asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he proposes to revise the guidelines given to his staff engaged in conservation duties, in the light of the proposals contained in the Agriculture Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Assuming that the agriculture Bill passes into law, I shall draw its provisions to the attention of all staff and issue guidance on their implementation.

The Agriculture Bill imposes conservation responsibilities which are to be welcomed, especially on the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, yet the Minister is cutting the staff that will fulfil those statutory responsibilities. Does that not show that he is paying only lip service to conservation and that he has no realistic commitment to it? When will he provide the additional staff necessary?

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the new clause that we moved to the Agriculture Bill, where we have taken on further responsiblities for conservation.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the new clause, which shows the Government's commitment to conservation. Does he agree that, as well as having guidelines, his officials need training in how to secure a balance between conservation and agriculture? What is my right hon. Friend doing to provide that necessary training?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comment. We are arranging courses. There have been a number over the past few years for ADAS staff so that they can better give advice on conservation matters.

Does the Minister not realise that the House will require some details about exactly how the training will be implemented? Is it merely a token or a factor in the chess game currently taking place with the Department of the Environment, or does the right hon. Gentleman really mean it to be effective? If so, how will he make it so?

The hon. Gentleman has complimented my Department on the steps that we are taking to become more and more interested in conservation matters. It is surprising and disappointing therefore that he should question our good will on those matters. We are determined to further our duties for conservation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to announce the details of the European Economic Community outgoers scheme which the Commission has proposed; and if he will make a statement.

Discussions on the proposals for a Community outgoers scheme are continuing in the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

Will my right hon. Friend say what plans he has for tenants at the end of their tenancies?

As my hon. Friend will know, under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenants are entitled to compensation in recognition of the value of improvements they have made on the holding. At the same time, it seems reasonable that they should also receive some recognition of the contribution they have made to the milk quota allocated to the holder. There is a later question on the Order Paper on this subject, but I can say that we are tabling an amendment to the Agriculture Bill today to provide for that.

Does the Minister agree that at least a 50–50 split between tenants and landlords as to the allocation of milk quota in the outgoers scheme would be the right move?

It would be a mistake to start talking about percentages in these terms, because circumstances vary enormously from individual to individual. In general, we should leave the detailed discussions on these matters to arbitrators.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that under the amendment that he tables later today the arbitration process will provide no built-in structural advantage to either the landlord or the tenant?

We have had discussions with the representative bodies, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, on how this form of arbitration might be worked. We have made our proposals on the basis of those discussions.

Will the Minister tell the House whether the Commission's discussions on the outgoers scheme covered the workers in the farming, dairy distributive and processing industries? The workers in those industries have been made unemployed and creameries have been shut down. There is a great difference in redundancy payments for people who will probably never get another job because of the Government's policies on employment.

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of redundancy payments for dairy industry workers over a period of time. I have listened to him, but I have to tell him that when the dairy industry was discussed in the Council of Ministers that particular aspect of the matter was not considered

Will the amendment which my right hon. Friend will table today contain references to the matters which arbitrators should and should not take into account when they come to their conclusions?

My hon. Friend will see from the amendment that an attempt has been made to give arbitrators the parameters within which they may work.

It is deplorable that the redundancy rights of employees in the dairy industry were not discussed in the Council of Ministers. Will the Minister say more about the Government's attitude towards compensation for tenants and the right of tenants to a fair share of the value of their milk quota? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we would oppose any settlement which gave tenants less than 50 per cent. of the value of their quota?

With regard to discussions in the Council of Ministers, although I have many responsibilities, I cannot be responsible—although, at the time, I was temporarily presiding over the Council of Ministers—for what Ministers from other Community countries seek to raise.

The right hon. Gentleman could have raised it.

This was the first and only occasion on which we had discussed the details of the Commission's proposed outgoers scheme, and redundancy rights of dairy workers were not raised in the course of the discussion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the depth of feeling among west country tenant farmers that the present proposals do not adequately recognise their contribution to farming units? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under his present proposals, the average tenant would receive only about a third of the available compensation? Surely that is inadequate and should not be approved.

We have not yet tabled an amendment, although we shall do so later today. My hon. Friend should think in terms of the burden being put on the ingoing tenant who follows a tenant who received substantial compensation. That is all part of the equation. It is a mistake to attach specific figures, because there will be a wide range of levels of compensation once the arbitrators have done their work.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what talks he has had with colleagues in Europe with a view to altering proposals to pay only headage payments on a limited number of beef fattening animals.

