To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made in eliminating agricultural surpluses within the European Community.

European Community intervention stocks of most commodities have fallen significantly as a result of recent common agricultural policy reforms. For example, butter stocks have been reduced by 80 per cent. over the past year and stocks of skimmed milk powder are now almost negligible.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the United Kingdom butter mountain is melting and that skimmed milk powder surpluses have almost vanished proves that CAP reforms are beginning to work and that it is possible to reform the CAP in such a way as to provide a firm basis for the future prosperity of our farmers?

I agree with my hon. Friend. A main criticism of the CAP in recent years has been the amount of money that has gone into the storage and disposal of surplus stocks. The fact that those surplus stocks are decreasing substantially is a good sign for the future stability of our farmers. We must do other things to achieve complete CAP reform, but we should acknowledge how much has been done already.

I understand that we have a large and growing cheese mountain as a result of EC surpluses. Of course, we expect to get nothing but hard cheese from the Government—[Interruption.] It will do for 2.36 pm. As I assume that some of that cheese will be in intervention stores in my constituency—there is probably some good Greek feta cheese knocking about—is there any chance of the pensioners of Newham eating some of that feta cheese, with a pint or two of ouzo, at Christmas?

That was a rather belaboured remark. It is important to get the matter in context. The increase in cheese stocks is small, as is the total stock. The major expense lay in the butter mountain stocks, and they have been decreasing. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we took advantage of the EC free food scheme in relation to butter, but the decrease in butter stocks means that we shall have much less, or nothing, to do on that front in the future. That is not the best way to deal with the surplus. The best way is not to have a surplus in the first place.

As the agricultural surpluses are coming under control, will my right hon. Friend consider easing the co-responsibility levies on dairy products and cereals? They have always been iniquitous taxes and have had no effect on surpluses. Will he use his best offices to reduce that tax?

It is right to emphasise the fact that surpluses are decreasing and the mountains vanishing. The public at large and many pundits have not yet got hold of that fact. But we must still undertake further reforms, not least in the subsidised disposal of dairy products that are not in intervention stores. With other factors, that means that the dairy sector is still an expensive regime.

Will the Minister confirm that it has cost the European taxpayer £4·5 billion to remove the post-1987 food mountain and thus reduce the amount in storage? Will he assure the House that, to stop those mountains being rebuilt, not even one quarter of that amount has been spent in 1988?

It is rather complicated to give exact figures on what it costs to get rid of surplus products, as costs are spread over several years. Perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman about that. He is right to say that the figure has been high for storage and disposal of stocks. Last year, the actual figure for the Community was £12·5 billion. It is important that we ensure that stocks do not increase again and that we do not face such costs. That is what the thrust of the policies is about.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that cereal farmers have taken an almighty beating in the cereal price that they received as part of the effort to reform the CAP and reduce surpluses? There has been a 42 per cent. reduction in their prices in the past 10 years. Would he say to cereal farmers in his and my constituencies that he understands their problems and that he will do everything that he can to ensure that they do not lead to widespread deprivation of vast areas of East Anglia?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand entirely the difficulties that many cereal farmers in this country are experiencing as a result of the adjustment process that we have had to undertake, coupled also with two years of bad weather in East Anglia, which has certainly exacerbated our difficulties.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement with regard to the destruction of countryside hedgerows during the last five years.

There have been hedgerow removals in recent years as a result of changing agricultural circumstances and development such as road schemes and housing. There are no clear details on the extent of those removals.

Can the Minister deny that, since the Government blocked my perfectly sensible and responsible Hedgerows Bill five years ago, thousands of miles of hedgerows, much of them established and important, have been destroyed? In view of the Prime Minister's recent pronouncements on the importance and attractiveness of the British hedgerow, may I take it that when I again present the Bill next month the Government will take a different view?

I do not believe that legislation in this sphere would be effective, because it cannot be properly policed. Nevertheless, because I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said on the subject over many years, and because, during the past month, I have twice met representatives of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, to discuss the issue, I would be more than happy to talk to him if we could get together in my office during the next week or two.

