To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take further action to restrict aboriginal whaling.

We will go on insisting in the International Whaling Commission that the taking of whales by aboriginal communities continues to be very closely regulated. And the numbers permitted to be taken should be consistent with scientific advice on the status of the stocks. We will also continue to press for any necessary improvement in monitoring such whaling or in hunting methods employed.

While welcoming the tremendous international interest in the efforts that are taking place to rescue the three whales off Alaska, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that the best way in which we can save the whale population as a whole is through organisations such as the International Whaling Commission? Does he think that possibly the time has come when we should stop whaling altogether?

The United Kingdom Government's record on whaling is second to none, and we support the International Whaling Commission in all its efforts. However, many aboriginal communities still live off the whale and depend on it for their whole lifestyle. It would be wrong to think of those communities becoming dependent on the state rather than on their own commerce and industry. Nevertheless, I agree with the broad thrust of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

I associate myself with the views of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris). I am sure that there is enormous support on both sides of the House for the banning of all whaling. As certain aboriginal communities clearly depend on whale hunting, would it not be appropriate for countries such as our own to give them adequate financial compensation, so that they will not have to make any sacrifices in achieving something that we want? It will be very useful if the Minister can send a message to the United States Government, commending them for their noble efforts in trying to save the three grey whales in Alaska.

I am sure that those associated with the United States Government read Hansard very carefully and will be pleased and surprised to learn of that last comment by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). They need not have me slingshotted all the way across to Alaska. Besides, I have enough to do.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his assessment of the effectiveness of current policing of the common fisheries policy.

As my hon. Friend knows, the United Kingdom Government have always taken the lead in advocating effective measures for enforcing the common fisheries policy. There are clear signs that other EC member states are now taking the steps necessary, as we have done, to achieve proper enforcement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the industry as a whole appreciates that better steps are now being taken, in some countries those steps are being taken from a very low base? There is still anxiety, particularly in this country, about the reduction in quotas, which is causing real hardship to many of our fishermen.

We take steps to reduce quotas only when scientific advice suggests that it is necessary for the long-term conservation of stocks, which is clearly in the interests of our own fishermen. As for enforcement, I am sure my hon. Friend has noticed that the Netherlands, for example, has made a big increase in the manpower of its inspection service, has strengthened its control system, is improving restrictions on its fleet's capacity and effort and is taking a number of its fishermen to court. There is no doubt that considerable efforts have been made in that country.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of farming unions to discuss the state of the agriculture industry.

I meet representatives of the farming unions frequently to discuss agricultural matters. For example, I have met many of them from different parts of the country, including the president, on various occasions in the last fortnight alone.

What plans has the Minister to ease financial pressures on our agriculture so that it can compete on equal terms with its counterparts in Europe?

I am aware that in some sectors of the industry there are problems of declining incomes, and that others, such as the pig industry, also have real difficulties —although that is the case throughout the European Community. On the other hand, some sectors have experienced improvements in incomes in the past year or so, and in one or two earlier years. The overall picture is not one of declining incomes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is genuine concern among British farmers that our green pound may not achieve parity by 1992? The fear is that if it does not do so by then some Socialist Eurocrat may decide to freeze values as they are, in which case it would never do so. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the farmers that he will maintain pressure for devaluing the green pound?

Yes, I can. As my hon. Friend knows, the Commission and the Council have both committed themselves this year to the phasing out of MCAs and their elimination by 1992. I have made it clear that I strongly support that, and that I do not believe that there can be a proper single market in agriculture unless it is done. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall use every appropriate opportunity to continue working to that end.

In view of his further rejection of direct income aid at the last Agriculture Council—which, I believe, took place a couple of days ago—has the Minister any plans to help hill farmers in my constituency to keep up their incomes, which are among those that are diminishing?

I was by no means alone in making some strong criticisms of the Commission's current proposals for a direct income-aid scheme. Many other Ministers, including those from some of the bigger countries, also chimed in with different criticisms. I believe that the current proposals would not be cost effective, are not directed at the right ends and do not fulfil all the conditions that we were asked to carry out.