At the meeting of the Agriculture Council on 24 and 25 March my right hon. Friend and I made it clear to our colleagues in the rest of Europe that we were opposed to discrimination between producers being introduced into the CAP market support arrangements.

I am sure the Minister will agree that the variable premium has served United Kingdom beef producers and consumers well for the past 12 years. Does he agree that it would be better to press for the retention of the present scheme than to go for the alternative headage payments scheme?

We shall certainly continue to argue the merits of the variable premium scheme. The fact that the Commission is now proposing some sort of premium system is an advance, but it is a fixed premium, not a variable one. Obviously the variable one helps, because it responds to market forces much more effectively.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the hill compensatory amount for the suckler cow subsidy and premium are essential to the welfare and economic progress of hill and less-favoured area farms? Will he please make every endeavour to maintain the programme that we have had in the recent past?

I certainly recognise the great importance of those particular arrangements. We are determined to see that proper arrangements continue and, above all, that no arrangement is introduced for beef and ewes which will discriminate against our larger flocks and herds.

Has the Commission any evidence whatever that the livestock sector and, particularly, the cattle fatteners are making an indecent level of profit? If so, what is it? What would happen if there were a restriction on the payments for livestock farmers? Would that not depress store cattle and calf prices, causing a knock-on effect on dairy producers?

I am sure that the Commission does not have that evidence. It is attempting to change the regime so that the present situation, in which meat is taken into storage with the result that it immediately loses value, does not exist. The moment meat goes into cold store, value is lost. The Commission is proposing a range of changes which will take that into account. I hope that my hon. Friend will be both tough with us in determining that the solution is good for Britain, but willing to accept that the Commission is trying to produce a decent answer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much acreage the Forestry Commission currently owns in England and in Wales.

The Forestry Commission does not own any land in England and Wales. Ownership of such land is vested in the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Wales respectively, and the land is formally placed at the disposal of forestry commissioners to manage in accordance with their statutory duties. As at 31 March 1985, the Forestry Commission managed approximately 439,000 hectares of land in England and Wales.

In view of the thwarting of the right hon. Gentleman's plans to sell off the family silver, will he accept his defeat by the Secretary of State for Scotland with good grace?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 21 February by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).

Will my right hon. Friend please ensure that sale of any land managed on his behalf by the Forestry Commission is carried out in circumstances that are, and are seen to be, open, honest and above board? Will he give the House an assurance that the Forestry Commission will do no secret deals with developers, and that all land that is sold will be sold on open tender?

The Forestry Commission aims to ensure that all potential purchasers are given proper opportunity to express an interest, and that the maximum price is obtained by using the most appropriate method of sale, whether by formal or informal tender, private treaty or auction.

What is this mania for privatisation? Water, trees. A bloke in Bolsover said to me not so long ago, "Don't go down to the woods today. They've flogged off the forest."

The hon. Member is full of surprises. He continually surprises us with his new moods. I suppose that this is his whimsical mood. I must say that if I were going down to the woods I would not go with the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that far too much timber is imported at the moment, that the Forestry Commission does not give enough emphasis to hardwoods and that we should encourage more private enterprise in the hardwood sector and move towards a sytem of auction?

A broadleaves policy was announced last year and is already having a noticeable effect. The Forestry Commission's broadleaved woodland grant scheme has got off to a good start and will mean that many more broadleaves will be planted in future by private owners and that the Commission itself will plant more.

The largest consumer of timber in the United Kingdom, and the Forestry Commission's largest customer, is Thames Board Mills in my constituency, which produces board. Will the Minister assure us that if privatisation is again placed before Ministers for consideration, that industry, and that company in particular, will be consulted before any Green Paper is published? They would have a statement to make.

I know very well that the hon. Gentleman's constituency contains an important business in this sector. As he will know from the reply of 21 February to which I referred, Government policy on these matters, as in all other areas, is kept under regular review.

Under the recent Forestry Act, the Royal Forest of Dean was exempted from any sale. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that if there are any sales of Forestry Commission assets in future, the position of the Royal Forest of Dean will remain inviolate?

I shall bear in mind very carefully everything that my hon. Friend tells me, as I have done on almost all subjects over the past three years.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his first non-answer will strengthen the unworthy suspicion among forestry people that, despite his defeat by his ministerial colleagues, he still hankers after a massive disposition of forestry land? Will the Minister assure us that there will be no major disposition of land managed by the Forestry Commission before the next general election?

