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so far, the autumn reviews of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor have been far too much like Russian roulette, with the pistol pointing at our feet, and that it is time the system was changed?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are always difficult choices to be made in public expenditure, but it cannot simply go on and on rising. We saw the effect of that in the mid-1970s, when we finished up at the IMF, with the biggest single public expenditure cut ever known, and the biggest borrowing, which we are still repaying. We have to take steps to contain public expenditure, and all other Governments have to do the same. There are difficult choices to be made. Naturally, I am anxious to let my right hon. and hon. Friends have as much information as possible. We can learn a great deal by looking back, but there is no way of getting out of difficult choices. If we are to help people on low wages to have bigger net take-home pay, we have to find a way to cut taxation.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

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

Has the Prime Minister read the article in January's edition of Accountancy about the National Coal Board's accounts? It is written by five independent academics, who conclude that the NCB's accounts do not, in their view, form

"an adequate basis for informed management decisions".

If the hon. Gentleman regards the matter of coal merely as one of accounting—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and thinks that it can all be done with mirrors, he will be happy if we eliminate the £1·3 billion a year subsidy to the National Coal Board. That is not a matter of accounting, but a matter of fact —[Interruption.] It is plain that that is a matter of fact. [Interruption.] I am talking about the £1·3 billion of taxpayers' money. Regarding the accounts at Cortonwood [Interruption.]—

Order. The behaviour of the House is most unseemly. The hon. Member asked a detailed question and the Prime Minister is replying to it.

The National Coal Board believes that the calculations of the academic accountants are misleading, especially because their calculations were based on 1981–82 results, when Cortonwood lost £6·2 a tonne. In 1983–84 it lost £32 a tonne. If it is only a matter of accounting, we could cut the £1·3 billion subsidy and be much better off.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Derbyshire county council is planning to spend £1·3 million on a party political propaganda campaign? Is she further aware that the Scargillite leader of the council describes such spending as a mere pinprick? Is this not typical of the sheer contempt with which Socialists treat public money?

Yes. As my hon. Friend says, there is no such thing as public money. Money comes from taxpayers and ratepayers, and it could be spent on their own families if it were not taken for other purposes.

As someone who was for four years Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is a scientist and an honorary fellow of the Royal Society, does the Prime Minister not feel that it was niggardly to withdraw the money that science desperately needs, and merely spoil the statement yesterday and the ship for a ha'porth of tar?

No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman knows that Governments must make difficult choices. He is in the comfortable position of being in opposition, when he refuses to make those choices. He had to make them in government. Indeed, he was a member of the Government who made the £9 billion cuts in one year after years of profligacy.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 December.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that a vast and growing number of people are deeply worried at the division, bitterness and economic decline that her Government have brought to the country? Before irreparable harm is done, will she make some concessions so that we can settle the coal strike, and will she shift her economic policy so that we can begin to deal with unemployment?

No, Mr. Speaker. The National Coal Board has negotiated and made concessions. None have been forthcoming on the other side. The National Coal Board can move no further.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the Conservative Benches welcome the flexibility demonstrated by the Government yesterday. May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that a stable economy is the best way in which industry and technology in industry can be developed over the coming years?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest that we should do everything that we can to assist enterprise and those who work in industry. That includes raising taxation thresholds so that there is an increasing gap between low incomes and social security benefits.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you have had any request from the Prime Minister to answer substantive question No. 4.

Order. Unfortunately, we did not reach Question No. 4 largely because the supplementary questions today were of such great length.