Will the Minister inform the House of the present position on his promise that he would work towards the elimination of pigmeat MCAs? Is he aware of the proposals now being ventilated in Europe concerning changes in sheepmeat and beef regimes, which would result in serious agricultural conditions in Northern Ireland? Will he keep in mind that feed stocks for the intensive sector in Northern Ireland are now soaring almost out of control, and that the intensive farmers are in great difficulties?

I argued strongly, and with some good arguments, for the elimination of pigmeat MCAs as quickly as possible. There was still a blocking minority on that, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, as a result of the changes that we did secure, pigmeat MCAs will be down to zero on 1 January if sterling remains at its current level. That is a big change from a negative MCA of 28 points only about 18 months ago.

When the Minister met the farming unions' leaders, did he discuss with them the Commission's proposals to abolish the sheep variable premium and the consequential increase in the ewe premium? Will he confirm that the ewe premium will be based on a European, not a British, level, and that many farmers will get only half as much as they are expecting? If that is the case, how will the Minister ensure that we keep sheep farming in the hills and keep the areas attractive for people to enjoy and live in?

As I said earlier, I think that we shall have some complex negotiations on the sheepmeat proposals. There were criticisms from many sides, so I suspect that we shall see changes as they go through.

Can my right hon. Friend reassure NFU members who are milk producers that Britain's highly efficient Milk Marketing Board will not be subjected to the reforming zeal of EC bureaucrats?

From time to time there have been problems in ensuring that the Milk Marketing Board conforms with Community requirements, but, as far as I can recall, the main issue in that respect does not arise from the EC, but may follow from a court case in Northern Ireland, on which I cannot comment because it is sub judice. That is the issue to which the Milk Marketing Board may have to address itself before too long.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has had any representations regarding the implementation of the Agriculture Act 1986 concerning compensation for milk quotas.

I have received a number of representations on this subject.

Is the Minister aware that real hardship is being caused to tenants by excessive delays in the payment of compensation by some landlords? Does he agree that that could be best tackled by requiring interest to be paid on that compensation?

I know very well the hon. Gentleman's concern for the matter in general and for some of his constituents in particular—and why not? I have with me the relevant correspondence. The matter is best settled by arbitration. Some cases will have to go to court, and that is the time when interest can be discussed.

I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a specific question and asked him to take it up personally with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In some parts of the country the commissioners of Customs and Excise are trying to charge value added tax on those compensation payments, which is wholly outwith the undertaking given by the previous Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when they were introduced. Can my hon. Friend tell me what progress the Minister has made in his representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that important matter?

My right hon. Friend received my hon. Friend's letter last night and we have managed to have only the briefest of discussions on it. However, my right hon. Friend will be writing to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others on that important matter.

Has the Ministry entirely forgotten about the additional quota that was allocated to Northern Ireland, which seems to have been misappropriated and distributed over the whole of the United Kingdom?

These questions seem to run on for a long time in Northern Ireland. I think that I have answered this question on about four previous occasions. The answer has not altered. I can see no hope of a future re-distribution.

In view of the substantial decline of the surplus of dairy products, does my hon Friend envisage that there will be further cuts in the milk quota?

The substantial decline in milk products came about on purpose. Therefore, we shall monitor very carefully the supplies of milk, butter, skimmed milk powder and other dairy products and, in consultation with our European partners, review the position.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is taking to reduce water pollution from farm sources; and if he will make a statement.

In our response to the Environment Committee's third special report the Government announced a number of measures to deal with the farm pollution problem, including a commitment to draw up regulations to ensure proper containment of silage and slurry.