The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth.

Answer the question.

I have no more to say than what I said in my earlier answer, part of which I repeated a few seconds ago. Like all other areas of Government activity, the matter is kept under regular review.

Ramblers, walkers and horse riders from urban and rural areas fear that they will lose their rights of access to Forestry Commission land if they are privatised. Will my right hon. Friend undertake that such rights will not be lost if Forestry Commission land is privatised?

Under the existing disposal arrangements, of which the House is aware and to which it has agreed, such matters are kept under careful review all the time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total stock of beef, butter, skimmed milk and cereals held in European Economic Community intervention stores in the United Kingdom.

As at 28 February 1986 stocks of beef, butter, skimmed milk powder and cereals held in United Kingdom intervention stores totalled 6.065 million tonnes.

Is it not a crazy system in which so much food is removed in order to ensure that prices are kept higher than they would normally be? How much longer can the CAP be tolerated? As for all the items mentioned by the Minister, instead of selling them off to the Russians at much reduced prices, why should we not sell them off to pensioners and others on low incomes in our own country as well as perhaps, where appropriate, assisting people in the countries in Africa, where starvation and hunger prevail?

On the last part of the question, the hon. Gentleman should talk to the aid agencies, all of which are concerned that we should not sell this food cheaply to countries in Africa and have asked us not to do so because it undermines the indigenous agriculture. The hon. Gentleman's information is 10 years out of date. As to why we do not sell it cheaply to our own people, we are completely in favour of doing that, and we do it where it does not mean a reduction in consumption under normal arrangements, as that would only increase the amount in store.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that most of the problems in British agriculture are problems of success and that no one wants to reduce input costs more than farmers do? Will he seriously consider any request from the Natural Environment Research Council to carry out a major ecological study into the effects on our water and land of nitrogen and phosphorus? Will he consider financing, or helping to finance, such a project?

That matter is constantly under review and we would appreciate any additional information from my hon. Friend. It is better to attempt to deal with the problems of plenty than with the problems of shortage, which we would have had without the CAP.

As we did not have such disgracefully large stocks when Britain had its own agricultural policy, is not the only remedy after 10 or more years of the CAP, to get out of the CAP and have an independent policy?

The present system was renegotiated by the Labour Government. Surpluses are a worldwide problem, and the idea that the hon. Gentleman can lay the blame for them at the door of the Common Market is sheer nonsense. If we returned to deficiency payments it would cost us nearly twice as much as the present system.

What was the value of the 6 million tonnes, and how much did the British taxpayer have to pay last year in intervention and stockholding costs in advance of sale of these commodities from store?

I shall be happy to answer the second part of my hon. Friend's question if he will put it down separately. The value of the present stores is £387 million of butter, £240 million of beef, £41 million of skimmed milk and £692 million of cereals.

How much of the foodstuffs held in intervention stores in the United Kingdom are unfit for human consumption? If the Minister does not have the figures now, will he supply them to me later?

One reason for the high cost of keeping those goods in intervention is that we are keeping them so that they will be fit for human consumption. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's point carefully.

Does the Minister agree that he was incorrect to state on television on Sunday that the disposal of butter and beef has caused similar problems of reduction of price for European consumers, when it is well known that the elasticity of demand for beef differs from that of butter, and that a small reduction in the price of beef to our consumers would result in a large increase in beef consumption?

I do not agree that what I said on television on Sunday was wrong; nor do I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point.

As next year's surpluses are already growing in the fields, does the Minister accept the Government's responsibility to help agriculture to reduce production before the surpluses become bigger? Before there are any more cut-price bargain offers to Libya, Russia or anywhere else, may we have an undertaking that the poor people of Britain will at least have first refusal on the surpluses?

In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I refer him to my reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Wherever possible, the Government are determined, without increasing the amount of goods in store, to help British people. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is true, and it is no good his stirring it up for party political reasons. In reply to the hon. Gentleman's first point, we cannot stop the amount that is being grown this year, because, as the hon. Gentleman says, it is already in the ground. The Government's policy is to arrive at a common agricultural policy which much more closely matches supply with demand.

