asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what date he anticipates that the reforms he seeks in the common agricultural policy will be implemented.

We have made progress in agreeing the financial guideline, milk quotas and measures for the wine sector. We must make further progress this year, particularly with cereals and beef, in limiting the production of surplus commodities and the burden that they place on the budget.

A generation ago Professor Mansholt promised reforms of the common agricultural policy, yet this year we seem to have the highest prices, the highest subsidies and the lowest farm profits since the war. What will the Government do about that? Last year, for example, we gave away the 1 per cent. VAT limit, on the basis that the financial mechanism would work. If the financial mechanism does not work — many of us believe that it will not and said so at the time, when we also said that the dollar might go down—will my right hon. Friend put radical alternatives before the House, including the repatriation of our own agricultural produce?

My hon. Friend is a well known merchant of gloom and doom on these matters. I remind him that since the United Kingdom joined the Community productivity per person in agriculture has risen by more than 70 per cent., that the volume of output has risen by more than 18 per cent., that the volume of our exports of agricultural products, food and drink has risen by mom than 25 per cent., and that we now produce 80 per cent. of our needs in temperate foodstuffs compared with 60 per cent. in 1973.

At the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union the Minister told the farmers that he would not agree to anything that would discriminate against the British farmer. Did he say that to stop the farmers lynching him, or did he mean it? If he meant it, will he repeat it now at the Dispatch Box?

I have said many times that there are elements in the current price proposals which discriminate seriously against Britain's interests. I told the Council of Ministers in Brussels only last week that some of them were unacceptable.

What is the estimated impact of the movement of the exchange rate with the dollar? Does my right hon. Friend expect a supplementary budget in the EEC this year? Does he believe that the chronic surpluses in the CAP are a root cause of the problems? If so, what will he do about them?

The Commission and the Council are committed to the financial guidelines. It will be an important objective to ensure that it is held to in the coming negotiations on the CAP.

In the Financial Times this morning we read that the extra agricultural budget is likly to be not £450 million, but £1 billion. Is that what the Minister calls financial discipline?

In the negotiations that lie ahead of us we have to seek further savings so that we can live within our financial guideline.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to meet representatives of food manufacturers.

I am regularly in touch with representatives of food manufacturers. Whilst I have no immediate plans to meet them, I am ready to do so on specific problems at any time.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. I am glad to learn that he is ready to meet the food manufacturers to discuss specific matters. Is he aware that they now accept the need for, and the desirability of, the removal of the Official Secrets Act as it applies to the food advisory committees? Will the Minister meet representatives of the food industry so that he can discuss this matter with them and tell them when he intends to legislate on the issue, so that the secrecy surrounding the use of additives to food can be broken and the public can have access to and knowledge of what takes place?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is still pursuing a very old story which I thought had been put to rest. He should know, and I am surprised that he has not seen the statements which have been made, that members of the committees do not have to sign the Official Secrets Act. However, some information which comes their way is commercially sensitive and they are asked, in the same way as any Government Department is, to observe the need to keep it confidential.

Is the Minister not aware that his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, whose absence we regret and who is our sparring partner on these matters, has said that there are some formal limitations on secrecy in the advisory committees? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the formal thing that the members are asked to sign, even within the parameters that he has outlined to us about the confidentiality of business agreements?

As I said earlier, members of the committees are not required to sign the Official Secrets Act. However, certain information is given which is commercially private and the committees are asked to keep it that way. I think that that is the only reasonable way in which to proceed. I hope that at some time the hon. Gentleman will look at the huge mass of technical material which these committees churn out. We are trying to make further information available through the British Library in the immediate future if we can arrange it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to ensure that the price proposals agreed by the Counicl of Ministers encourage a reduction in surplus commodities within the common agricultural policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes in agricultural policy he is seeking in order to respond to the present and prospective levels of food production in the United Kingdom and the European Community.

In order to tackle the problems of the CAP we are seeking in this year's price negotiations and over a period of years to secure price proposals and other measures to limit the production of surplus commodities and the burden that they place on the budget.

