To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the British Poultry Federation; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend met the chairman of the British Poultry Federation today at the lunch following the federation's annual general meeting. They discussed a number of issues of interest to the industry.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which was not quite as foul as I had expected. Will he congratulate the industry on the way in which it has managed to achieve considerable success without assistance from the EEC?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend mentioned that at lunch today. It is remarkable that industries, such as the poultry industry which receive least do best. We assist with export refunds and in as many other ways as possible. I shall be visiting the European poultry fair at Stoneleigh on the 18th of this month.

In discussions with the British Poultry Federation, will my hon. Friend draw attention to the fact that prices to the producer are dropping at a far greater rate than those to the consumer? Surely that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Will my hon. Friend comment on the matter?

Market forces will always find their own level. I am sure that the producers and the retailers who are in a very strong position at present, constantly argue this out between themselves.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current level of average income in the hill farming sector.

The latest information on the incomes of hill and upland livestock farms is shown in tables 30, 31 and 32 of the White Paper on the "Annual Review of Agriculture 1988"—Cm. 299 —and, in more detail, in the recent publication "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom".

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Following the Brussels summit in February and the decisions or actions initiated there on price stabilisers, particularly for sheep, there is bound to be some anxiety in marginal agriculture areas, such as my constituency in the Highlands of Scotland, about long-term trends in the sheep sector. Will the Government carefully bear in mind the long-term concerns in areas such as the Highlands when reaching or implementing domestically any decisions that follow from European decisions?

I have recently spent some time in the mountainous areas of Wales, which have similar problems. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that we keep the matter under close consideration, because those areas rely particularly on sheep for their income and we shall be taking them into consideration in the coming review of the sheepmeat regime. However, the forecast for the 1987–88 accounting year suggests a reasonably healthy rise in incomes for such farms in the United Kingdom.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that little could be more damaging to the hill sheep producer than a set-aside programme which encourages people to go into livestock, notably sheep, on the lowland? Will he exercise the option that he will have when he draws up his set-aside programme to make sure that while safari parks with camels or lions may be put on set-aside land, sheep are not.

I am not sure that I wish to encourage camels on such land either, but the matter that my hon. Friend raises is important and we are trying to reach a decision on that in the set-aside arrangements. People are obviously considerably worried if they feel that others are supported in a way that they are not to produce something in areas where other opportunities exist. That is obviously a matter of great importance, on which my right hon. Friend will have something to say later.

What about the shortfall in income for hill sheep farmers in Cumbria and other parts of the United Kingdom as a result of Chernobyl? Is the Minister aware that 66 farmers in Cumbria believe that they are owed £172,000 by Her Majesty's Government for damage arising from the Chernobyl incident? Does he not think it unreasonable that an accident that took place thousands of miles away in the Soviet Union should be paid for by my constituents and other farmers in the county? I recognise that there have been many discussions over the past year, but can he, even at this late stage, help us out?

We have looked carefully at all the individual claims. There is no doubt that in any system some will fall outside the guidelines, whether on Chernobyl or any other matter. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do something about Chernobyl, he might ask his hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to stop stirring up worries and anxieties over Chernobyl on matters that do not exist and never have existed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that hill farming is a hard-pressed section of the industry? Does he accept that the environmentally sensitive area programme has been a great success? Is there any hope of extending that programme, so that more farmers can avail themselves of management agreements in difficult highland areas?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the implementation of the first, and now the second, set of ESA proposals has been a success, but they are an experimental series of areas from which we must learn. It would be a mistake to suggest that we could now decide on extensions. However, we are obviously learning all the time from the wide range of areas concerned, and if we find that it is sensible to extend them, no doubt we shall do so.

When the Minister looked at the tables of average incomes in the upland areas, did he notice that some of the incomes were very low indeed? Will he take seriously the point raised by my hon. Friend for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? Does he accept that in some cases in Cumbria and Wales those low incomes were affected by the shortfall in Chernobyl payments? Is he aware that I wrote to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at the end of March suggesting that we should appoint local adjudicating committees to look at all the cases to find a reasonable and fair solution to the problem?