I was extremely glad to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about the Government's attitude to hedgerows. He knows the importance of hedgerows for wildlife, ranging from hares to partridges, to small birds and butterflies. I am not convinced that, as it exists at present, the grant system is adequate to persuade people to put in more hedgerows. Particularly in the light of the set-aside proposals, will he review the grant system and see whether something can be done to improve it?

Only last Monday my right hon. Friend the Minister announced a new scheme—the farm and conservation grant scheme which increases hedgerow grants from 30 to 40 per cent. in lowland areas, where losses have been the most severe. I urge as many farmers as possible to take advantage of the scheme.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has recently held discussions with fishermen's organisations regarding the phenomenon of the incidental capture of marine mammals.

My Department has developed plans to seek the co-operation of fishermen to monitor more closely the extent of incidental capture of marine mammals and will be in touch with fishermen's organisations.

Unlike Scottish Tories, grey seals are an endangered species about which the people of Scotland really care. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he agrees that everything possible should be done to try to control the activities that threaten the remaining seal population off our shores. When he meets representatives of the fishermen's organisations, will he ensure that the representatives of the appropriate scientific groups are also there, and that practical solutions to remove this threat from the seal population around our shores are found?

It would be no good meeting fishermen's group unless both we and they were properly backed, or we would not reach any commonsense arrangement. This problem is greater in the Pacific, where the mammals swim along with the tuna, than it is in the North sea. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I should visit the Pacific to see what is being done there.

What is happening about the checking of other vessels off our shores, and particularly in the taking of catches that are not allowed by law? We have good policing arrangements in force when our fishermen dock into our ports, but what are we doing to ensure that these regulations are properly policed within our territorial waters?

I will stick at this point on marine mammals. The Wildlife Link umbrella group will be as influential in other countries as it is in this, and I am sure that fishermen in other countries see this as great a problem there as it is here, and will be making their own arrangements.

Given that cetacea of all kinds are now covered by schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, can the Minister assure the House that he will advise fishermen that they need not fear prosecution if they report any such incidental catches?

As the hon. Gentleman says, all whales and dolphins are given a general protection in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 against being caught. However, a fisherman accidentally taking a protected animal would not be held liable, assuming that he acts in a reasonable manner. This will be made clear to fishermen so that they can be reassured about reporting information for our monitoring scheme.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has discussed the use of bovine somatotropin for boosting milk production with representatives of the Womens Farming Union; and if he will make a statement.

I am well aware of the views of Womens Farming Union members on this subject, which I discussed with them last week.

Is the Minister aware of the concern of all women about the use of BST? Is he aware that in America there are many adverse views about the use of it and about the effect that it may have on young children? Will he discuss with all farming unions, before he grants a licence, the adverse effects that it could have on the farming industry?

I have discussed this subject with all farming unions, and there are varying views within the unions, including within the Womens Farming Union. It is important to reassure women by saying that before the trials were approved safety was carefully assessed by the Veterinary Products Committee, as it has to be under the Medicines Act 1968. That Act lays down the criteria that it has to apply. The committee consists of experts in human and animal health and it advised that there was no risk to consumers arising from the trials. That is an important point, and the same processes would have to be followed if there were an application for a licence. It is also the case that many countries, including the United States, are allowing these trials because they too have been advised that there is no risk to human health. That is an important point to make clear to consumers.

In view of the traumas that we have had over milk quotas in the past few years, why are we talking about boosting milk production by artificial means?

We must be careful to distinguish several factors. Under the Medicines Act, when there is any application for a new scientific development, we have to ensure that it is assessed by the experts on safety, efficacy and quality. Safety is paramount, and that is what we have to be sure about. But one has to be careful about saying that one should inhibit new agricultural development simply because we have a surplus. I am anxious that our industry should remain highly competitive and able to take advantage of all legitimate technological developments. Otherwise, it will become uncompetitive. As to surpluses, we have a milk quota system that guarantees that we shall not have an increase in milk production as a result of the application of BST. The point about not disadvantaging our industry or research effort by banning products that are safe is important.

