asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received representations about the loss of agricultural land in southern England.

I have received no such representations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that agricultural land is being lost to development in the south of England at a wholly unacceptable rate? Is she further aware that every acre so lost diminishes our environment and contributes to greater pressure on farmers? Will she add her weight to ensure that that deplorable trend is reversed?

The Government have a commitment to the protection of agricultural land, and I attach great importance to the protection of such a finite national resource. I am, however, always ready to examine critically the precise methods of implementing the Government's policy in this area.

Does the Minister accept that in southern England, as in Leeds, housing policies have a great deal to do with the loss of agricultural land—

Order. That is what I was hoping would not happen.

I will rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. For every three old houses demolished, only one can be built, and that inevitably pushes out development. What talks has the Minister had with the Minister for Housing and Construction—

Order. The question is about agricultural land.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has made any studies on the impact of consultancy fees on small farmers.

I have recently commissioned an independent survey designed to provide information by farming type and size on the industry's current and future use of advisory and related services.

Does the Minister accept that the work of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service over the years has been much appreciated by agriculturists in. general? When does she expect to introduce the proposed scale of charges? Will she give us an assurance that the charges will not be unnecessarily high and will not include bureaucratic, fastidious extras?

Professor Bell, in his report. made a point about the excellence of ADAS, but recommended that the beneficiaries of the services provided by ADAS should contribute to the cost of those services. Detailed work on the implementaion of Professor Bell's report is in hand, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a further statement on progress before the summer recess.

Does my hon. Friend agree that last year alone we spent £53 million on agricultural education and another £8 million on farm training supported by the agricultural training board? Does she agree that it is a misconceived belief held by Opposition Members that all farmers are thick and welcome such unsolicited advice?

I am sure that our advice and training services are excellent and of great help to our agriculture industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food how many meetings he or his officials have had with the Food and Drink Federation in the last 12 months.

My right hon. Friend or his colleagues have met federation representatives at their invitation five times in the last 12 months. Throughout this period there have been frequent and continuing contacts between my officials and the federation. The most recent meeting at senior level took place on 11 July.

When my hon. Friend next meets members of the Food and Drink Federation, will she be able to give them good news about the imminent introduction of a national voluntary code of practice for nutritional food labelling? Is she aware of the anxiety of people in the industry that the introduction of retailers' schemes, although welcome as a sign of intent, could cause confusion because there is no common standard?

I am aware that too many systems will confuse the consumer. Comments on the Government's grant guidelines are being evaluated. The Government have already said that they will consider laying regulations concerning the format of nutrition labelling.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest position regarding the negotiations over cereal prices in the Common Market.

asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with efforts to reduce the European Economic Community grain surplus.

The Agriculture Council earlier this week was again unable to reach agreement on cereal prices. The Commission, however, stated that for the coming marketing year it would apply prices for cereals based on an abatement of 1·8 per cent. It also stated that it would be authorising member states to make an end of season payment for common wheat and rye of breadmaking quality and putting proposals to the management committee to reduce the delay in the payment period for cereals bought into intervention and to operate a special intervention measure for breadmaking wheat towards the end of the 1985–86 marketing year.

What sort of Fred Karno outfit is it when the non-elected bureaucrats arbitrarily fix cereal prices because the elected Ministers cannot agree? Surely our farmers and consumers deserve a better arrangement.

I agree that this is an uncertain area. The Commission claims that the Council's failure to take decisions is contrary to its obligations under the treaty and that the Commission has a duty to fill the gap as far as possible. The Government do not think that it would be profitable to add to the uncertainty. The price reduction of 1·8 per cent. will therefore be applied in the United Kingdom, pending a final decision by the Council.

As technology and improved techniques will continue to boost cereal production throughout Europe, is it not vital to have an enforceable and realistic policy of controlling surpluses? As the 1·8 per cent. price cut will not do the trick, and as my right hon. Friend must have a realistic policy, can he tell us what it is?