I am glad the Minister recognises that there are serious problems in the CAP. May I remind him that in Europe in 1985 we had surpluses of 10·5 million tonnes of wheat, 2 million tonnes of barley, 0·5 million tonnes of beef and 1 million tonnes of butter? What does the Minister propose to do to remove these surpluses? Can he not give them to the pensioners or pass them on to the Third world?

No one who has followed any of the speeches, comments or work done by Ministers could possibly ignore the fact that we want to reduce these surpluses. The hon. Gentleman would make a great deal more fuss if there was shortage of food.

Is the Minister aware of the deep and intensifying anxiety which is felt in the farming community, which has been illustrated by the substantial fall of 40 per cent. in the price of land in some areas? Is he aware that farmers believe that his right hon. Friend is guilty of serious intertia, which was illustrated during the previous Question Time when he said that he had been looking at the matter urgently for months?

I do not think that the farmers would hold that view. They know perfectly well that we are now living in a world of surplus, rather than of shortage, and if the hon. Gentleman looks back at his Government's performance he will see that they did nothing to prepare the country for it.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise that the farming industry is worried that it might be unreasonably discriminated against in the search to find ways in which the surpluses can be reduced? Will he take special care in his negotiations in Brussels to ensure that British agriculture is not disadvantaged?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on one aspect which has to be part of the negotiations. It is right to expect the farming industry throughout Europe to bear the burden of dealing with surpluses. The burden must be borne fairly. It must not land unfairly on the backs of farmers in Britain compared with what happens to their neighbours in Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that the recent downward movement of the dollar could count as an exceptional circumstance?

I do not believe that we can solve the problems of agriculture unless we are prepared to adhere to the financial guidelines which have been agreed.

What action is the Minister taking within the Council of Ministers to stop the dumping of subsidised surpluses in Third world countries? Is he aware that sugar is being sold below the market price in Jamaica, thus causing great devastation to the economy of that country and making it much more difficult for countries such as Jamaica to repay their debts?

The hon. Gentleman should be a little more careful about the detail of what is happening to the sugar market in Jamaica and other countries, because the situation is much more complicated than he suggests. I hope that he will have a word with his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) about the supply of surpluses to developing countries.

Can my right hon. Friend arrange for a study trip to he organised for Labour Members who complain about surpluses? I suggest that there should he a study trip to examine food production in the Soviet Union, where I understand they have overcome the problems of surpluses quite successfully.

My hon. Friend is right. Almost every major part of the world produces enough food to feed its people, except the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc, which are incompetent.

Will the Minister consider instituting research into breadmaking wheat, so that it can be grown in Britain instead of being imported from abroad, and so reduce the massive surpluses of cereals in this country and in the Common Market generally?

The hon. Gentleman is a little behind the times, and he does down the previous Labour Government. Over the past few years the Chorley Wood process has made it possible for us to use to a large extent breadmaking wheat which has been grown in Britain. It is only the particularly bad weather of this year that has meant that the quality of our wheat, unusually, has not been suitable for breadmaking, and as a consequence we have had to import suitable wheat.

indicated dissent.

The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but it is clear that he does not know the facts.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no matter how much the dollar falls and thus creates greater expenditure in disposing of surpluses, this will not be used by the Government as an excuse for asking for an increase in the VAT contribution to the EEC?

My hon. Friend is the last person in the House to demand that any member of the Government answer a question which begins, "No matter what happens to something, will he confirm?" I shall therefore not confirm.

Is the Minister aware that one reason for the chaos in the CAP is all the fiddling and fraud that takes place in the Common Market? Is he further aware that last night the Minister of State, Treasury admitted that the Mafia was being investigated because it was saying that there were so many hundred olive trees in Italy, when they existed on paper only? Is he aware also that Northern Irish farmers are sending cattle across the border so many times in order to get increased export rebates that the cattle almost know the way themselves?