Will the Minister prevent the Milk Marketing Board from selling milk for human consumption from the trial cows until the findings are known?

Under the Medicines Act, I have no powers to stop something if the Veterinary Products Committee guarantees that it is safe, efficacious and of quality. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it would be extremely difficult in practice to do that. We should emphasise the fact that there is no scientific evidence of risk to human health.

Is it not time that the consumer was given the protection of the right to know precisely what is in the pint that he drinks? Is it not time that there was a proper requirement for labelling when such additives, hormones and other products are used to boost milk production?

It is important that the consumer should know that, according to all our expert advice, there is no risk to human health. In any case, the hormone is already present in the milk produced.

Does the Minister recognise, from the questions that have been put to him this afternoon and from motions on the Order Paper, that there is outright opposition, both inside and outside the House, to the proposed introduction of BST? This afternoon the Minister has taken refuge behind the Medicines Act. Does he accept that if the Medicines Act is not an adequate instrument to deal with the threat posed by BST he should review the provisions of that Act? In the interim, will he acknowledge that he has powers to ban BST under the 1968 Act? Will he now give an assurance, before he makes a decision, that he will give full consideration to banning BST, using the powers in the 1968 Act?

There are a wide variety of views about BST and it is important that they are based on full knowledge. With regards to the animal test certificate under the Medicines Act I have to approve any product if the Veterinary Products Committee assures me that it is safe, efficacious and of quality. As regards issuing a licence for the product, that again would go through that committee and through a European Community committee, so there would be a full process before a decision was made.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has for the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy over the next six months; and if he will make a statement.

All the evidence available so far suggests that the disease is not spreading from animal to animal, but that the cases identified are attributable to a common source. Our knowledge is still developing and any estimate must be tentative. Based on the incidence since the disease was made notifiable, the number of cases likely to be confirmed over the next six months may be about 350 a month.

Will the Minister confirm that his Ministry was aware of the widespread belief that "spongy brain" is transmitted from one species to another—from sheep to cattle—and that during that period infected meat was sold for human consumption in the markets because of the lamentable failure of his Ministry to stop it? The Minister should apologise for that. What action will he take to prevent the import of infected meat? There has been no recorded outbreak of the disease outside this country, but that may simply reflect the fact that veterinary practices are not at the same standard as those in Britain.

Far from apologising, I shall say that the response of all concerned with the disease has been exemplary. The Ministry, the farmers and the renderers have acted in concert to attack the disease at its onset. The Ministry has diverted funds to find out exactly where the disease is coming from and has found, as the hon. Gentleman said, that it may have started in sheep and been transmitted through animal feedingstuffs to other animals. Therefore, the rendering industry—renderers make protein for animal feedingstuffs—have withdrawn that protein and we have extended the withdrawal period for another year. The farmers are notifying the disease and have accepted 50 per cent. compensation. The Southwood committee has made recommendations which the Government have implemented immediately.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the incidence of outbreaks of the disease is particularly high in the south-west? Will he consider carefully the existing level of compensation for affected animals? There is, after all, a precedent in the brucellosis eradication scheme, in which the figure was higher than 50 per cent. for infected animals.

I omitted to mention imports in my answer to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). He said that there are no notifications of the disease anywhere else. We are studying the position carefully. I know, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) knows, that the disease started in the south. Nobody knows why there have been far more incidents in the south-west than in the rest of the country. [Interruption.] The south-west would not think its economy was over-heated. Compensation is at about the right level. The animal withers and dies, so is worthless even if the farmer does not notify, although we have no information that farmers are not notifying us of the disease.

Can the Minister say whether there has been any incidence of the disease in Leicestershire, particularly in Blaby? Can he also confirm that if human beings eat large quantities of meat that has been infected by "spongy brain", the disease can be transmitted to them? Could Ministers, who go to large banquets, be infected with the disease, and can he confirm that that is why the Chancellor has tunnel vision?