My hon. Friend has heard me say time and again that discipline by price is the best way in which to control surpluses. The combined result of the Commission's decisions is that the support price for 1 tonne of wheat will fall by an estimated 7 per cent. in real terms in 1985–86. That follows a reduction of more than 9 per cent. in real terms during the previous three seasons.

Is the Minister satisfied about the legality and propriety of the method by which the 1·8 per cent. abatement is being made?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a precedent for the Commission moving in, in circumstances such as these, when there is a legal vacuum. The Government do not think that it would be profitable to add to the uncertainty.

Is the Minister aware that this country has a surplus of 4 million tonnes of grain and 3 million tonnes of wheat used mainly for animal feed, which is not required? Is he further aware that putting goods into intervention costs the British taxpayer £40 million a year? What is he going to do about that appalling situation?

I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would applaud the efforts that I have been making to apply even stronger cereal price cuts. I should have thought that he would agree with me that it was a significant step forward over the past three years to have had a reduction of 9 per cent. in real terms. The Commission's decision for this year implies a reduction of a further 7 per cent. in real terms.

As an important principle is at stake here—whether the Commission has the power to overrule and override the veto of a member Government—will the Minister confer with his colleagues about the possibility of having the matter referred to the European Court of Justice for a ruling?

It is not the Government's intention at the moment to refer this matter to the court. Under the guarantee threshold arrangement. this year there should have been a reduction of 5 per cent. There is, therefore, a strong argument for saying that there should be a reduction in cereal prices this year, although I wish that the reduction was more than 1·8 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the failure to reach a decision, however looked at, is disastrous for the Community? Can he explain what will happen about storage, given that there is already a record amount of grain in intervention store in this country and that a record amount of cereals has been planted and is about to be harvested? What will happen to the new crop?

My hon. Friend is a brave man to assert that there will be a record harvest. That is not a certainty. I hope that he will reflect on the fact that over the years there has been a major change in the attitude of the Council of Ministers and the Commission, and that although three years ago we were talking about a double digit increase in cereal prices, this year there will be a fall of 7 per cent. in the price of this season's wheat in real terms.

Does not the fact that Ministers were talking about a two-figure price increase so recently mean that the position is desperate? Will he confirm that the Commission's report reckons that the profit margin on cereals throughout the Community is between 20 and 30 per cent. and that this year's end of season stocks will be 10 million tonnes higher than last year? What hope do we have that in the autumn, or at any other time, the Commission will be less feeble and Ministers less faint-hearted than they have shown themselves to be this summer?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me credit for having been the most robust Minister in arguing in the Council of Ministers for reduced prices. I was the only member of the Council of Ministers who argued consistently that cereal prices should be reduced by the full 5 per cent. that was implicit in the guarantee threshold. I shall continue to argue in that way.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation of Sea Fisheries Committees byelaws.

Sea fisheries committees, through the application of byelaws, can make a valuable contribution to fisheries conservation at local level. We are satisfied with the operation of those byelaws, but we recognise that the procedures governing their confirmation, set out in a statutory instrument dating from 1938, need to be brought up to date. A revision is now under discussion with the SFCs.

Will that revision take into account the circumstances in which scallop fishermen in my constituency can find themselves, namely, that their licences have been revoked by the Southern sea fisheries committee and that the advertisements giving notice of that intention are put into newspapers which the committee knows do not circulate in the area in which those fishermen live? Does that not amount to a substantial injustice? Will the Minister consider using her powers to revoke that byelaw, because an injustice has resulted?

I appreciate the difficulty with the present statutory advertising procedures for fishermen outside the district covered by that sea fisheries committee. Those advertisements were placed in seven local newspapers, and the committee met the statutory requirement. However, I do not accept that the restrictions imposed to safeguard scallop fisheries in the southern district were unjust. We are considering whether it would he advantageous to require SFCs to advertise in the trade press, which is widely read in the industry.

To what extent is the north-east England drift net fishery shaped by sea fisheries committee byelaws? The Minister must know that there is a growing demand in Scotland for that fishery to be outlawed. Will she ensure that the interests of those fishermen are not harmed by any changes in the law?