It must be an amazement to the House that the hon. Gentleman belongs to a party which had a reputation for being internationalist. His constant attacks on anyone who happens to live abroad are becoming bywords.

In which areas in which the Community is currently in surplus does my right hon. Friend expect surpluses to be reduced this year?

One would not expect changes in agriculture to take place rapidly. Any one who understands the farming industry realises that the crops for this year have already been planted. Therefore, my hon. Friend will accept that the changes that will be made, and the attack on the surplus that will take place, cannot result in a change in this year's harvest.

Will the Minister condemn the European Commission for putting forward price proposals which break the financial guidelines which the House was told by the Government last year were binding on the Council and the Commission?

We are in the business of winning the point. We have to solve the problems of surpluses within the financial guidelines laid down and within the competence of British farmers to provide their fair share of the burden. I am not one of those who go around condemning what has been done. I am seeking an answer.

Does the Minister agree that one of the most effective ways of controlling surpluses is through variable premiums, such as is used in the beef sector? Can he assure us that the beef variable premium will be negotiated successfully at this round?

As we are in the business of negotiating the kind of assurance which the hon. Gentleman wishes in advance, he cannot expect me to sum it up in those words. We are going into these negotiations intending, as we have in the past, to defend the beef variable premium, which is of great importance to the British farmer.

Will the Minister tell the House, in whatever time scale crops need to be harvested, whether cereal surpluses will come down within the next three years?

It is the Government's firm intention to fight for policies which will bring down cereal surpluses, not just in three years, but as soon as possible. That means that we must start on it now. The hon. Gentleman must accept—

We want facts.

The hon. Gentleman asks for facts, but one of the facts of farming life is that one does not know what the weather will be like. It shows how little Opposition Members know about agriculture. The fact is that surpluses can be fundamentally altered by whether or not we have a good grain growing period.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future funding of Food from Britain.

I have made clear the extent of Government support for Food from Britain until 1991 provided industry is also willing to contribute. Discussions on industry funding are continuing and I am hopeful that satisfactory arrangements will be agreed soon.

Does the Minister regard it as satisfactory that the budget for Food from Britain is being cut from £6·3 million to £4·8 million in the forthcoming year? Will the Minister step in to make good this shortfall, or will he allow this attempt to promote British foods abroad languish through lack of finances and lack of Government backing?

The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. He will remember that originally the Government promised £14 million over the first five years as pump-priming funds. Out of that arrangement, there remains for 1986–87 the £3 million that was promised, and that will be paid. For 1987–88 there is £2 million, which will be paid.

Is the Minister aware that in agriculture there is always satisfactory funding for everyone except farm workers? Is he aware that farm workers now receive a basic wage of £89 a week? That is for a week, not the figures which are usually given for a week and a half, including overtime. When will the Minister answer the justified demands of the farm workers union for a decent living wage for the profits that its members have created?

That was a bit wide of funding Food from Britain.

I was wondering by what stretch of the imagination that supplementary question could attach itself to this question, which is about Food from Britain. If Food from Britain is allowed, as I hope it will be, to continue its good work, that will be in the interests of farmers, farm workers, the consumer and the taxpayer alike.

I remind my right hon. Friend that Food from Britain was launched when our food supply was more or less in equilibrium. Is there not now a need to strengthen our export efforts as we have a large surplus in most commodities?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He has put his finger on it. It is important, as marketing becomes more and more essential, that the industry should—as I know it is trying to do—give Food from Britain its full support so that it may do its job properly.

How can Food from Britain survive as an effective organisation in the present circumstances? I agree with the Minister that the industry ought to provide more funds for it, but failing that, how can it survive? Is it the Department's intention to guarantee the future of Food from Britain? If not, how can we have an effective organisation to promote the sale of food from Britain at home and abroad?

The hon. Gentleman should recall that last October I announced that when the £14 million pump-priming funds ran out in 1987–88, up to £2·5 million would be available in each of the subsequent years to 1990–91, and that would be done on the basis of £1 for every £2 from industry. The industry greeted the announcement with a great deal of enthusiasm and gratitude, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so carping about it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many boardings by United Kingdom fishery protection vessels took place in the month of January.