The hon. Gentleman began well. There have been outbreaks of the disease in every county. [Interruption.] The disease does not affect meat, therefore neither I nor the Chancellor can be affected by it.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on acting so swiftly and circumspectly to contain the disease within animals—if not on the Opposition Front Bench. Has the Ministry managed to achieve proper incinerating facilities? In the south-west we are concerned about the open burning of the repulsive carcases.

There was open burning of carcases in Cornwall, at Lean quarry, in Peasedown St. John and in Cheriton Bishop in Devon. That has now stopped. We have a perfectly adequate facility in Hertfordshire, where we are collecting carcases and taking them to the incinerator in refrigerated vehicles. That facility is in Royston and will meet our needs for the foreseeable future.

What about heifers?

As the BSE-type disease has jumped species from sheep to cattle and there is some evidence that it has jumped to humans, why is the Ministry withholding cash for vital research work on BSE, which obviously poses a potential threat to public health?

The answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is that we have found the disease only in female cattle, with one exception, so he had better be careful.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the sheepmeat regime will next be discussed in the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Economic Community.

I expect the Council to discuss the review of the sheepmeat regime again at its next meeting on 12 December.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that sheepmeat production is of particular importance to the west of the country, with only uplands to work, and where little else can be done with the ground? Does he agree also that the stabiliser package, as it is currently running, not only ignores imports from eastern Europe and New Zealand, but penalises United Kingdom and European production? Is there not, therefore, a case for seeking a marked reduction in imports from New Zealand under the voluntary restraints agreement below the level of 205,000, which is currently on the table, bearing in mind that at present New Zealand is putting in only about 200,000, yet this works against the interests of United Kingdom producers?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the sheep sector, not only in the west country uplands, but in uplands throughout the United Kingdom. I am aware of that in the negotiations on which we are embarking. The stabiliser was introduced because of the escalating cost of the sheepmeat regime, now estimated to be more than I billion ecu, from a much lower base only a short while ago. The stabiliser was introduced to control that and it relates entirely to increases in flocks in the European Community.

Is it right that under the stabiliser proposal upland sheep farmers in less-favoured areas may face cuts in premiums because of increases in production on lower ground, particularly as a result of farmers who grow grain moving to sheep production? Can the Minister guarantee that that will not happen? If he cannot, will he look at the case for increasing the hill livestock allowances to compensate?

I cannot give a guarantee that that will not happen because, clearly, stabilisers are introduced in this sector, as in any other where there is a high cost in the regime, in order to control the costs of the regime. It is not possible to distinguish across the Community where the sheep receiving the benefits come from. I am aware of the importance of the sheep sector to the uplands, which is why I excluded grazed fallow from the set-aside scheme. I wanted to ensure that upland farmers were protected from what I would otherwise have seen as unfair competition. I did that because I was strongly aware of the sector's importance to the uplands.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that food prices and agricultural support are at their lowest level for 20 years? Does he realise that depressing agriculture prices is doing vast harm to the industry and to the British economy in general?

I do not think that that question is entirely related to the review of the sheepmeat regime, but I should like to say that it is important to ensure long-term stability for our farmers. That is what I have been keen to secure. While we have surpluses and the heavy cost of disposing of them, long-term security is on a fragile basis. I acknowledge the splendid contribution that farmers have made to food production and to keeping food prices down. I agree with my hon. Friend about that. I hope he agrees, however, that we must ensure security for the long term. Getting rid of surpluses and their cost must be part of that.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with European Community Agriculture Ministers about reform of the common agricultural policy; and what agreements were reached.

Discussions are continuing in the Agriculture Council on Commission proposals for reforming the CAP regimes for sheep and beef.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. In his negotiations with the Commission, does he share the view of the deputy director of the agriculture department of the Commission—Mr. Pooley—who said in Clwyd last week that, in his opinion, the common agricultural policy is likely to lead to farms with no sensible income that nobody but farmers would accept? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that statement?

I am not entirely sure that I know what that statement means. That farmers would have no sensible income? That they would have lower incomes? If that is what Mr. Pooley said—he has never said it to me —I do not agree with him. We are anxious to secure a good, stable basis for the prosperity of our farmers. In other member states in the Community, I understand that there are a lot of small, non-viable farmers with non-viable incomes—many more than in Britain. That problem will have to be tackled.