In dealing with the problem of disposing of surpluses internally, will my right hon. Friend bear carefully in mind, and demonstrate the point adequately to Labour Members, that when beef was introduced to pensioners in the early 1970s by the beef token scheme it very nearly wrecked the poultry industry? Action in one sector can have a devastating knock-on effect in another.

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I hope he will agree that when we tried to introduce the Christmas butter scheme people bought the butter at the reduced price, put it into their freezers, and as a result did not buy ordinary butter, and we took a lot of extra butter, at a high price, into the very intervention stores to which Labour Members object.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the objectives of his Ministry's policy on the processing, distribution and marketing of food and drink; how he is monitoring its effectiveness; and if he will make a statement.

The Government's policy is to encourage improvements in the processing, distribution and marketing of food, and to ensure high standards of food hygiene and safety. My Department monitors many of the fundamental measures of the industry's performance and operates an extensive system of surveillance to check on the safety of foods.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that Rayner scrutiny techniques are being used to the best effect in the Department, and what results are being achieved?

There was no specific Rayner scrutiny in the area of food and drink, but we are looking closely at our objectives in all areas and at associated measures of efficiency and effectiveness.

How about giving a higher priority to quality and types of food for good health? Britain is at the top of the coronary deaths league, and improper diet is recognised as a key factor in that. When will the Government face their responsibilities in that area and, instead of facilitating the search for unlimited profit, put some action into the search for better health?

Health is the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Health. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a committee looked particularly into any connection between diet and cardiovascular disease. It made four recommendations, only one of which affects labelling in my Department, and that is statutory fat labelling, which we are now preparing. The other recommendations did not involve labelling. We are also discussing and preparing a voluntary format for other nutritional labellings, because consumers are interested in that.

Will my hon. Friend hold urgent discussions with Food from Britain on the objectives of her marketing policy, because of the organisation's lack-lustre performance, particularly in respect of confectionery and good English drinks, such as beer, because at present on the export market that is singularly lacking?

Not only does Food from Britain place a priority on confectionery, but I know from visiting food exhibitions in other countries that it is doing a good job. My hon. Friend will know that when the £14 million pump-priming funds run out, the Government have pledged £1 for every £2 from industry. We have given the lead, and it is now up to industry to show that it will follow that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the current negotiations on agricultural workers' wages, information concerning the annual incomes of those farmers who employ labour will be made available to the chairman of the Agricultural Wages Board; and if he will make a statement.

Although it was not possible to provide such information during the recent negotiations, as a result of current developments in processing the relevant data the information should be available in time for the next wage round.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the National Farmers Union made a survey of farm incomes relating to farmers who employ labour, but was unwilling to give that information to the Agricultural Wages Board during the current wage negotiations?

As the hon. Lady knows, what goes on in the business and meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board is not a matter for me, but I hope that it will be possible to provide that information to the Agricultural Wages Board for the next wage round. We are currently reviewing the analysis of the farm management survey, which would provide that information.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the chairman would have available the detail relating to farm incomes in the appropriate year, and moreover that he would be aware that incomes off the farm declined by about 60 per cent. last year?

As in the past, my Department has supplied the chairman and members of the Agricultural Wages Board with as much information as it is possible to give them, but, as I said, in this case considerable computer programming and other resources would have been needed to provide such information, and those resources were just not available at the time.

I welcome what the Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Miss Maynard), but does he agree that farm workers have been paid far too little for far too long for what are very high skills? Given the appalling situation that now exists, I hope that some positive steps will be taken to correct the situation. Will the Minister assure us that he will use his influence on the Agricultural Wages Board to make sure that in the end we have a much fairer deal for agricultural workers?

I think the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that that is a rather surprising question, because the statutory minimum rates are a matter for the independent Agricultural Wages Board. They are not a matter for Ministers. As to using my influence, I think that in certain circumstances the hon. Gentleman would raise the roof were I to attempt to do so. I do not intend so to do.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the cut in farmgate prices of cereals which would be necessary to secure a diminution in the overall level of production of cereals within the European Economic Community.

Lower prices will, over time, lead to lower production than would otherwise have occurred, but as I an unable to predict either the weather or the speed of technological change, I cannot predict accurately what amount of price reduction will be necessary to produce a given amount of production.

Putting that answer on one side, does the Minister agree that substantial cuts in producers' prices would not only damage farmers' incomes but would have a devastating effect on rural employment and the rural economy, which have already been badly damaged by the actions of the Government over the past five years? Would it not be more intelligent to have a more sensible, balanced package of measures which would include some measure of quotas, which would be beneficial to farmers of marginal land?