We have tried hard throughout to look at those cases as carefully as possible and to give them the compensation to which they are entitled. A further look at the same cases will not make any difference. I repeat that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take on his shoulders the serious responsibility that he bears in trying to frighten people in areas where no fears need to be raised.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about arrangements for the release of grain held in United Kingdom surplus stores.

I continue to receive representations about the current arrangements for the release of grain held in intervention.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that storage is now one of the most profitable sectors of British agriculture? Does he think that the tendering procedures for taking grain out of store are adequate to overcome the natural reluctance of store owners to relinquish their source of income?

We are continually examining the storage arrangements to ensure that we get value for money. The real point is not about releasing grain from intervention stores, but that, under the Community rules adopted last year, Commission agreement is required for sales of grain from intervention on to the domestic market. We opposed those new rules when they were introduced, but we have them. There is no point in making intervention grain available, because, under Community rules, it cannot be sold at a price lower than the buying-in price and market prices are currently well below that level.

What does my right hon. Friend consider to be the world market price for milling and other wheat?

I do not have the precise figures, but I suspect that my hon. Friend is saying that the world market price can change. It depends on the surpluses that exist and the subsidy that is going in from not only the Community, but the United States and elsewhere, to reach a world market price. That is a difficult figure to estimate, but if we get the surpluses under control the world market price will not necessarily be where it is today.

If the Minister cannot answer that question, perhaps he can answer this one. How much is it costing to keep the grain in intervention stores?

have made it plain many times that the costs are too high. The costs are about £12·5 billion a year for all intervention stores. That is not just the cost of storage, but the cost of disposing of the surpluses. That is why we took such a strong line in the negotiations for CAP reform that we have successfully carried through to deal with that problem. I have always made it clear that we must reduce those costs.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to introduce a scheme to de-intensify United Kingdom farming.

The Council of Ministers has recently adopted a measure requiring member states to introduce extensification schemes providing incentives for farmers to reduce output of surplus agricultural products. We shall not be able to determine how extensification should be applied in the United Kingdom until detailed Commission rules have been established.

Although I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, does he agree that there is much to be said for a regime in farming as an option that encourages farmers to put less in and extract less from their land? That would solve the problem of excess application of nitrates and the many other problems that are associated with intensive farming.

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The extensification schemes may play an important role. However, the problems of policing and the difficulties of ensuring that money from the taxpayer is not given to people who continue to over produce are very serious. I hope my hon. Friend will accept that it will take a little time to overcome those difficulties.

Does the Minister agree that the Government must be careful before introducing such a scheme? Last year many hon. Members on both sides of the House suggested that we should have quotas for beef production. The Minister will be aware that there is now a shortage of beef in Britain and in other countries.

The hon. Gentleman, with his great knowledge of farming, underlines the problem that it is impossible to know from one year to the next what beef production will be. We know that there is a major underlying trend of increasing yields in the production of livestock. We also know that all sorts of international complications can change the suggested amounts for next year. The hon. Gentleman will agree that an extensification scheme that might allow people to farm less intensively—where that seems sensible—would be helpful, if we could find one that worked.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we made a good start in this respect by introducing ESAs under the Agriculture Act 1986? Should we not press ahead with more such schemes as fast as we reasonably can?

It is a very good start, but these are experimental areas. Each of them has peculiarities. We are trying to see how the system works best. When we evaluate how the ESAs have worked over the next two or three years, we shall be in a better position to make the decision that my hon. Friend would like. I remind him that just a year ago we had only half as many ESAs. We have doubled that number already, and also the amount of money that we are spending on them.

We welcome these first measures and recognise the grave problems of implementing the schemes, but are not the pollution problems, which are equally severe, likely to cause as grave problems? Will the Government give a firm commitment that they will do more to tackle the problems of pollution in rural areas?