During January 1986, 115 vessels were boarded by United Kingdom fishery protection vessels.

Does the Minister accept that those figures include only 17 boardings of Spanish vessels, but 56 boardings of British vessels? Does that not give the impression that British fishing is not being adequately protected by the Minister, despite all the promises that he has made?

The hon. Gentleman, who relies on such an impression, has not looked at the facts. The system that we have imposed is widely accepted by fishermen as being extremely effective. One of the fishing vessels which was boarded and found guilty was fined heavily. The French give us information about every boat that passes through their waters, so that we can track them extremely carefully. There is no doubt in my mind that we can control the entry of Spanish fishing vessels into our waters, and that the common fisheries policy is a major success.

I applaud the attitude of my right hon. Friend in trying to clamp down on illegal Spanish fishing, especially off Cornwall, but will he confirm my impression that there has been a sharp decrease in the number of arrests during the past few weeks, and give an assurance that there will be no let-up in the drive against illegal fishing by Spain in the south-west?

There will be no let-up whatsoever. That is why we have increased the number of surveillances and the amount of resources available. My hon. Friend has pressed me on the matter, and I continue to say that. The fact is that if people keep the rules and we have tight rules, and if our system works closely with that of our French and Irish colleagues, we can stop ships breaking the law and bring them to court. That is what has been happening.

Is the Minister aware of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee report on fishery protection, which recommends that Scottish courts should punish illegal fishing with the same severity as the Norwegian courts do? What does he think about that recommendation as applied to English courts?

If the hon. Gentleman studies recent fines imposed by English courts, especially in the southwest, he will see that they have been exemplary and heavy and have caused a decline in the amount of illegal fishing. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) will agree on that. I cannot comment on the effects in the Scottish courts, because that is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

In view of the importance of fishery patrols, can the Minister give an assurance that with the disappearance of the metropolitan authorities, either bodies such as the Lancashire and North-Western Sea Fisheries will receive alternative funds, or there will be alternative structures to safeguard their activity?

It is for members of the body to decide whether they wish to continue on it. We have examined the activities of that body carefully, and, we will ensure that none of the necessary activities for the proper control of fisheries will fall into desuetude if they are not covered elsewhere.

Is the Minister aware that one of the recommendations in the Scottish Affairs Select Committee report on fisheries protection refers to the replacement of the fisheries protection vessel Noma? Will the Minister urge on his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the advisability of that replacement vessel being built by Ferguson Ailsa in Port Glasgow?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have to make up his mind on that, and that it is not an area in which I can make recommendations to him.

When the Minister considers his Department's response to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee report which was published yesterday, will he, in particular, adopt the practice in Norway, so that third country vessels must notify the DAFS direct, instead of simply notifying Brussels, so that a more efficient, but not over-bureaucratic, scheme can monitor foreign vessels near our shores?

I will look at that point. I remind the hon. Gentleman that European Community vessels, including Spanish vessels, have to give direct information as they pass into the British sector from the French sector, and they provide similar information to the French. In that way we have been able to keep very close control over their movements. I will certainly examine the matter closely.

Does the Minister agree that his attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) was totally unjustified, as the figures that my hon. Friend quoted were given to me by the Minister in a written answer on 24 February? Will he confirm that the number of boardings of United Kingdom vessels in January was comparable to the number of boardings of the rest of the EEC fleet put together? Should the Minister not be directing his attention and efforts towards the countries which have a track record of abuse, rather than bashing British fishermen?

My answer and the figures were absolutely correct. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's presence today. He was absent from the debate on salmon fishing earlier in the week, which appeared to have been hi-jacked by the Scots. There are two ways of ensuring that we are successful in our policing. The first is to bring large numbers of people before the courts. Alternatively, people should obey the law. I was right to tell the hon. Gentleman that his impression was wrong and that he does not know the facts.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will relocate the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce.

I am currently considering this question.