No system of quotas or anything else will be sensible if one does not take into account the fact that weather changes from year to year and that the speed of technological change alters the amount of excess with which one has to deal. The hon. Gentleman cannot just ignore those two basic facts. For that reason, he will know that we are working for a package that will meet those needs. The hon. Gentleman cannot get out of the situation that the proposal that he has put forward would not be acceptable to any part of the industry.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when looking at the production of wheat and cereals, that in Scotland feed wheat is commercially grown there and that we are not in a state of surplus? In fact we are substantially short of a surplus. This factor has to be borne in mind, because it affects many other issues.

We have to look at the surpluses in the Community as a whole in all commodities. It would not be possible to maintain a system under which we went on increasing the surpluses in the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, in the rest of the European Community until such time as every part was self-sufficient. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the arrangements that we make must take into account the particular problems of Scotland and the growth of wheat in Scotland.

I thought that it was only the Department of the Environment with which the right hon. Gentleman quarrelled, but now he is quarrelling with the Minister of Agriculture. As the Minister has told us repeatedly that surpluses are to be controlled by cutting farmgate prices, how on earth are we to take that seriously if he cannot even estimate what cut is necessary to bring down production?

The hon. Gentleman, who leads for the Opposition, must accept that last year's harvest, in both quantity and quality, was very much affected by the weather, as was the previous year's harvest. The question that was tabled asked whether I would predict what price would result in a given amount of production. Any Minister who did that would be damned foolish.

If it is considered impossible to obtain a consensus in Europe on the level of price restraint deemed necessary to curb over-production, and if it is considered necessary to add a policy of set-aside to price restraint, does my right hon. Friend agree that compulsory set-aside should be resisted, as it would favour the less productive cereal-growing areas, and that a suitable way forward might be voluntary set-aside coupled with price restraint and tax incentives to encourage farmers to move into alternative crops, such as forestry?

In our discussions with the Council of Ministers my right hon. Friend made it clear that one of the matters that we should like to have looked at very carefully was the principle of voluntary set-aside. I am sure that much, if not all, of what my hon. Friend has said is right.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what form of words encompasses the confidentiality agreed for members of advisory committees on food standards.

When they are appointed, members of the Food Advisory Committee are informed that under the terms of the Official Secrets Act information given to them in their capacity as members of the committee should not be disclosed outside the committee.

In view of the Minister's reply, why did she write to her hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on 23 May stating categorically that the members of those two committees are required to sign the Official Secrets Act, although her right hon. Friend, who is sitting next to her, denied that in March of this year?

They are not required to sign the Official Secrets Act, but the answer that I have just given to the hon. Gentleman is conveyed to them. That is only in respect of commercial confidentiality, because full reports of the advice of that committee and of the committee on toxicity are published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Although I am sure that my hon. Friend is almost as surprised as I am that our previous billets doux on the subject of official secrecy have been revealed this afternoon by the Liberal party, will she nevertheless consider the absurdity of the Government's position? Surely it is unrealistic and unwise to invoke the criminal law when food advice should be the subject of maximum publicity, rather than the subject of maximum secrecy?

It is common practice for all Governments to respect commercial confidentiality and not to divulge information from one company that might be of direct benefit to its competitors. I assure my hon. Friend that the information is totally exposed when safety is involved. If he feels that it is not sufficiently accessible, I remind him that my right hon. Friend has already told the House that we are having discussions with the British Library to ensure that all such information is placed in that library, so that it might be more accessible to the public.

Is the Minister aware that a great deal of suspicion surrounds the operations of the Food Advisory Committee? I recognise the need for certain commercial confidentiality, but does she agree that the time has come for more openness by this public body?

I realise that the hon. Gentleman prepared his question before I gave my previous answer. I hope that I have reassured him by repeating what my right hon. Friend has said, namely, that we are discussing arrangements for placing that information in the British Library. At the moment we exhort all sources of such research to make it public, but it is very difficult to get the information into scientific journals, because sometimes it is rather pedestrian and pretty dull. Therefore, we are discussing whether it can possibly be placed in the British Library.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will take to encourage the European Economic Community to extend the more flexible dairy quota scheme beyond an initial one-year period.