May I refer my right hon. Friend to the future of the sheepmeat regime? Will he give a rather more positive response to the view just expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)? Does he agree that, since punitive milk quotas were imposed on the United Kingdom, many farming areas have been suitable only for sheep, so the sheepmeat regime is of considerable importance to the United Kingdom? Is it not extraordinary that the CAP does not show where surpluses and the huge additional costs to it that arise because of the increased number of sheep. Will my right hon. Friend consider that in future discussions in the European Community?

I certainly will. The sheep sector is expanding rather faster here than in many other Community countries. There are very good reasons for that, one of which is that we are good at it. In negotiations on the sheepmeat regime, I am anxious to secure arrangements that allow free but fair competition, provide support at reasonable cost and enable the United Kingdom to capitalise on our natural productive advantages in the sheepmeat sector. That is what I am out to secure, and I believe that it is exactly what our sheep producers want.

In answer to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), the Minister sounded more concerned about New Zealand sheep producers that about sheep producers in our own hills and uplands. Why is that his objective?

That is certainly not the impression I intended to give. I hope that the answer I have just given shows that I am fighting for United Kingdom sheep producers in order to secure the best possible arrangements in the future regime.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) raised a matter of great importance for small farmers throughout the country? Will my right hon. Friend try to direct the energy of his fellow Ministers to reform the common agricultural policy and to protect farmers from partial and unbalanced programmes such as the BBC's "Watchdog", which made unfounded, dangerous and alarming allegations about eggs?

Yes, certainly. For small farmers, we must put the matter in perspective. The thrust of some policies geared towards small farmers being advocated in the Community would not be advantageous to the United Kingdom, because they are directed at the type of small farmer, that we do not have. Those are the unviable farmers, and I am not sure that those policies make sense.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent correspondence he has received from farmers in the northern region.

We receive substantial correspondence from farmers in the northern region on a wide variety of issues.

The Minister will be aware from recent correspondence that, although many farmers in the northern region have had a good harvest, they have not had a good financial year? I ask him, on behalf of the farmers in my region, what advice he has to offer them? Is he asking them to get out of agriculture altogether, should they diversify, or just soldier on regardless?

We shall, as always, be keeping a close watch on information about farm incomes that emerges from the annual review. Work is still being done on the figures. However, it is clear that although there is pressure in some sectors, others, such as the dairy sector and farms in less-favoured areas, both of particular relevance to the north, appear to have had a better year. I am convinced that the policies we are pursuing are the best way to ensure a viable and stable farming industry in the north.

Is the Minister aware that the proximity of the northern region to Scotland will be making farmers and farm workers in the north of England aware of the burdens that will result from the imposition of the poll tax on employees whose employers at present pay their rates for them? Will he seek to avoid the distress and difficulties that are presently being created for farm workers in Scotland by immediately asking the English Agricultural Wages Board to take steps to avoid that problem being created for farm workers in England and Wales in a year's time?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the Labour Front Bench. Under the community charge, if an employer wishes to pay the community charge of an employee he is still entitled to do so. It is not for me to interfere with matters that are looked after by the Agricultural Wages Board.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Licensed Victuallers Association.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), met representatives of the National Licensed Victuallers Association on 25 April 1988, in the company of several hon. Members, including the hon. Member, himself.

Does the Minister agree that there are now large numbers of people in the brewing industry who own pubs but who are not brewers by trade—they are property developers, speculators and so on? Is he aware that their tenants and publicans are not covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, nor by the voluntary code of practice to which brewers adhere? Will he meet the LVA to discuss how to tackle the problem?

I would be pleased to meet the LVA. There are very few instances such as those raised by the hon. Gentleman, but he is right to draw attention to them. In the case of recent relatively large scale pub sales by one of the major brewers, Grand Metropolitan, to a non-brewer, Heron, the contract of sale required the buying company to respect the provisions of the code, so the tenants continue to enjoy that protection. We would expect similar arrangements to apply to other similar sales. If there are other cases which the hon. Gentleman would wish to draw to my attention, I hope that he will do so.