I have made it clear in recent speeches and in the actions that we have taken that we deplore pollution by the farming community. This community is taking action, and more and more people will realise how important the issue is. Last year was a difficult one for pollution because of the weather, but I do not think such incidents are justifiable, and we must get a better record.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the east midlands on the tenancy system in public houses.

A number of hon. Members have written to me concerning the situation of tenants of Home Brewery plc. I have also met delegations of hon. Members and representatives of the National Licensed Victuallers Association to hear their views on the application of the Brewers Society code of practice on tenants' security in this and other cases.

The Minister will be aware, because he has seen other hon. Members and me, that the Scottish and Newcastle brewery has taken over the Home brewery in Nottingham, with the consequence that up to 300 tenants have been issued with either notice to quit or up to fivefold rent increases. Will the Minister make representations so that the tenants and Scottish and Newcastle will get around the table, and the latter will behave in a decent way towards those tenants?

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put his question briefly. This is not an Adjournment debate.

If I did not before—and I did—I now recognise the passion that the hon. Gentleman brings to this issue. I met him, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) and other hon. Members, and the National Licensed Victuallers Association. After that meeting I wrote to the Brewers Society outlining the events of the meeting and asking it to look at the matter carefully.

My hon. Friend will be aware that there are considerable reservations in the licensed trade about the way in which the Brewers Society's code of guidance on tenants' security is operating in practice. As he will know, there are two alternatives. One is to give the code of practice statutory backing; the other is to make publicans subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. Which of those alternatives does he favour, if he feels that a change is required?

I suggest that the tenants, through their associations, press the breweries to stick more closely to the code of practice, and that my hon. Friend, if he thinks it appropriate, introduces a measure to codify that code of practice in legislation. It is not for me to do that at this time or to encourage the landlords and tenants to move to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954.

What are we going to do about this company, which rides roughshod over the livelihoods of people throughout the United Kingdom wherever it is allowed to operate? May we have an official inquiry of some sort into Scottish and Newcastle's divestment of its shares in MacKinleys in Scotland and into the jobs lost in Scotland? Such an inquiry will reveal once again the irregular and unreasonable way in which the company operates.

The pressure of market forces does not always work in the direction of tenants, landlords or brewers. I do not think that the sort of inquiry envisaged by the hon. Gentleman would be sensible, or clear, if it were set up in the way that he suggests.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the price of bananas.

The price of bananas is a matter for the market, but my Department receives a variety of views on the subject, depending on market circumstances.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that, historically, we have paid the highest prices for bananas in Europe and have the lowest consumption, mainly because of our bilateral agreements with Jamaica and other producers? Does he not agree that if we are to go on helping our Commonwealth friends in this way by paying over the world price the responsibility should fall on our trade and aid budget and not on the household budgets of families such as mine, who are very partial to bananas?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is a month late. On 31 March we introduced a new system whereby dollar bananas would be able to be introduced to Britain at a minimum level. That system will also safeguard traditional suppliers to whom bananas are most important and for whom they are a great source of income. My hon. Friend mentioned aid. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) made sure that the Caribbean islands received about £4 million of aid last year, plus aid from the European Community, the World Bank and the Caribbean Bank, to which we were contributors. If bananas can produce so many fast bowlers, perhaps we could have them cheaper in Yorkshire as well.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the competitive position of British pigmeat producers.

In recent weeks the pigmeat market appears to have stabilised and the United Kingdom monetary compensatory amounts have fallen from minus 10·9 per cent. to minus 4·9 per cent.

Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the impact of current MCA levels on imported pigmeat and bacon? Is he satisfied that the British slaughtering industry is sufficiently prepared for the single European market in 1992?