The Commission has not proposed extending this provision. We shall need to consider very carefully our position on this, because I see some difficulty in justifying the continuation of a measure which limits the effectiveness of the quota system while we still have a 14½ million tonne surplus of milk.

I welcome the Government's success in encouraging the European Economic Community to accept the principle of flexibility, but will my right hon. Friend commit himself to pushing as hard as possible for that flexibility to be extended beyond the first year, because that is essential for the efficiency of the dairy sector?

The flexibility which is important is the ability to lease or to buy quotas. That is the flexibility which we particularly need and which we have not yet won.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the total acreage planted for forestry in England and Wales has changed in the last year for which figures are available.

Between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1985 the total area of new planting in England and Wales by the Forestry Commission and by private woodland owners with the aid of Commission grants was 2,222 hectares, compared with 3,216 hectares in the previous 12-month period.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be highly desirable for more land to be devoted to forestry and less to producing those crops which are already in surplus? Will he, therefore, consider introducing additional incentives to increase the amount of land devoted to forestry?

I shall certainly consider that, but my hon. Friend should know that the Government's policy is to encourage the expansion of forestry in ways consistent with the needs of other rural interests. Substantial funding of private forestry takes place through the Forestry Commission's grant schemes, and there has been a significant rise in private planting levels over the past few years.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister tell us whether she has confidence in her lame duck Secretary of State for Education and Science or in the governors of Christ's college school in her constituency, who have decided under the chairmanship of the former chairman of the Finchley Conservative party, Councillor John Tiplady, that it is impractical to proceed with the general certificate of secondary education examination course starting this September?

I have great confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and so have my constituents.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect, in the period between her other meetings today, on the fact that that if the roof of a Cornish tin mine fell in and three Cornish tin miners were killed the world would see a flurry of activity at Westminster and Whitehall and much attention paid to the Cornish crisis? Yet one Cornish tin mine has closed, 270 jobs have died and the life of a community is in peril. Why is there not the same interest on the part of Whitehall in this crisis in Cornwall to which we expect the Government to respond?

I have made it clear on previous occasions that the Government would be prepared to consider applications for projects to bring the tin mines up to commercial viability. I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry has received an application for assistance from the Geevor tin mine. It will be considered as soon as possible.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that she has offered talks on an open agenda to the leaders of the Ulster political parties and that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was wrong when he said in a radio interview today that the talks are not open but conditional? Will she confirm that there are no preconditions on either side?

I have made it absolutely clear that the Anglo-Irish accord, endorsed by the House and the other place, will continue and will be implemented. I would very much like, nevertheless, to have talks with the representatives of the Unionist party on matters which have been previously identified and on other matters if they wish to bring them up.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that British publishers are losing tens of millions of pounds through piracy, and that the two countries with the worst record in this regard are Taiwan and South Korea? Has she raised with Mr. Chun during his visit the problems that his country's companies are causing British publishers? If not, will she please do so?

I did not raise that particular matter with the President. I believe that it was raised by the Department of Trade and Industry. We are greatly concerned about it. Singapore is another country which is taking action, I understand.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. Will she have time today to reply to a letter that she received some time ago from the general secretary of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs about the deteriorating position in the Westland factory at Weston-super-Mare? Will she have time today to tell United Technologies that if it is operating factories in Great Britain it must do so within the framework of British and not American labour law?

If it is a matter for the law, it will be a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. If it concerns only a private sector company, it is a matter for the company.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

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

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to read the leader in The Times, which suggests that the Government will not honour the Anglo-Irish agreement? Will she confirm to the House that she is totally committed to its success and to its implementation?

Yes. As I have indicated, the Government are committed to the Anglo-Irish accord and to its implementation, and will continue to implement it. Of course, we should also like to talk to the Unionists on the basis which I indicated previously, on particular points. I hope that the Unionists will take advantage of that opportunity to come and talk, but the accord will continue.

May I first say that a continuing commitment to the accord, coupled with a dialogue with people from the Unionist section of the community in Northern Ireland, is an intelligent approach which will be supported on the Labour side of the House?

As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government have tabled certain amendments to the Bill which we believe will make proper provision without imposing undue burdens on local authorities.

The Government's approach to the Bill is cheap and nasty. Will the Prime Minister accept that, in the interests of humanity and efficiency in providing proper care for the disabled, and in the interests of those who care for them and save the country £5 billion a year, the Bill would go much of the way towards ensuring that the disabled are properly represented and that information about their cases is properly communicated?