I congratulate the Minister on his first reply from the Dispatch Box. I am sure he will be aware that in many parts of the country nitrate in the water supplies is already at an unacceptably high level. There are problems in the aquifers, which will show up for some considerable time. What steps do the Government intend to take to introduce protection zones and to encourage the proper use of nitrates by farmers and environment-friendly farming?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. The Government are looking at a range of options. We have not yet reached any conclusions, and before we do we shall consult various bodies. We look forward to finalising those conclusions in the relatively near future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association to nitrogen pollution is positive? We are getting fed up with the Opposition kicking the farmers round the block all the time. The farmers—not the whingers opposite—are the true safeguarders of the environment.

My hon. Friend is quite right. I particularly welcomed the speech made last month by Mr. David Naish, the vice-president of the NFU, in which he warned farmers that by continuing to pollute the rivers they were undermining their reputation in the countryside. Also, I draw attention to the fact that the maximum fines available to the courts for farmers who pollute the countryside are £2,000 and that many courts are not using those full penalties.

Is the Minister aware that farming pollution has risen steadily in Yorkshire and Humberside in recent years and that the Yorkshire water authority has been hampered by that extraordinary section in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 that he apparently has in mind? Is the Minister saying that his right hon. Friend intends to repeal that section, which has enabled farmers to evade prosecution if they pleaded acts of omission arising from good agricultural practice? A similar defence was not available for industrial spillage.

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my reply. I was reminding the House that £2,000 is the maximum penalty for polluting the countryside and that the courts are not using the maximum penalty. In the south-west, which has one of the worst pollution problems, the average fines that are dished out by the courts are £140, so it is quite clear that those penalties are not being used.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. After so many years, we are delighted to hear his voice again in the Chamber. Does he agree that there is a far greater danger of water pollution from fluoride than from nitrates?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He knows that my views on fluoride do not coincide with his.

I offer the Minister the Opposition Front Bench's congratulations on his appointment.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect the bass nursery stocks.

As I announced on 27 July, we shall increase the minimum landing size for bass and introduce restrictions on the use of gill and similar nets with a mesh size between 65mm and 89mm. These measures are to take effect from 1 January 1990. There will be further consultations with local interests about establishing nursery areas to protect juvenile bass stocks.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that sea bass is a slow-growing fish and that it is essential that stocks be conserved. Will he therefore consider the matter rather more urgently and designate nursery areas for these fish to come into effect before 1990?

The matter is complicated because of the various sections of the community who have an interest in bass stocks and catch bass. I think that it will take a couple of years before we can reconcile the various interests.

My hon. Friend will be aware that fishermen on the south coast are not convinced of the need for the measures that he is about to introduce. More important is the fact that the measures will not apply to our EEC partners. That seems to be one more example of unfair competition with other members of the Community. On reflection, will my hon. Friend agree to withhold the new measures until they are applied throughout the EEC? Will he ensure that fishermen in places such as Poole are given the maximum, not the minimum, time to make the adjustments?

You, Mr. Speaker, have just heard both sides of the argument. It is vital that bass stocks be protected from as early a date as possible after proper negotiations. We must try to persuade the Europeans to come along with us while we are trying to persuade some of my hon. Friend's constituents to be more enthusiastic about the future of the industry on which they place such great reliance.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the National Farmers Union horticulture committee; and what matters were discussed.

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary last met the chairman of the NFU horticulture committee on 20 September, when the main subject under discussion was horticultural research.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable concerns expressed in horticulture about his proposals for revised funding arrangements. This is a highly competitive industry. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that any changes to the funding arrangements will be phased in to allow the industry adequate time to adjust to the new regime?

There is a later question on the Order Paper about research and development generally, but it is entirely right to ask the industry—whatever the sector—to undertake more of the near-market research. I recognise that a higher proportion of horticultural research and development has been classified as near-market because a high proportion of the work is close to commercial application. We are engaged in intensive discussions with the horticulture industry on this point, and I can tell my hon. Friend that timing is one of the matters that are being discussed.