We are considering the net fisheries in the north-east area, and future arrangements for it are under review. We hope to announce our conclusions soon. A later question on the Order Paper may also relate to that matter.

Does the Minister recognise that the Northumberland sea fisheries committee is an extremely experienced body in the operation of its byelaws? Will she take good account of its advice on the matter raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), and on the Scottish Office's proposed regulations on the carrying of monofilament nets by boats? Will she ensure that the advice of the Northumberland sea fisheries committee is taken fully into account?

We always listen to the wise advice of the sea fisheries committees.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sea fisheries committees could take a notable lead by banning the use of monofilament nets, as has already happened in Scotland? Why will the Ministry not do the same for England and Wales?

We have no evidence that monofilament nets cause any more damage to fish escaping than do mutlifilament nets. We have no intention of introducing a general ban.

Where sea water netsmen for salt water species find that their interests come into direct conflict with those of anglers on rivers, how does the. Minister propose to resolve that dilemma? Is she aware that in west Cumbria it is almost impossible for sea netsmen to lay their fixed engine nets and that the law no longer favours them, although it should favour both sides?

The Ministry can review all such fisheries. As I said earlier, we are examining the north-east net fisheries for that very reason.

Will the Minister think again about monofilament nets? All the evidence shows that they are a disgrace and should be banned throughout our inshore fishing areas. Does she accept that the Opposition would welcome an urgent revision of all sea fisheries committee byelaws and the necessary statutory instrument to bring that about?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry's directorate of fisheries research keeps the effect of those nets under constant review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide figures for 1984 for the percentage cost of the transport element of food manufacture costs in the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community.

On average, transport costs probably represent about 5 per cent. of food manufacturers' costs in the United Kingdom, but there will inevitably be considerable differences between manufacturers. I am not aware of the position being markedly different in the European Community as a whole.

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. Is she aware that the CBI has said that transport costs in Britain are twice as high as those in the rest of the EC? Will she consider those differences further?

The evidence that I have described does not show that to be the case, but any evidence that United Kingdom manufacturers are being disadvantaged because of transport costs should be passed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Does not the huge concentration of food processing plants in the south-east of England involve a double journey of food from the growing areas to the processing plants and back again to be sold? Should we not encourage food processing plants to be dispersed throughout the regions, thus avoiding such extra expense?

There has been some reallocation of food processing plants through the regional programme. The Centre for Physical Distribution Management, in a survey of distribution costs in the United Kingdom last year, found that transport costs of food, drink and tobacco manufacturers were on an average 5·77 per cent. of sales. The figure varied tremendously between firms, from 0·35 per cent. to 9·97 per cent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been paid in compensation to pig farmers for losses incurred because of Aujeszky's disease in each of the last three years; what is the aggregate loss to farmers; and whether he will make a statement.

About £25·3 million has been paid to owners in compensation for slaughter of pigs affected with the disease—£21·5 million was paid in 1983, £3·4 million in 1984 and £350,000 so far this year. In addition, I understand that Pig Disease Eradication Fund Ltd. paid about £3·7 million for disruption costs. It is not possible to give a total figure for farmers' losses in the campaign.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he show some sympathy to the industry, which tried to follow his philosophy of helping itself, only to find that the costs were vastly in excess of the estimates? Is it right for the Government to escape completely from the consequences of what the Standing Committee called at least a failure of communications, and at worst maladministration?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that this scheme was started at the express wish of the industry, and it was on the absolute understanding that it was to be producer-financed. As the hon. Gentleman has been honest enough to acknowledge, the figure of £6 million was an estimate. I remind him that my Department has already contributed more than £3 million in veterinary and administrative resources and in laboratory testing. I remind him as well that the Select Committee, in paragraph 23 of its report, said:

"it does not appear that MAFF has any contractual obligations to bail out the industry".