When it comes to expressing concern for the disabled, this Government have an extremely good record—better than that of any previous Government. [Interruption.] We have increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by over one third in real terms to over £4·5 billion. Associations representing the disabled made it clear when we came into office that their main priority was a speeding-up of the introduction of the mobility allowance, which we did. We increased substantially its value. We made it non-taxable and we increased spending—[Interruption]—

Order. The Prime Minister was asked a question. She is giving the answer and the House should listen.

We increased spending on the mobility allowance by four and a half times in real terms. It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to criticise the record of this Government on help for the disabled.

Surely the right hon. Lady must know that no one who is disabled or who cares for the disabled can accept the description of her policies that she has offered. It does not stand up in practice. Is it not the case that she heads a Government who cut the invalidity allowance? Have not her Government inflicted cuts on local government which have prevented it fulfilling even its statutory duties towards the disabled? Will she further accept that all the advances that have been made under her Government were originated by the last Labour Government? If the Prime Minister cares as much as she says she cares, surely supporting my hon. Friend's Bill would be a very small addition to what she has already done.

Which of the facts that I have given does the right hon. Gentleman quarrel with? In addition, we have extended the long-term supplementary rate to many disabled people, we have extended the entitlement to invalidity care allowance to non-relatives, and we have abolished the invalidity trap, which will benefit over 50,000 disabled people. It is an excellent record for disabled people, and all the finance has been found in the lifetime of this Government.

Can my right hon. Friend find time to express to Fidel Castro, through the Cuban ambassador, her congratulations on his decision to sell Cuban council houses to their existing tenants?

I confess that I do not regard that as of top priority today, but any move towards capitalism and freedom by a Communist society is welcome.

Will the Prime Minister find time in her busy day to reply to a letter that I sent her in relation to the ordering of auxiliary oil replenishment vessels? Will she give us some indication that the rules in terms of procurement policy have been obeyed here? In addition, will she end the speculation in relation to the ordering of type 23 frigates 02, 03 and 04 and confirm that some of those orders will go to Yarrow as the lead yard?

As I have said, the figures on the AORs are being looked at to ensure that the competition is fair. I have no further statement to make at present.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

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

Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that, following the drop in world oil prices, our electricity generating industry is still paying historic and artificially high prices for its coal, with the consequence that our electricity prices to British industry are higher than those on the continent? Is she aware that this is having detrimental effects on employment in industry? Will the Prime Minister seek to ensure that this further hidden subsidy to the coal industry is ended?

I think my hon. Friend will agree that what he says is very good evidence of the wisdom of this Government's policy for the coal industry of getting rid of uneconomic pits and concentrating on economic pits that have good seams and where higher productivity can produce lower-priced coal, to the benefit both of the coal industry and of the electricity industry. He is quite right. The electricity supply industry will have to be in touch with the National Coal Board about the price of coal to enable electricity suppliers to pass on some of the reductions that people have been expecting since the fall in the price of oil.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

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

Will the Prime Minister accept that some of the Government's policies for the inner city, ring pretty hollow when, at the same time as money is cut back for housing for rent in the public and private sector and there is in the south-east an 11·8 per cent. increase in the cost of housing, in docklands a former criminal can run a docklands property centre which in 18 months has been able, as a result of insider dealing, to resell housing bought for £75,000 at prices of £250,000 and above? Will she make sure that her right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment investigate the abuse and exploitation of housing in the inner city, to the detriment of people who desperately need to be housed?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the amount devoted to the urban grant has been greatly increased during the lifetime of this Government. Moreover, I am sure that he would be the first to wish to congratulate the Government on the London docklands authority, which has done things for that part of London that have never been done before under any Government, including the provision of much cheaper housing.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend resist any temptation to compromise on the Shops Bill, which, although superficially attractive, would lead only to new anomalies, unenforceable laws and, in the suggestion of passing the buck to local authorities, would only add to the nationwide hotch-potch of local standards that already exist for pub hours, sex shops and the fluoridation of water supplies? Will she tell the House that next week we will have a straight choice between freedom of choice on Sunday observance and the strict and costly enforcement of the existing criminal law by local authorities?

I believe that it is common ground that the present law is unenforceable, and that if one attempted to enforce it, that would have the effects that my hon. Friend has described. Many people will share my hon. Friend's view. The proposals are contained in the Bill which I have reason to believe will be before the House shortly.