The whole of industry has to make sure that it is sufficiently prepared for 1992, and many industries have a lot to do in that respect. In answer to my hon. Friend's first point, our domestic market shares have been holding up, but the important point is that the recent drop in the MCAs has meant that the subsidy per tonne of imported bacon side has fallen from £69 to £31 in the last few weeks. In so far as the MCAs are having an effect, it is much reduced. In the debate after Question Time I shall have more to say about pigmeat MCAs.

Given that there is a slight improvement, is the Minister satisfied that the pig industry is out of the crisis that it has faced over the past few months? Does he recall that in 1983, in a similar situation, 12 per cent. of the United Kingdom's pig breeding stock was lost? Is he satisfied that that will not happen again?

I have to make clear that it is not a slight improvement in MCAs. At the peak in February last year MCAs were nearly minus 28 points and now they are below minus 5. That is a considerable change. I am well aware of the pressures that the pig industry is facing. We are in a cycle in which supply is exceeding demand and, in a market such as the pigmeat market, that creates problems for producers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British pig industry is further disadvantaged by the Dutch pig industry, which makes extensive use of manioc imports? Pelleted manioc imported into Holland carries a levy of 28 per cent. and the levy on the raw material is 6 per cent. Is he aware of allegations that the Dutch are importing pelleted manioc and paying only the 6 per cent. levy? Is my right hon. Friend's Ministry prepared to look at this?

We may if we wish use manioc in this country, but naturally the Dutch have advantages in their ports and in the ease of access at their ports for their producers. I have been looking into the point raised by my hon. Friend and the Customs directorate of the European Commission is investigating it. It is a fairly technical point and perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend about it. I do not think that it makes any difference to the present position of our pig industry.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next proposes to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss the woodland grant scheme; and if he will make a statement.

I have no arrangements at present to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union for the specific purpose of discussing the woodland grant scheme.

Is the Minister aware that farmers who take part in the woodland grant scheme will be at a disadvantage with the planting of conifers, because if they plant less than 50 per cent. of conifers they will not be able to claim the planting grants, while farmers outside the scheme who plant 100 per cent. of conifers will able to claim on the whole figure?

Some changes have been made to the woodland grant scheme to deal with conifers, which are environmentally more acceptable in some parts of the country than in others and have been welcomed by some people. However, overall, the woodland grant scheme fully compensates for the changes in the tax regime, because the support from the Exchequer, whether in tax forgone or in grants for planting, remains unchanged. The woodland grant scheme as now conceived is better than the previous one.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Sussex and many parts of Kent, of far greater importance than a woodland grant scheme is the introduction of a clearance scheme so that people can clear the woods and go ahead with replanting?

If my hon. Friend is referring to the costs of storm damage clearance, he will know that we have received a full report on the matter and a report from the Select Committee. I hope, before too long, to be able to respond to those reports.

Does the Minister agree that there should he far more emphasis on planting woodlands, both under this scheme and under the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill? As about 15 per cent. of our land is producing 50 per cent. more food than we need, there is a need for massive diversification into woodland. Does not the scheme need to be doubled, trebled or even increased tenfold over the next five years?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will have noticed how, under this Government, private landowners have increased their planting. As he said, that is the purpose of the Bill that will come before the House for its final stages this evening. We have been taking a number of initiatives, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give his full support to the Bill.

May we have an assurance that the excellent knowledge and expertise in the Forestry Commission will be used to advise farmers so that they do not go headlong into long-term investment and perhaps make many mistakes which the commission could prevent? Will my right hon. Friend encourage the National Farmers Union and the Forestry Commission to discuss such matters?

The Forestry Commission is available for both encouragement and advice. Under schemes that qualify for grants farmers must go to the Forestry Commission, and will therefore receive advice. My hon. Friend will know that we have been stepping up the advisory capability of ADAS to meet that objective.

If the Minister meets representatives of the National Farmers Union, will he discuss with them the practice that has apparently been developing over the past couple of years whereby the Government approve for planting more than double the hectareage provided for within their own targets? Does that mean that expenditure on the forestry industry is not cash limited?