I wonder whether the Minister will give some definition of precisely what is meant by near-market research for horticulture? Most of the horticulturists whom I have met in my constituency are bewildered. They have pursued the matter with the Ministry, but they are no nearer to understanding precisely what it is that they have been asked to do. They feel, and I support them, that 60 per cent. from the industry within the next three years is the death knell for it.

That is a big exaggeration. The broad definition of near-market research is that it is work that offers the possibility of commercial exploitation or application within a short enough time to justify investment by industry. That is what is happening in many industries outside horticulture and agriculture. We have specified in detail the kind of research projects that we believe come within the definition of near-market research. That is one of the subjects that is also part of the discussion with the industry—to agree on which of the projects should come within the definition.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hatfield polytechnic has recently launched a unique, new BSc degree course in horticulture, in collaboration with Writtle agricultural college? It is the first horticultural degree course that has been mounted outside the university system. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate all those involved in the initiative, which will provide a steady stream of highly trained experts to ensure that horticulture is equipped to meet the challenges of the 1990s and beyond?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. I am happy to congratulate those involved.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Ministry has to mark its centenary during 1989.

The Ministry will be arranging a number of events which will be co-ordinated with the programme for Food and Farming Year, which also takes place in 1989. There will be exhibitions in London and in the regions, a centenary history of the Ministry and a special centenary appeal in aid of the Save the Children Fund.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Many hon. Members can probably remember the days of food rationing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself".] I am not speaking personally. Will not the celebrations present us with an ideal opportunity to congratulate all farmers on the magnificent efforts that they have made over the years to provide the country with sufficient food —always at the urging of Conservative Governments?

I entirely agree. One of the problems is that because we have had to grapple with the farmers' success and the penalties that that has brought, with surpluses and the CAP, there has been too much public emphasis on the problems of the CAP and not enough on the contributions that have been made by our farmers and food industry over the past 40 years. Especially in the past few years, the range and quality of food have been improving and the price increases of food are well below the general level of the RPI. There is a good record on production, quality, price and exports, and I believe that 1989 will give us a good opportunity to put that ease across.

Will the Minister find time to reflect in the centenary year that for most of the past 100 years Britain's food policy was determined in Britain and not in Brussels? Does he agree with me that consumers were better served when the policy was determined in Britain?

It is the case that we have moved faster towards self-sufficiency in those products that we can grow in the past 10 years than in earlier periods. Our farmers have used the opportunity of entering the Community to continue to expand our food production.

To ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the industry can celebrate their bicentenary, will my right hon. Friend mark his Ministry's centenary by ensuring that he extracts from the Treasury adequate resources for agricultural research, in the interests both of farm production and of the countryside?

My hon. Friend will know that a large contribution is made to agriculture, food and fisheries research and development from public funds at present. The sum is currently running at about £200 million a year, which is a substantial contribution.

I wonder whether, when this centenary is celebrated, a plaque will be unveiled on the wall of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and whether tribute will be paid to this industry, subsidised during the whole course of its 100 years. Will the Minister tell us what the exact amount of subsidy has been over the past 10 years, during which the Prime Minister and the Cabinet have talked about leaving matters to market forces, and during which time more than £10 billion has been ploughed into the industry from the taxpayer?

The figure has been too high, especially in relation to the production of surpluses. That is why we have been playing a leading part in the Community in achieving the reform of the common agricultural policy. As a result of our recent efforts, savings of more than £1,000 million will be made over the next four years in the United Kingdom alone, compared with what would have happened had we not undertaken the reforms.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what types of projects have been most popular among farmers applying for farm diversification grants.

Good quality holiday accommodation accounts for just over 30 per cent. of applications and recreational and educational facilities for about 20 per cent. Food processing, farm shops and livery are also popular choices; indeed, there is a widespread interest in most of the enterprise for which grant-aid is available.

I thank my hon. Friend and welcome him to his new post, but may I suggest that many of the ventures that he described—indeed, probably all of them—could lead to many farmers falling foul of the planning legislation and that there is a great need to give guidance to farmers on planning and for a much more open-minded approach on the part of many planning and highway authorities?