Why have so many of these quangos been allowed to set up camp along the Thames Valley? Would it not be cheaper to move the board to the north of England and thereby provide much-needed jobs into the bargain?

I rather guessed that my hon. Friend would ask that question. I assure him that if a move were proposed, the merits of alternative locations, including the north-east of England, would be considered.

As the board's stocks of cereals doubled to 5·7 million tonnes and its stocks of beef increased to 85,000 tonnes last year, will the Minister reconsider the way in which those stocks are relocated? Why not give the British consumer the benefit of some of those stocks instead of handing them out cheaply to the Russians?

The hon. Gentleman will know very well that I have for a long time expressed similar concern about the level of surplus stocks within the Community. However, that matter is not within the question, which is about relocating the intervention board.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of land at present farmed he estimates will be surplus to agricultural needs by 1990.

Further measures clearly need to be taken within the Community to cut back production of commodities now in surplus. I see this as leading to changes in the existing pattern of land use in agriculture and forestry, rather than to the creation of substantial areas of land which are no longer in production.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many authorities in the industry believe that about 10 per cent. of current production will be surplus to requirements by 1990? Will that not present the farming industry with its greatest challenge and opportunity for more than half a century? Will it not need a structure on which it can plan for the future, and will my right hon. Friend provide such a structure?

Yes, I think that we must give serious thought to the possibility that there may be a need for a change of land use in that way. It is very dangerous to be too specific about that. Any changes will depend on a number of factors, such as the nature and level of Community support, the level of Community and world demand for temperate foodstuffs, the relative efficiency of our industry, technological improvements that might take place and the extent to which other countries outside the community, particularly the United States, are successful in developing their agricultural policies.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that he is dealing with the problem of food surpluses without mentioning cutting prices. I urge him to persuade the Government to call for a world food conference to try to deal with this problem, which cannot be dealt with either in the United Kingdom or in Europe alone.

I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind. If I have not said it already, I fear that I must tell my hon. Friend now that I see no prospect of reducing the huge surpluses of foodstuffs in the Community unless we have a stringent price policy.

Is there not a case for substantial and immediate higher priority to be conferred on conservation? Does the situation not justify serious consideration being given to the additional production of cellulose on non-arable land?

The hon. Gentleman is right to think that environmentally sensitive areas should play an important part in the business of land use. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as any other hon. Member the initiatives that the Government have taken in the Community and which are enshrined in the legislation before the House to provide for environmentally sensitive areas. I hope that we shall be able to set the ESAs before too long. I think that that goes a long way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's point.

If consideration is to be given to taking land out of production deliberately, does my right hon. Friend agree that attention must be given to the impact of that on the stability of rural areas?

That is correct. That is why I said in my original answer that we should look for changes in the existing pattern of land use rather than to the creation of substantial areas of land which are no longer in production.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in 1990, which is the year to which the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) referred, only five ESAs will exist? In view of the difficulties in changing agriculture production patterns, is it not time that the Minister stated the level of forestry and alternative crops that will be available to farming at that time?

We have said that we hope, in the first instance, to set up five ESAs. The hon. Gentleman has welcomed that move. That is for this year. What may be done in future years is a matter for future decision.

Whatever the surpluses may be, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the policies presently applied to encourage—not to allow —the growing of opium-producing poppies as a cash crop in Britain without any sense of responsibility in relation to how that crop might encourage the misuse of drugs? The rest of the Government are trying to contain that problem.

We are looking into these matters. I am sure the House agrees that we must not do anything that allows illegal drugs to become more freely available.

What does my right hon. Friend expect farmers to grow instead of surplus barley — trees or caravans? Is it not high time that we had a strategic document spelling out the way in which agriculture is supposed to go?

I am sure that my hon. Friend has heard me say on many occasions that I believe that it is necessary for us to consider carefully the opportunity to grow more trees. I hope that he has seen the consultative document that we issued some months ago on encouraging more farm woodlands.

Mr. Maclennan.

rose—

Oh!