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although no Standing Committee has reported on this matter, contrary to what the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) has said, the Select Committee on Agriculture has done so? Does my right hon. Friend accept the obligation which the House knows falls upon him and the recommendations of that Select Committee report? Does he not have a statutory duty to take an effective interest in the prevention of animal disease in this country for the benefit of the nation as a whole, not just of agricultural producers? If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland can get £50 million a year to reduce the rates burden, cannot my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food get a few more million pounds to help to put the eradication fund back into solvency?

The Select Committee report makes it clear that

"it does not appear that MAFF has any contractual obligations to bail out the industry".

Is the Minister aware that I get the distinct impression that he is standing at the Dispatch Box bragging about how much the Government are paying in compensation? What sort of effort are the Government, especially the Minister, making to stamp out the disease? That is what my farmers want to know. Let us hear about it.

I am delighted to hear of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in the matter. Since the scheme began in March 1983, 500 herds, including 420,000 pigs, have been slaughtered. Since June 1984, only 17 cases have been confirmed, compared with 92 in May 1983 at the height of the campaign. There are likely to be a few remaining foci of infection, and the efforts of the state veterinary services are geared to identifying those few remaining cases.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that pig farmers are not financial experts, that the sum is modest compared with the rest of the agriculture budget, and that he is setting a dangerous precedent if he says that the Government will not be responsible for parts of the agricultural sector, if farmers have agreed otherwise, even if there is a risk of disease? One can, in particular, foresee antibiotic problems in fish farming.

In this case we had a scheme to deal with a disease, on which the industry placed high priority. The scheme was embarked upon at the specific request of the industry, on the absolute understanding that it was to be producer-financed and that Government money would not be involved. In spite of that, my Department has spent more than £3 million monitoring the programme. That is an extremely generous sum.

Does the Minister accept that to hide behind the absence of a contractural obligation is unacceptable to the farmers, that animal health is his responsibility, and that ultimately he must pay for the good health of our pig population?

I do not accept that. The industry said that it wanted to operate the scheme and would finance it. We said that the cost would be at least £6 million, and it has cost more than that. We made it clear that estimating how much it would cost was an unpredictable science. We should not pay any more towards the scheme on top of the £3 million.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what value are the United Kingdom's exports of confectionery for the last year for which figures are available.

Overseas trade statistics for 1984 provisionally value exports of sugar confectionery, not containing cocoa, and chocolate confectionery at £239,039,000.

In view of the importance of that key sector of the economy, will my hon. Friend, who represents the sponsoring Ministry, hold discussions with the representatives of overseas states which seek to restrict the import of confectionery? They are fixing artificial barriers to a leading food export product, and the sooner they understand that those artificial barriers are not in the interest of world trade, the better.

We are well aware of the industries involved. My hon. Friend discussed the matter with the Cocoa Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance at a meeting on 26 June, and it was the subject of an Adjournment debate on 24 May. We made it clear that we would continue to take every opportunity to dissuade United States authorities from imposing restrictions. Meanwhile, we remain in close touch with the United Kingdom trade and the Commission.

Does the Minister accept that the British confectionary industry is excellent and should be enjoying a greater share of the export trade? Will the Government ensure that both the United States of America and our Common Market partners are not allowed to erect artificial barriers, so enabling the industry to maintain and achieve the markets that it deserves?

I hope I made it clear that we shall argue the case strongly and in every forum that we can. The Government are committed to promoting exports and assisting exporters.

What is the value of our imports of confectionery? In view of the high standard of our industry, why do we need imports?

I cannot find the figure for the value of imports. I can tell my hon. Friend only that the value of our exports is £40 million to the United States alone.

Is not one of the constraints imposed by other countries the requirement for much more detailed listing of the sugar content of confectionery? Is that not a perfectly proper thing to do, which we would value in this country, so that people may choose what they eat?

We are not convinced that that is a perfectly proper thing to do. That is the case that we are making.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost of levies and duties to the average family of four due to the common agricultural policy arising from the difference between farmgate prices and cif to the United Kingdom port prices plus port charges, but excluding all European Economic Community tariffs and duties, for major traded agricultural commodities.