I am not aware of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I shall have to look into it, but, within our provision, we hope that there will be full take-up of these grants, although we must apply budgetary disciplines.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest position on the introduction of the farm diversification scheme.

Farmers have responded enthusiastically to the introduction of capital grants for farm diversification. Since the scheme started on 1 January this Ministry has received about 388 applications covering a wide range of investments. We plan to introduce soon related grants for feasibility studies and marketing under powers being sought under the Farm Land and Rural Development Bill which we will discuss this evening.

Will my right hon. Friend consider placing greater emphasis on assistance to enterprises on the fringes of urban centres, such as my constituency of Leeds, North-East? Is he not disappointed that a larger number of applications have not been received for activities involving horses, bearing in mind my interest in those activities in Yorkshire?

I bear in mind my hon. Friend's interests in these activities, but I am not disappointed in the level of applications, because we have received a great number and wide range of them in a short time. I take my hon. Friend's point, but one of the problems that we must sort out in the urban fringes is how best to apply the planning arrangements to protect the environment, while at the same time providing people with an opportunity to diversify.

Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the farm diversification scheme to those who benefit under the banana agreement referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), in view of his obvious antipathy to that programme? Is it not true that, under that programme, the consumption of bananas in this country has been increasing by 4 per cent. per annum?

Order. I am trying to relate this to the original question.

It relates to the farm diversification scheme. I am asking my right hon. Friend whether the scheme should be extended to other producers of bananas, who will have to diversify if banana imports decline.

I do not think that there is any opportunity for the Government to extend the scheme to the Caribbean islands. The consumption of bananas is increasing, and should continue to do so. It is reasonable that some of those bananas should come from other developing countries that produce them. We must protect those with whom we have a long-standing agreement and understanding, but I do not see why some of the expansion should not benefit the other poorer countries.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to publish further details of his proposals for an extensification scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Following the decisions of the European Council in February, the Agriculture Council has now agreed separate schemes for set-aside and for extensification. The Commission has recently adopted the detailed rules for set-aside. An announcement will be made as soon as possible on the detailed arrangements to apply in the United Kingdom. Introduction of a scheme for extensification will depend on further Commission rules, which have yet to be proposed.

There are proposals about the production of food, and whether too much or too little is being produced, but what about the protection of wildlife? We want protection for the birds, the bees, the weasels, the squirrels and the rabbits, and if we do not get it, the Minister will be looking for protection.

I know how close the protection of rabbits and weasels is to the heart of the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure he will be pleased to know that in the environmentally sensitive areas we have taken a number of opportunities to find ways in which this protection can be extended, not least with the strip system, which is being used in Breckland. Great care will be taken to ensure that the set-aside scheme is environmentally satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman will also understand that since the passing of the Agriculture Act 1986 the Ministry has had a duty to take into account the environmental impact of its decisions.

In coming to a decision on whether, under the set-aside scheme, farmers should leave their land fallow or be allowed to use it for grazing, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the grave concern among farmers in Pembrokeshire and in west Wales that they will be put at a grave disadvantage if farmers receiving grants can then use the land for stock grazing and undercut prices?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking closely into account the representations that we have received in deciding how the scheme should apply to the United Kingdom. It is obviously of great concern for those who can do little other than use their land for grazing if others who have a range of opportunities are encouraged by support to move into grazing of livestock. On the other hand, the opportunity for grazing fallow is there, and we shall have to consider it most carefully.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which the common agricultural policy at present gives British farmers the opportunity to compete on equal terms with their counterparts in Europe; and if he will make a statement.

As the Commission document on the price-fixing makes clear, it is very difficult to assess equal terms between member states, since so many factors vary.

Is this not an opportune time to have an independent inquiry into the workings of the common agricultural policy, to see whether British farmers are able to compete on equal terms with their counterparts in Europe?