Does my right hon. Friend agree that allowing every village and small town of fewer than 7,000 people to expand its housing stock by 10 per cent. would be the most advantageous way of using our surplus land?

Yes, I am sure that every hon. Member will agree that where housing needs to be provided, one should go to every possible extent to find suitable land for development.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his review of finance and administration of land drainage and coast protection will be complete.

Our aim is to complete the review as soon as possible.

Why were the conservation aspects of land drainage not addressed in the Government's most recent Green Paper on land drainage? Could the reason be that the argument between the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food still rages and, as a result, no clear decisions can be taken? As privatisation now seems to be on the agenda, may we have assurances that there will be a new Green Paper and the fullest possible consultation on conservation aspects?

The answer to the first part of the question is no, Sir. The answer to the second part is that there will be the fullest possible consultation on conservation interests.

Contrary to the politically inspired question by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), may I ask what my right hon. Friend is doing about the pressing need for coastal defence work along the coastline in Sussex around Seaford? This community is waiting upon certain bodies. Will my hon. Friend reconsider the parsimonious allocation this year?

I shall look carefully at this matter. In my area of Anglia similar problems arise, and no firm decisions have yet been taken, but we are aware of my hon. Friend's concern and that of local authorities.

As the Secretary of State for the Environment told the House on 5 February that land drainage and flood protection were the one responsibility of local authorities that would not be privatised, what residual public water authority will assume these responsibilities? I presume that the right hon. Gentleman must have a considerable constituency interest.

I have important ministerial and constituency interests. When the time comes for us to continue our discussions, we shall produce some answers to that question.

When it comes to coastal protection, would it not be infinitely fairer if this were charged on central Government funds instead of on local ratepayers and water authorities?

There are those who put that view, but there is also an argument and a case to say that those who benefit most particularly should make some major contribution towards it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious situation in my constituency, at Horsey? Will he give urgent attention to the problem of coastal protection there?

This is primarily a matter for the Anglian water authority, but I shall look particularly at my hon. Friend's concern.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends consultation on his proposals following the COMA report to be concluded; and if he will make a statement.

We have asked for comments on the labelling proposals announced on 13 February to be submitted by 1 May of this year.

I thank the Minister for his answer, but will he consider requesting, by law, manufacturers to label foods with polyunsaturated fats, as recommended in the COMA report?

We have, of course, already accepted that it will be necessary by law to insist on fat content labelling, but one cannot restrict it to that. The intention is to provide the housewife or consumer with a range of information, much of which will be given voluntarily by food manufacturers. We hope to provide in this consultation a framework so that information given on different products will be readily understandable. The Ministry and the hon. Gentleman are very much on the same side.

Do we not spend billions of pounds on eating to make ourselves unhealthy, and then spend billions of more pounds, which we find increasingly hard to muster, on patching ourselves up after these excesses? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend undertake to have a word with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Chief Secretary about these "Ubuesque" arrangements, and put it to them that a rather more generous budget for research into how we can produce the elements for a healthy diet, vegetables for example, might rapidly be justified by significant, consequential savings on expenditure on the Health Service?

I have not noticed any shortage of healthy food. Healthy food is available. However, the housewife and the consumer must be in a position to choose what he or she wants to buy. This Government are concerned about providing them with that information. The choice must be theirs. We do not want a nanny state which tells people what they ought to eat.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the arrangements for poultrymeat exports to the United States of America.

Discussions with the United States authorities on access to their market are proceeding.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of this industry to rural areas such as Ludlow, where poultrymeat exports provide a substantial element of employment? Will he bear this in mind during the negotiations?

My hon. Friend is quite right when he speaks of the importance of this country's poultry industry and its need to secure access to the largest number of markets. During his recent visit to the United States my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food raised these matters with the Agriculture Department there. We shall seek to do our best to defend and extend the opportunities for the British poultry industry.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 6 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 this House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the National Pensioners Convention.