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind welcome. I agree with his judgment of farmers' appreciation and understanding of planning laws. It is precisely for that reason that we shall be publishing a farmers' guide and leaflets dealing with the planning system later this year. I very much hope that they will help farmers to understand the planning system better.

In diversification, what emphasis is being given to organic farming?

The answer is, "None at the moment."

How sure is my hon. Friend that the most popular diversification grant will not go towards housing, and what safeguards can he give?

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that diversification grants do not go towards housing. On the other hand, I would point out that there is one grant which to the best of my knowledge, has not been made so far, and that is a grant for martial arts.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority; and what subjects were discussed.

I have not yet had an opportunity, since assuming my new responsibilities, of meeting the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, but look forward to doing so soon.

I hope that the Minister will meet the SFIA chairman very soon, and that during that meeting he will impress on him the need for him to meet the leaders of fishermen's organisations and to involve them fully in the training programmes that are to be mounted. The Minister will be aware that the European Community is urging that there should be training programmes across the EC, but it is crucial that those training programmes should meet local needs. Will the Minister do what I ask?

I am glad to welcome a question such as that. I agree with every word of it in thought and substance.

When the Minister meets the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, will he offer that gentleman the assurance that the Government have no intention whatever of abandoning the vessel building scheme? May I point out to him that there is growing concern among fishermen that the Government intend to abandon the scheme, except to provide replacement vessels for vessels lost at sea. Will he, here and now, dispel those genuine and growing fears of our fishermen?

The Government put no restrictions on people building their own boats. However, there is an EC moratorium on the priorities for boat building. We have to consider the size of the British and European fleets. It would be ridiculous to continue building bigger, better and faster boats with greater capacity for a diminishing fish stock. We must put conservation first and boat building second.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the response of farmerss has been to the set-aside scheme launched in June.

The response has been satisfactory. I will be announcing figures of applications and registrations as soon as they are available following the 21 October closing date

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there may be substantial environmental benefits from a temporary policy of land set-aside? All too often, modern farming practices can result in the destruction of our great national landscapes and habitats.

I very much agree that there are big opportunities through set-aside for those environmental benefits. In drawing up the scheme I was very careful to have environmental conditions written into it which will help to ensure that. One interesting point from our early analysis of applications received is that the most popular choice so far is permanent fallow. I hope that farmers who undertake set-aside through permanent fallow will use the opportunity to improve the conservation value of land set aside in precisely the way that my hon. Friend has described.

Are the Government thinking of introducing a set-aside scheme for factory owners whose factories have been set aside under this Government, causing the loss of 2 million jobs in less than 10 years? Will the set-aside scheme giving farmers up to £ 100 an acre for watching the grass grow apply only to farmers? Is it being denied to City institutions with offices in Mayfair which are taking Government money? They do not even see the grass grow—they are too far away.

It applies to all those who actually farm the land. There is a cost involved in looking after land and keeping it in good agricultural condition as well as environmentally attractive. The set-aside payments recognise that cost.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Country Landowners Association; and what subjects they discussed.

I last met the president of the Country Landowners Association on 5 October. We discussed various matters of mutual interest.

My right hon. Friend will know how enthusiastic the Country Landowners Association is that voluntary set-aside should succeed. Although it is now almost too late for arable farmers to register for set-aside, is there a message that my right hon. Friend would like the CLA and hon. Members to convey to arable farmers who would like to register at this late stage?

Yes. I know that the CLA has been very helpful. I have been seen press reports that suggest that the president of the CLA has applied to set aside part of his land. The CLA is also helpful in assisting us to monitor—indeed, it will do some monitoring for us—what some people fear might be a problem in relation to tenants on set-aside land. I do not think that there is a problem yet, but the monitoring will be helpful. Although registrations have to be in by the closing date, that is only to help farmers who may wish to apply for set-aside in future years. It will still be possible for them to do that, but it will be more difficult if they do not register.