We have had inquiries on some aspects of the CAP. For example, an inquiry into pigmeat came to the view that, with the possible exception of the MCA issue—the hon. Gentleman knows my position on this—overall the costs were similar and that it was not possible to suggest that British farmers were in an uncompetitive position. I do not believe that a general inquiry is required. It is always my aim to ensure that, on matters of Commission or national confidence, British farmers compete on reasonably fair terms. I shall have more to say about that in our debate later.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is becoming extremely difficult and embarrassing explaining and justifying to British pig farmers the commonality of an agricultural policy and market in which they seem to be diminishing in number at regular, cyclical intervals? Will he do something to underpin the British pig industry more successfully than we have managed to do so far?

Pig production has held up pretty well in this country, and we are maintaining our market share. I have made clear on a number of occasions that I should like to see MCAs eliminated.

Is the Minister aware of the precarious position of the pig industry in Northern Ireland, which has been decimated over the past decade, from a total of 24,000 producers to only 4,000? While we welcome the movement that he announced earlier on MCAs, will he strive to lift that burden from those who are trying to compete with northern Europe, where producers receive a subsidy of £50 to £70 per tonne? Will the Minister consider also increasing the export restitution, to enable an expanded market to be created in the third world?

We have considered export restitutions and pressed for them on a number of occasions. There have been a number of significant changes over the past six months, and the hon. Gentleman will realise that they are available to farmers in the European Community as a whole, not just to those in the United Kingdom. I have made it clear that the subsidy to which the hon. Gentleman referred has been considerably reduced during the past few weeks. It is my objective to have pigmeat MCAs eliminated altogether, although that will be difficult to achieve.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last had a meeting with the leaders of the farming unions; and what matters were discussed.

I meet the leaders of the farming unions frequently to discuss agricultural matters.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that farmers are very grateful for the stand that he takes in representing their interests? Will he please do all that he can to ensure early devaluation of the green pound, so that our farmers are paid as much as German farmers are for indentical produce?

In our current discussions in the Council on price fixing I have taken the view that we should take a further step towards devaluation of the green pound. I hope to say more about that in the debate this evening.

Is the Minister aware that one of the complaints that he will receive from British farming unions —and if he met the agricultural workers union he would hear the same—is that on the continent the £2 billion fraud under the common agricultural policy during the past two years has meant that British farmers have not been able to compete effectively? Can he throw any light on the fiddle set-aside scheme, which has not yet been introduced, but which, according to sources within the Community, involves a figure approaching 50 per cent.?

I find it difficult to understand how there can be a fiddle under a scheme that has not been introduced.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to promote the conservation of whales.

The Government are in the forefront of recent efforts within the International Whaling Commission to ensure that the moratorium on commercial whaling, which came into effect in 1985, is fully respected. We recently ensured that the scientific committee condemned Japanese attempts to use scientific excuses for whaling and it has asked them to stop. We shall continue to fight to ensure that the whale is conserved.

Will my right hon. Friend find time to wait upon the Japanese representatives currently visiting this country, to pass on to them a guide to and examples of, good practice, and the way in which the British Government have dealt with the problem, and ask them to follow suit?

I shall certainly look into that, and, if it proves possible, point out that the British Government's campaign has had full support from International Greenpeace and from Sir Peter Scott and the organisations that he represents.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he is taking to seek to reform the common agricultural policy.

I am seeking to ensure that the approach adopted on CAP reform at the recent European Council is followed through in the price fixing. I favour adjustments to support arrangements which will bring supply and demand into better balance and restore intervention to its original role as a safety net rather than an alternative market outlet.

As every citizen is a consumer of agricultural products but few earn their living from agriculture, will my right hon. Friend give higher priority to the wish of consumers for lower prices, rather than the high prices that we now have?