May I suggest an easy solution to my hon. Friend? That is, to give statutory backing to the brewers' code of practice on tenants' security.

That is a matter for the Brewers' Society in consultation with the LVA, and I am not convinced yet that both those organisations wish to go down the path that has been recommended by my hon. Friend.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in securing a further devaluation of the green pound.

Following persistent United Kingdom pressure in the price negotiations in July, the green pound will be devalued from 1 January 1989 to reduce monetary compensatory amounts by 3·2 points, except for beef, where devaluations will be considered during the current review of the regime.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I am pleased to hear that there will be a devaluation. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is not suffcient, with farming incomes at their lowest in real terms since the last war? Will he press for a further devaluation in addition to the one that he has said is on the books?

Devaluations of the green pound are normally considered in price negotiations. We achieved one of the best deals, with the exception of Greece, where exceptional circumstances applied, in the last negotiations. I have made it clear that I want to see MCAs phased out by 1992. I have succeeded in getting the Community to agree to that. I shall be persisting in that approach.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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 departing immediately this afternoon to attend the European Council at Rhodes.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to repudiate claims so assiduously put about by the Opposition that the failure of the Irish Government to expedite an extradition order in respect of Father Patrick Ryan is due in any way to an error on the part of the Crown Prosecution Service?

I understand that very shortly my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be dealing with these matters in response to a private notice question, and will deal with them fully. I can deal with them only generally. Any suggestion that the failure to secure Ryan's arrest is attributable to any fault of the CPS is absolutely unwarranted. The fact is that the Irish authorities could have sought a provisional warrant from early last Friday evening onwards. The Irish Attorney-General has been in a position to authorise the backing of the original warrants since they arrived in Dublin early on Saturday. It is now over five days since all the relevant documents were sent to Dublin. No questions have been raised as to the sufficiency of the statements of fact and law, although my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had told his opposite number that he was immediately available.

Does the Prime Minister share the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that mortgage interest payments should be withdrawn from the retail prices index?

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear that there was no immediate proposal to exclude mortgage interest payments from the RPI. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is an advisory committee which considers any changes to the RPI. The Government's view is well known. We include mortgage interest payments in the retail prices index, which very few other countries do. It obscures the underlying trend and produces the perverse effect that the tightening of monetary policy causes an apparent rise in recorded inflation. However, the payments are included, and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that they can have a perverse effect both when the RPI goes up and when it comes down. If the payments were excluded, an alternative measure would need to be added. There is no immediate proposal to exclude them.

We remember when there were "no immediate proposals" to break the link between pensions and earnings. We remember, too, when there were "no plans" to add new NHS charges. We recall also when there were "no immediate proposals" to freeze child benefit payments. Against such a background of mendacity—[Interruption.]— who can believe that the Prime Minister has no plans—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Yes, it is true. It is true.

The right hon. Gentleman called my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a liar. He should withdraw it.

Order. Allow me to deal with this. The right hon. Gentleman used the word in a general sense and not attributable to the Prime Minister personally.

Coward.

I hope that that word was not directed towards me.

It was.

I was using the word in a general sense, Mr. Speaker, but if you so wish—[interruption.]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman presumed, and I am sure that he would not do that, to call me a liar, I hope that he will withdraw that immediately.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I did not hear what you said, but if you so wish, I will certainly withdraw it.

And we remember when there was a promise to increase pensions by either the amount of inflation or by having regard to earnings. The pensioners got neither, because the actual increase in inflation under the Labour Government was too great for Labour to honour its promises and the Labour Government did the biggest cheat on the pensioners that has ever been known since pensions were started.

That was a pathetic dodge from the queen of frauds. Even if household costs do not figure large in the Thatcher family, they do figure large in families in the rest of Britain. Will the Prime Minister accept that any British retail prices index which does not include mortgage payments would be fraudulent? Is it that which attracts the Prime Minister?