Does the right hon. Lady realise that the pensioners' lobby today indicates not only deep anxiety among our old folk but deep anxiety about them in the nation as a whole? Does she further realise that if the Government had clung to the Labour Government's formula of uprating pensions according to the cost of living or national average earnings, the pensioner and his dependent wife would be £6·50 better off today? Why does the hon. Lady not address her mind to this question? She will hear about it later from the Trades Union Congress. Would this not be a handy sum with which old people could meet their fuel bills instead of freezing to death?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the previous Government's policies led to the International Monetary Fund and to peak inflation, the highest that this country has ever known. This Government kept their pledge to protect pensions against the rise in prices. In fact, pensions have increased by nine percentage points more than prices and we have brought down the inflation that destroyed the savings of pensioners in the 1970s.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider whether sterling should join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system? Is she aware that Mr. Sam Brittan has argued that this could allow us to reduce the level of interest rates prevailing in Britain? Does she agree that, by any definition, sterling is now more competitive since the decline in the exchange rate in recent weeks and that it may therefore be, in the time-honoured phrase, that the time is ripe for sterling to become a member of the exchange rate mechanism?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am asked this question regularly, usually on the basis that "now" is the time to go in. I was asked it when the pound bought DM 3.70. It now buys about DM 3.20. Those who asked that question then must be rather glad that we did not go in, because we should have suffered rather grievously if we had. One day, when we think that the time is appropriate, we shall join the EMS. We do not think that it is appropriate to do so at the moment.

When the Prime Minister meets the pensioners' delegation this afternoon, will she explain to them why she is deliberately ensuring that the value of the old-age pension next year will be 3 per cent. less in real terms than it is this year? Is that not a deliberate betrayal of her pledge to protect the poor and those who are most in need?

I shall explain to them that the pension has gone up by nine percentage points more than prices, that we have kept our pledges to the pensioners and that if we were to accept all of the National Pensioners Convention proposals the cost would be at least £20 billion a year. That would add at least £16 a week to the national insurance contributions of those on average earnings as well as requiring substantial increases in income tax and value added tax. That, and a lot more, I shall explain.

The Prime Minister must surely know that if she claims that pensions have gone up in real terms by 9 per cent. under her Government, they went up by 20 per cent. in real terms under the last Labour Government. As she is so fond of referring to the record of the last Labour Government, why does she not have the decency to match it?

I am not prepared to go back to the inflationary policies of the last Labour Government. That is the way to destroy the savings of pensioners. What the last Labour Government were prepared to do was to create inflation, claim big pension increases and pay for those pension increases by debasing the savings of pensioners. We will not carry out such a dishonest policy.

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

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

Does my right hon. Friend welcome the statement by President Botha of South Africa on the ending of the state of emergency in his country? Does she believe that this vindicates our policy of continuing to talk to the South Africans, and does she now expect the Opposition parties to welcome the statement as a further advance in the country of South Africa?

I welcome very warmly President Botha's decision to lift the state of emergency in South Africa. I hope that it will lead to reduced tension and that it will bring nearer the prospect of a genuine dialogue between the South African Government and black South Africans.

Is the Prime Minister aware that many people will view the decision taken in the High Court yesterday as a further attack on local democracy —[Interruption.] It is she and her Government who should be before the courts to answer for the misery and hardship which she and her Government have imposed upon 750,000 people in Lambeth and Liverpool by savage cuts in the local government expenditure of authorities which are trying to remedy the damage which she and her Government are doing to inner cities.

Government and local government are answerable to the courts, as everyone who believes in the rule of law knows.

If I may revert to the question of pensions, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy on inflation is the best way of protecting pensioners and their savings, and that we should not be deflected from sticking to that course, which is a way of giving them honest money?

I agree wholly with my hon. Friend. There has to be the certainty that Governments will run prudent financial policies and therefore get stability in their financial dealings.

When suggestions are again made, as they already have been made this afternoon, that we should return to the miseries and follies of a fixed exchange rate for sterling, will the Prime Minister remain deaf to these unwise promptings?