The Government's record on food prices is very good. The average is well below what it was under the last Labour Administration, and is below the rate of inflation. I think that the problem is much more the contribution that the taxpayer has to make in ways that are not a sensible use of economic resources, and it is on that that we are concentrating.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

Is the Prime Minister aware that I have received a letter from a widow in my constituency, in the beautiful village of Selston? Before 11 April she was receiving housing benefit. She has now been told that she is no longer entitled to it, and she is struggling to find food. I hope that that point has gone home. Because of the policies of the Government and the Prime Minister, I believe that she is a wicked woman and that they are a wicked Government.

The hon. Gentleman must think terrible things of the previous Labour Government, bearing in mind that this Government are spending far more than that Government did on social security and on housing benefit, and that there is a far higher standard of living. What a pity that he did not ask his own Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am answering the question. Hon. Members have a much better Government than they have ever had before.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

As some of the television companies are indulging in trial by television before the legal processes are completed, will my right hon. Friend consider strengthening the guidelines by which those companies are controlled? Will she consider whether they are the right companies to project the balance that will be necessary when the House is televised?

Televising the House is being considered by a Select Committee, and that Committee will no doubt wish to make its own recommendations for the House to decide. As for trial by television, it is not so much the actual specific rules on which we depend. It has been something much deeper than that. It has been a matter of the customs and conventions referred to by Lord Justice Salmon in his report, in which he said:

"One would not wish to see in this country the horror of trial by Press, Television and Radio … We have so far escaped them only because of the high sense of responsibility on the part of Press, Television and Radio".

"The real danger of such interviews is that witnesses whose evidence is vital to the matters under investigation are questioned without any of the safeguards which obtain in our courts of law or before Tribunals of Inquiry."

In her letter to me this week the Prime Minister said:

"what matters is the total income of individual people from benefit"

"My only income is my pension … I was due in April for a £1·30 rise which would bring my income to £44·68 but now I have to pay £1·68 rates which brings me off a little worse … I have to put £25 a week away for bills—electricity, gas, life insurance, house insurance, ground rent, water rates, telephone and TV licence.

This leaves £18 a week to live on, which isn't much fun.

All my home is getting worn out, like me, and cannot be replaced. By the way, I have got £400 in the bank but dare not break into it as it is for my funeral."

As it is obvious that thousands of people are in a similar position, will the Prime Minister change her social security and poll tax policies again in order to remove the 20 per cent. rates liability for people such as that widow?

No. If the lady is within income support, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is full transitional protection. He is very well aware of that. For a start, those people are the poorest in our society. As he knows, widows will greatly benefit from the community charge, as they will pay a lot less than they would have done under the rates system that he wishes to support. There is an 80 per cent. rebate for those who are poor, and those on income support will receive a sum equal to about 20 per cent. of the average rate to enable them to pay either their rates or, later on, their community charge.

The lady in question lives in a borough where the average rate is lower than the outer London average, and lower than the national average. I know that the right hon. Lady takes notice of her own mailbag. She must know that the average rate in her constituency is £678 a year. A 20 per cent. average liability is therefore £137·40, which is £2·64 a week. To offset that 20 per cent. rates liability, the DHSS pays £1·30 a week. How does £1·30 a week offset £2·64 a week?

If there is an average payment, obviously some people will do very much better and some people will not get as much. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of that. He will bring forward one or two losers and forget all the gainers. He will know from the latest figures that the highest domestic rate in this country is 329p, in Bolsover, and the lowest is 98p, in Kensington.

The Prime Minister does not understand her own system. The DHSS provides £1·30 a week towards the extra liability that people have to meet 20 per cent. of the rates liability, wherever they live. Will she tell me how somebody on an income of just over £44 a week is not worse off as a consequence of having to meet that liability? When someone gets £1·30 a week extra, is she a loser or a gainer when she has to pay £2·64 a week extra for rates? Will the Prime Minister please try to understand the situation of the thousands of people in that position, including those in her own constituency, who have somehow to meet their 20 per cent. rates liability of £2·64 a week out of an extra £1·30 a week?