In 1984 the United Kingdom collected some £387 million of levies and duties on imports of agricultural products from countries outside the European Community, equivalent on average to about 53p per week for a family of four.

As my hon. Friend knows, agricultural support before we joined the Community was paid through taxation. Now agricultural support is paid through the common agricultural policy and through the infinitely higher price that Community produce sustains compared with world market prices. Effectively, that is a food tax on the consumer. I am sure that my hon. Friend would like eveybody to know what the factors are in the argument. Will she develop that theme so that we may know from week to week and month to month what food tax consumers in this country are paying?

Any question that my hon. Friend wants to table about the effects of levies similar to the one that I have just answered will, of course, be answered. However, I know my hon. Friend's views on Europe. Security of supply in Europe is valuable, too, although we are confronted with some surplus now, and there are other very good reasons for our membership of the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue advice to dairy farmers with milk quotas who wish to acquire further quota by means of leasing or purchase.

I am actively pursuing in Brussels changes to the Community regulations to allow quota to be transferred separately from land. There is resistance, however, and I cannot predict the outcome of our negotiations at this stage.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that one of the fundamental planks of the solution to the problem is knowing how long the quotas will stay, or whether quotas will be taken off or revised? Will my right hon. Friend press that point so that the industry is given the underlying confidence to enable it to plan?

As my hon. Friend knows, quotas were introduced for a period of five years, with a review at the end of three years. I was interested to see recently that the National Farmers Union issued a press statement saying that it hopes that quotas will remain. I understand that it would be an important matter if there were a free sale of quotas separately from land, but I do not believe that we shall be able to move towards taking a view one way or the other at least until the review at the end of the third year.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware that many dairy farmers in Britain are in dire financial trouble because of the Government's policy. He is well aware that he introduced a policy that was unacceptable to the people. Does he accept that many dairy farmers are trying to advise the Government to introduce a scheme to look after the interests of those who were severly hit in 1983–84?

I congratulate the hon. Member on what appears to be his reappointment as agricultural spokesman for the Liberal party. I note what he said about milk quotas. Travelling around the country as he does, I am sure he has discovered that farmers are becoming increasingly accustomed to working with milk quotas and seem to be attaching some importance to their continuance.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the acquisition by lease or straightforward purchase of an additional quota by dairy farmers is the only way that some of them will be able to remain in business and avoid having to sell some of their land or perhaps the whole farm? Will he give some guidance on, and inject some urgency into, the problem along the lines of the question asked originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)?

My hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters. He will know that I have said repeatedly that I should like to move as soon as possible to the leasing and sale of quotas. That will be done when we can get more support from other member states and from the Commission. At the moment, it would mean major changes in both Community and domestic legislation, and the Community and some member states are strongly resisting a sale and purchase scheme. It therefore follows that changes will be difficult to achieve, and I cannot predict the outcome of negotiations. I am pressing as hard as I can to get a leasing of quotas to meet the problem to which my hon. Friend has drawn our attention.

Will the Minister give serious consideration to the plight of the young dairy farmer who is in a position neither to purchase nor to lease a quota? Will he consider giving such people a start on the bottom of the ladder so that they may have a future? Without young dairy farmers coming in, the industry will eventually die.

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say many times that because of the problems of the young man starting in the dairy industry it is important to get more flexibility into the system. I have said that from the beginning, and I shall continue to do what I can to secure that flexibility.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be most helpful if we could get a united front in this country? Does he think that it would be a good idea to bring together the Country Landowners Association and the NFU so that they can reach a common decision? Does he further agree that the Liberal spokesman is probably away discussing the rating of agricultural land?

Events are moving so fast that I am not sure who is to be the Liberal spokesman on agriculture.

We cannot be sure who many of the party spokesmen will be in the autumn.

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a most important point. Many people tend to forget that this year we shall produce about 98 million tonnes of milk and consumption will be about 85 million tonnes. That is why the Commission is currently examining the possibility of another buy-out scheme financed either wholly or partly by the Community, in order to cancel that quota and reduce the 13 million tonnes surplus.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the level of returns in the beef fattening industry.