The right hon. Gentleman heard my reply earlier. These suggestions are made regularly. I think that, had we listened to them earlier, we would have found ourselves in some difficulty in view of the fluctuation in exchange rates which inevitably comes through having a currency rather different from those in the rest of Europe. We must continue to take that factor into account.

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

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

When my right hon. Friend meets the National Pensioners Convention this afternoon, will she explain to it that the inflationary policies of Her Majesty's Opposition will crucify the savings of pensioners?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will do just that. Not only that, but if we ever returned to a period when inflation went up sharply by 25 per cent. or so, to put up the pension by that amount may increase its value for a few days, but it would rapidly lose that value as inflation ate away the increase.

Does the Prime Minister draw no lessons from the last couple of months from the way that many pensioners did freeze in the very cold spell when heating allowances were shown to be inadequate? [Interruption.] Hon. Members can jeer but there must be many of their constituents who suffered greviously. Surely the Prime Minister will at least try to change this situation by next year.

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government's record on payments for heating is far better than that of the Government of which he was a member. The facts show that. He cannot possibly get over that, no matter how much he trys to wave it away with his hand. It is because he has not got the answer that he asks such stupid questions.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that the projected population increase in Britain to the end of the century is 1 million. Is she aware that the population of the world has risen by 1 million in the past five days? What plans does she have to meet that growing demand for the world's resources.

The growth of world population is discussed in international forums, particularly when we deal with our aid programmes. My hon. Friend will understand that we try to help those programmes that are designed to reduce the increase.

Is the Prime Minister aware that every hon. Member is being badgered every day about the Shops Bill? In order to influence hon. Members before they vote, will she arrange for the Second Reading of the Bill to take place at 9.30 am on a Sunday, in the same way as we meet on a Friday, and, so that we may experience the effects of the Transport Act 1985, will she arrange for everybody to get here by public transport?

The hon. Gentleman makes his point. I think that I have got it. I think that it was in favour of extra choice in Sunday trading.

Will my right hon. Friend find a moment today, or before the end of the week, to have a word with my right hon. Friend sitting on her right, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and inquire of him why in the world British farmers are encouraged to grow opium poppies as a cash crop in the face of all the other admirable activities of her Government to fight drug misuse?

My right hon. Friend says that he is looking into it. Strenuous efforts are made to ensure that the growth of that crop, necessary for pharmaceutical drugs, cannot be turned to illegal use.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister give urgent attention to the plight of sacked miners? Is she aware that there are 11 from my constituency, 74 from my county of Durham and 520 nationally, that many of them have won their appeals through industrial tribunals and that many have been acquitted by the courts? Before she adopts a Pontius Pilate role, saying that is a matter for the National Coal Board, will she realise that the re-employment of those miners will be the biggest single step that can be taken to begin to restore good relations in the coal industry, and will she bring pressure to bear on the Coal Board to do that?

The hon. Gentleman in part anticipated my reply. Of course it is a matter for the NCB, but I understand that one case is before the courts, to which I can make no reference. That is a matter for the courts to decide. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the important thing is to have an efficient coal industry. Productivity has increased enormously. It needs to increase a good deal further, particularly with the fall in the price of oil, which has to compete with coal. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, despite the improved performance, the taxpayer will still put about £1·5 billion into the coal industry this year.

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

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a scandal that some pensioners have died from hypothermia, some are living below the poverty line and some cannot turn on the heating because they fear the very high electricity and gas charges? What will the Prime Minister do for our elderly citizens?

I gave the figures in answer to another question, but I shall repeat them. When the Labour Government were in power, the amount available for heating addition was £90 million. In 1979 deaths from hypothermia were at the highest level ever. Since then we have increased the amount available for heating to £400 million and there are amounts for severe weather payments. May I also remind the hon. Gentleman that in the lifetime of the Labour. Government the price of electricity went up by 6 per cent. every four months and that under this Government the price of electricity has gone up only by 6 per cent. in three years? So pensioners have had a far better deal under this Government than they ever had under a Labour Government.