I have answered the right hon. Gentleman. It is he who refuses to understand that if there is an average sum to meet a particular liability, some people will get more than the liability and a few people will get less. Is he suggesting that because sometimes there are losers there should never be any changes? If that is so, why did his Government introduce fair rents, when everyone had to pay increased rents over controlled rents? Why did his Government change the basis of the pension uprating when it did not suit them to compensate pensioners for price increases, and every pensioner lost?

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern that many of us feel at what appears to be French capitulation to terrorism, and will she convey this disquiet to the French Premier?

As my hon. Friend is aware, our policy on hostages has not changed. We do everything that we can to inquire about them and to persuade those who hold them that it is totally wrong to do so and that they should be released unconditionally. We will not pay a ransom or make any payment of that sort to obtain the release of hostages. We have asked the French Government about the matter, and they have assured us that they have not paid a ransom.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the ability of British manufacturers to export competitively plays any part in determining her policy towards the appropriate level of the sterling exchange rate, or is it only the Chancellor who is interested in British exporters?

We are all interested in British exporters and, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have to import many raw materials and semi-fabricated products in order to export the finished product. Of course, imports under a high exchange rate are much cheaper than they would otherwise be.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

Now that winter is over and our thoughts are turning to our summer holidays, has my hon. Friend considered taking her vacation in the new Center Pares holiday village in Sherwood forest? Since that new complex opened, 250,000 visitors have attended and paid entrance and holiday fees. The complex employs 450 people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that tourism is the easiest way forward in creating new jobs?

I agree with my hon. Friend that tourism creates a great many jobs and brings a considerable income to this country. I confess that I had not thought of spending my own holiday at that place, but I hope that many other people will do so.

Given the Prime Minister's belief that recent television programmes produced by Thames Television and the BBC may be prejudicial to the findings of the inquest in Gibraltar, will she express similar concern at the decision of the Attorney-General not to prosecute senior police officers who were involved in similar incidents in the North of Ireland? Does she agree that that must he grossly prejudicial to the inquiries there? Does she further agree that the unprecedented delay of six years in holding inquests into those incidents must lead us to the conclusion that a just and equitable decision is not now possible?

No, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. As he is well aware, the Attorney-General's decision was made in accordance with the due and proper process of law, which, he explained to the House. That is quite different from trial by television.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether it would be the intention of the Government, in setting up the Broadcasting Standards Council, to refer to it matters such as the programme on the shootings in Gibraltar and the BBC's programme, "Spotlight", if it transmits it?

That had not been the intention. As my hon. Friend is aware, we agreed to set up a Broadcasting Standards Council more to deal with violence and matters of that sort. I would prefer to think that we could rely on the television authorities to upheld the rule of law, which, after all, is the fundamental safeguard of the freedom of us all. One cannot agree with the rule of law and then flout its conditions. I hope that we will be able to persuade them that that is the predominant issue.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 May.

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

Why is the Prime Minister, who is wealthy beyond the bounds of ordinary people's wealth, so callous and merciless with the old and the poor? Can she explain to the people outside why all this money is going to the powerful and wealthy, when it should be going to the needy, the sick and the old? How can she reconcile that with having a conscience of any kind?

Lower rates of taxation have led to far higher incomes, to far higher standards of social services and in the Health Service than we have ever known, and to far higher living standards for widows and pensioners than they have ever known, as all the figures show. The high taxation regime run by Opposition Members led to big cuts in the social services and the Health Service. The hon. Gentleman will never understand the means by which wealth is created and the means by which extra money can be passed on to those in need. It is noteworthy that Opposition Members voted against cuts in income tax. Their votes would have cut the net take home pay of many people on quite low incomes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents fully support her in the support that she invariably gives to our security services, whose members preserve our lives? Is she further aware that they also believe that if convicted terrorists were executed, they could not escape to kill again.

My hon. Friend knows my personal view on capital punishment. This is a matter for the House as a whole to decide, and I believe that there will one day be an occasion when the House can consider it again.