In the first half of 1985 producer returns, taken as market price plus variable premium for finished beef cattle, were slightly lower than in the corresponding period of 1984. This reduction was, however, partly offset by lower prices of compound feedingstuffs.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his efforts to retain the beef premium scheme, which has made so much difference to the industry, but does he agree that the business of beef fattening and finishing has now become so unprofitable that there is a real risk of the English beef joint disappearing from the Sunday dinner table?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said about the variable premium payments, which are worth between £2 million and £3 million a week to the industry. Intervention has played a greater role since the introduction of the carcase classification grid last year. The United Kingdom intake is now running at about 1,000 tonnes of forequarters per week. The suckler cow subsidy was doubled to £24·74 per cow last year. This year, the hill livestock compensatory allowances have become available in marginal areas for the first time. In addition, private storage aid was made available earlier this year.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware of the hardship and suffering that her Government are causing all people, but patients especially, because of the restricted drug list in the National Health Service? Is she aware also that old people now have to pay between £7 and £10 a week to obtain the drugs that they require, for which there are no alternatives? Will she shake up the Department of Health and Social Security, which admitted in a letter dated 17 June that it had not the resources to reply to the letters of complaint that it was receiving, to make sure that hon. Members can obtain information about what is likely to happen in the future? Will she take steps to make sure that the Department is overhauled and that the restructured list is extended?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the prescribed drug list. Every penny that is saved by prescribing generic drugs instead of specific named drugs goes back into patient care and therefore enables more medical services to be supplied. I should have expected the hon. Gentleman to be grateful for that. I shall look into his complaint about the Department's failure to reply to letters.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to condemn all racial harassment? Will she condemn especially those who jump to conclusions about these issues in advance of police investigations, especially in the Kassam case in my constituency?

I gladly join my hon. Friend in condemning unreservedly all racial harassment. It should not occur in a country such as ours. If it does, it must be dealt with. I agree with my hon. Friend that the specific case to which he refers is a matter for investigation and that it is not for us to jump to conclusions.

Since the Department of Health and Social Security now concedes that it possesses figures for both gainers and losers under the Government's new social security plans, why did the Prime Minister pretend that no such figures existed?

I have made it perfectly clear in the House that illustrative figures will be published at the right time when decisions have been taken on the White Paper and that no effective figures could be published until then.

If the figures had only this minimal importance, why was the paper which included them withdrawn from civil servants for destruction, on instructions from the Department, immediately after the Prime Minister made her dubious statement to the House a month ago?

I have made it very clear that the time to publish a range of figures is when decisions have been taken on the structure at the time of the publication of the White Paper. Other figures would be purely speculative. I note that the right hon. Gentleman has nothing more significant to ask.

The Prime Minister must know that she is wholly unconvincing when she tells us that the Department of Health and Social Security called in a paper and had it shredded for figures that were wholly speculative. Is it not more likely to be the case that she wanted to suppress the figures because they demonstrate that under her proposals 1·8 million families will lose housing benefit altogether, and 600,000 families will be denied supplementary benefit?

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked about his figures, he said:

"I am not going to put figures on two or three years hence."

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

With over 40 per cent. of tax revenues coming from those on below average income, does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to help the low paid, tax cuts must be the priority in her deliberations with her Cabinet colleagues?

Yes, I accept that tax cuts are a priority. As my hon. Friend is aware, we have done a great deal to increase the tax-free allowances. We have put up the tax-free allowances in our time by 20 per cent. in real terms. There is more to be done because, as my hon. Friend is aware, some 40 per cent. of pensioners come into the range of income tax and, as he has already said, many people below average earnings pay far too much income tax.

Will the Prime Minister deny the reports that were circulating last week that, instead of attending the world conference of Finance Ministers with the IMF and the World Bank in October, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be attending the Conservative party conference at Blackpool? Does she agree that it is time for British leadership on issues such as interest rates, currency stability, the fight against recession, Third world development, and debt, and will she tell her right hon. Friend that he really ought to go to the world conference?