How does the Minister respond to the CLA's latest proposals for an automatic system of compensation for land blighted during nuclear incidents such as Chernobyl?

We are looking at several proposals made by the CLA, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will meet the CLA at the end of the month.

Bearing in mind the recent anniversary of the October hurricane, did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to discuss with the CLA the number of trees still lying on the land, particularly in Kent? Was he able to reassure the CLA that his efforts will continue unabated until the trees are removed and new trees are planted in their place?

I have not only discussed that with the CLA, but, to coincide with the anniversary, I have visited many areas that have been affected. Although I recognise the difficulties, substantial efforts have been made by woodland owners and others to do the clearing up, and I believe that by early next year we may well see half the clearing up done. There is also a good prospective take-up of the schemes that we have introduced to help with replanting.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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 Premier of the State of South Australia.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the television and radio strictures upon Sinn Fein, the propaganda arm of that evil machine the IRA, have been widely welcomed in the country, as it has in the House, among thinking and feeling people? Will my right hon. Friend also accept that that is only one step on the road to its defeat, because anybody standing for public office in the United Kingdom should have to swear an oath renouncing violence and upholding the primacy of Parliament and the ballot box?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree that the measures announced yesterday have been widely welcomed in the country by people who do not wish terrorists to have direct access to the broadcasting media. On the second point about those who wish to stand for local elections taking an oath to renounce violence, a similar proposal was put forward previously by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If we go ahead with it, we shall do so by way of legislation and introduce it at the earliest opportunity.

In the argument between those who want to raise child benefit and those who want to freeze it, on which side is the Prime Minister?

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that child benefit is reviewed every year. He knows that there will be an anouncement at the proper time. He knows what the proper time is, and he must await it accordingly.

Child benefit was reviewed last year and resulted in its being frozen. I am not asking for detail from the Prime Minister, I am asking for a statement of principle from her. Does she want to raise child benefit, or does she want to freeze it? How can a Government give £3 billion to top-rate taxpayers and not give an undertaking to increase child benefit?

This year, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we directed £200 million in net extra resources to families in income-related benefits, especially for the children. That was against the £120 million that uprating child benefit this year would have cost. If the right hon. Gentleman wants a general increase in child benefit, it would also go to the topmost people on top tax.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her recent remarks in Bruges and in Brighton last week reflect the opinion held by the overwhelming majority of people in this country and, if the truth were known, throughout Europe? Does she agree that other European Heads of Government would do better to concentrate on practical measures towards economic progress and their agriculture policies rather than harp on about ideological European union ideas?

Yes. The speech was greeted by an avalanche of support, as well as some criticism. I firmly believe that the best way to secure forward movement in the European Community is by active co-operation between sovereign states. Furthermore, we have concentrated on practical measures, and in doing so have often been way ahead in achievements—beyond those who talk in woolly terms about European union.

Inflation is now running at four times the level of that in West Germany and is 50 per cent. above the EEC average. Interest rates in Britain are nearly twice as high as they are in France and three times as high as in West Germany. Wage rates in Britain are rising two and a half times as fast as in France, and as an average are 50 per cent. higher than in the EEC. What grounds can there be for the Government's smug complacency about the economy?

I understand that the hon. Gentleman put a lot of work into his question, but he seems, at one and the same time, to be criticising both higher inflation rates and higher interest rates. Does he not know that the way to get inflation down is by higher interest rates?

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that no responsible Western Government would allow the right to strike or trade union activity to interfere with the security services? Bearing in mind the disruption caused at GCHQ and the genuine efforts that the Government have made to deal with legitimate trade union concerns, is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of British people will fully support the necessary action that has recently been taken by the Government at GCHQ?

Yes. The original decision that we took on GCHQ was upheld by the highest court in the land and the European Court of Human Rights. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, said in the House yesterday, about 10,000 man days were lost at GCHQ in the period 1979 to 1981 as a result of industrial action that had nothing to do with GCHQ. We have made strenuous efforts to accommodate those who did not uphold the new conditions of service. Only about 18 did not, while 7,000 people accepted those conditions. The action that we have taken is correct.