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman thinks it surprising that the Chancellor should think it important to be at a party conference. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would not put off certain engagements to be at his own party conference.

With so many more newsworthy issues facing my right hon. Friend, will she not forget the problems that face agriculture as we go into the summer still with no agreement on cereals, and with a regime on dairy products which faces with ruin many small dairy farmers in hill and marginal land?

I am indeed aware that many small farmers have been placed in difficulty. As my hon. Friend is aware, we had to take action on the common agricultural policy, but it does not make sense to pour more and more money into surpluses. Therefore, we are taking action steadily to bring down the surpluses. I think that that is correct.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

Would the right hon. Lady care to define to the House and to the 11,000 people who had their homes repossessed last year because they could not pay their mortgages, 40 per cent. of whom went into arrears because of unemployment, the term "property-owning democracy"?

A record number—over 60 per cent.—of all people in houses own their own homes. That is excellent, and is in no way counteracted by the fact that a very small percentage have had their homes repossessed. The number of people having difficulties in meeting their mortgage payments is still well under 1 per cent. of the total.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

In view of my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) recognising the vital importance of tax cuts in generating economic growth and job creation, will she consider introducing an accelerated programme of disposal of state assets in order to support significant cuts in tax rates over a number of years? Will she recognise that that would have the added benefit of restoring much more of the economy to the disciplines of the competitive private sector?

Yes. It is important to go ahead with the privatisation programme for its own sake. It improves the performance of former nationalised industries, it enables many people working in those industries to come into share ownership for the first time and it enables managers to manage on a commercial basis. All those are good things in themselves and they help to reduce taxation.

Will the Prime Minister give further consideration during her busy day to her decision to abolish wages councils for workers aged under 21? I represent the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has a mass of members who come under the wages councils. Will the Prime Minister realise, as those people do, that her Government, having created mass unemployment, are using it to cut the standard of living of thousands of young workers throughout the country, including members of my union who know that their conditions will be worsened by the Government's action? Will the Prime Minister reconsider her decision and not abolish the wages councils?

No. The decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment yesterday will, I believe, improve the employment prospects of young people and will be a further step towards relieving the burden of regulations on small businesses. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 16 wages councils have been abolished since 1969, and 14 were abolished by Labour Governments.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the major problems in famine areas are the provision of transport and lack of infrastructure. Will she take advantage of next week's meeting in Washington of party leaders of the International Democrat Union to press for better co-operation in those areas, if necessary, by the secondment of NATO military personnel to the United Nations?

I am reluctant to try to do that centrally through the United Nations, as I do not think that it would be the best way. There is a United Nations relief co-ordinator in the stricken areas, including Ethiopia. We co-operate through him and he asks for bilateral military aid where it is required. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been giving considerable help in Ethiopia through the Hercules and by other means. I think that that bilateral action, through the United Nations local special coordinator, is the best way to continue.

In the light of the Prime Minister's statement to the American Bar Association earlier this week that no ransom would be paid for kidnapped people in this country, will she tell me why the Government have never taken action against insurance companies in the City of London which conduct a multi-million pound business providing insurance cover against ransoms after kidnaps? Does she agree that the existence of such policies is an encouragement to kidnapping, as is proved by the fact that everybody kidnapped in Britain and Ireland by terrorists over the past number of years held such policies?

I tend to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the existence of such policies is conducive to kidnapping and can encourage the kidnapper in his terrible work.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 18 July.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that a CBI report forecasts that 370,000 new jobs will be created in 1985? Does she agree that if that is realised 1 million new jobs will have been created since the last election? Is that not something to give hope to the unemployed?

The CBI report certainly gives hope. I hope that young people will be encouraged by the fact that 640,000 new jobs have been created in the last two years. As the news from Eurostat shows, more new jobs have been created in Britain in the last year than in the whole of the rest of the European Community.

Now that the House is about to go into recess, will the Prime Minister give a message of comfort to the nation and the House that she will not undertake any official visits during the recess?

Many people who have made important invitations would take considerable discomfort from such a reply.