Will the Prime Minister please explain what will seriously be achieved by not allowing the British people to hear and understand why both communities in Northern Ireland engage in violent conflict? At the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement she promised reforms to reduce the alienation in Northern Ireland, but we have not seen them. We are now promised a series of measures that many of us believe will increase the conflict. Does she have a strategy to remove the causes of the violence, or will she allow it to rip under a blanket of censorship?

It would be a great help if we received full support for the measures that we have taken against terrorism, including the support of the Labour party for the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

Following the Labour party's abject failure over the Dundee episode, does my right hon. Friend agree that Ford's recent announcement of investment at Bridgend shows that foreign firms believe in this country, which is good for jobs and for Britain?

Yes. We all welcome Ford's decision to site its main engine investment in this country. We were very concerned when forces in the trade union movement—though not in Scotland—stopped Ford from going to Dundee. I am delighted that it has decided to make much investment in this country, which is a vote of confidence in the United Kingdom Government.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

Will there be any reconsideration of the Government's proposal to impose charges for eye tests? Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that there is particular worry about the plight of pensioners who, because of charges, will be deterred from seeking tests? Is she also aware that, because of that, there is a serious risk of an increase in the number of cases of glaucoma? Does the right hon. Lady realise that there is considerable concern on this issue among her Back Benchers? Bearing in mind the right hon. Lady's eye affliction some time ago, can she tell the House whether she shares that concern?

Those on low incomes will not have to pay the charge, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware. It seems reasonable that those who can afford to pay should pay about £3 twice a year on dental charges or up to £10 on spectacles, although competition among opticians may result in virtually no charge. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the enormous increase in prosperity this year. Indeed, the Labour party voted against tax reductions, including some that would have affected older people. It would seem reasonable that those who can afford it should pay this small, modest charge for something that is fundamental to their health.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if she were to undertake a 10-day speaking tour she would do so during the recess? Does she assume that the only reason why the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) waits until we reassemble is——

Order. The hon. Member can ask questions only about the Prime Minister's responsibility. She is not responsible for that matter.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

The Prime Minister is well aware of the unfairness and cruelty that will be inflicted on people on low incomes when the poll tax is introduced. Is she aware of the unfairness and cruelty that will be inflicted on a pensioner couple when they will have to pay twice the poll tax while their income will be only 50 per cent. more than that of a single pensioner? Will the right hon. Lady do something to arrest this cruelty that will be inflicted on people on low incomes?

Community charge is the way of paying for a part of local government services. It is therefore an obligation that falls on all citizens unless they are unable, because of low income, to afford the whole amount, in which case they will get an 80 per cent. rebate. In the last resort, they will get an average of 20 per cent. of the community charge on their social security benefit to enable them to pay it. The hon. Gentleman loses sight of the fact that it is a citizen's duty to pay towards the cost of local income and that there are full rebates for those on low incomes.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

Will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion that the ultimate solution to the problems of Northern Ireland lies in a re-drawing of the border, generous resettlement grants, its restriction to those British who wish to remain British, and thereafter its treatment on exactly the same terms as any other region of the United Kingdom?

We have not considered that approach. I do not think that it would work. There have been countries and incidents where it has worked in the past—for example, with Greece and Turkey afer the first world war—but previous efforts to do this in Northern Ireland have failed. We must carry on with our present pledge to the people of Northern Ireland, which is that there will be no change in their status, except at their wish and through their express consent and the express consent of the House. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and must be governed in that way.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 20 October.

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

Does the Prime Minister remember lecturing the nation—something that she does quite regularly—on spending money that it does not have? Why, then, do she and her Chancellor encourage people to spend money that they do not have?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being able so frequently to secure the last question at Prime Minister's Question Time. I do not know quite how he does it.