The biggest fraud on the pensioners cost them the equivalent of £1 billion in 1976 under the Labour Government. Pensioners now have more certainty of their basic pension and of its increasing with inflation than they have ever had before. The right hon. Gentleman knows that mortgage costs are included in the retail prices index. If they were not, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, there would have to be some other measure of housing cost in the RPI. Any alternative measure would have to go to the advisory committee for consideration. A measure went to the advisory committee on mortgage interest some time ago and the committee turned it down, so mortgage interest payments are in the present retail prices index.

rose—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh no."]

Order. It is very exceptional Mr. Kinnock. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

This Prime Minister has taken £5 billion a year off pensioners by breaking the link between pensions and earnings. When she starts to give that back, we will start to respect her.

May I point out what the then Mr. David Ennals, now Lord Ennals, said with regard to that when challenged about that assessment. When challenged about the inflation or earnings he said:

"There is a statutory obligation to take these figures and earnings into account which was done, but"—

"no statutory obligation to get it right."

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the run-up to Christmas the Post Office unions are already up to their seasonal nonsense of striking and that nine depots in and around my constituency of Billericay are out on strike? Will she assure the public that, so that they will receive their Christmas post, the Government will remove the one obstacle that prevents the private sector from competing, by lowering the threshold from £1 to 10p, so that private networks can afford to compete with the Post Office in delivering our Christmas cards?

I know that there has been some considerable disruption in my hon. Friend's constituency in the counters business and I join her in deploring that. It is extremely ungenerous at this time of year, but, more than that, it is damaging to small businesses, which depend on money and orders coming in for their business to continue. I have taken note of what my hon. Friend said. The Post Office has a monopoly and if this kind of thing continues we shall have to consider precisely what she says —reducing the monopoly threshold from the present level of £1.

Given the difficult and emotional relationship between Britain and Ireland over the years, and the serious efforts that the Prime Minister and her Government, together with the Irish Government, have been making over the last number of years to address that issue, what contribution to that process does she think her remarks made on Tuesday—her highly orchestrated pre-judgment of the Irish authorities' attitude before they had taken the decision on the extradition application in accordance with their legal processes? Does the right hon. Lady know that the Belgian authorities were given five months to deal with the same application, which they turned down because the evidence was imprecise and vague? Does the right hon. Lady know that the Irish authorities have extradited 895 people to the United Kingdom throughout the present troubles and in the past 12 months have made the biggest arms finds in our history? How does that square with her accusation that they are only interested in fine words, not actions?

Briefly.

Will the right hon. Lady tell her Attorney-General that his behaviour in revealing to the press selected details of a private conversation with his opposite number in Dublin is highly—

Order. This is Question Time. The hon. Gentleman should not make a statement.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his say.

The hon. Gentleman is aware that the law on extradition was changed unilaterally by the Republic of Ireland. Nevertheless, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General endeavoured fully to comply with the new law. It is now more than five days since all the relevant documents were sent to Dublin and no questions have been raised about the sufficiency of the statements of fact in them. That is an important matter to all of us in the United Kingdom.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recall that at the time of the passage of the Education Reform Act there were dire warnings from teachers' unions and Opposition Members that parents would not come forward as school governors because of their responsibilities under that Act? Will she contrast that with the experience throughout my constituency, where large numbers of parents have stood for those positions, where there have been high polls and where the quality of candidates coming forward has been superb?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The extra choice being given by the education reforms of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has been welcomed up and down the country by many parents and they are coming forward in record numbers to be governors of schools, prepared to take full responsibility, recognising the chances of obtaining a better education for their children. That is welcome.

To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 1 December.

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

In drawing up her Government's Official Secrets Bill, the Prime Minister and her Home Secretary have excluded from it any rights of public interest as a defence for disclosure. Why have they done that? Has the Prime Minister forgotten that the public interest is what government is supposed to be about?

The Bill has been published. I am advised that there are no such rights now as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Bill has, on the whole, been much welcomed as an advance on the previous measure. There will be abundant chances to debate it on Second Reading and in Committee.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that shortly after the PLO spokesman in London was convincing the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that the PLO would recognise the existence of the state of Israel, the BBC reported that the PLO foreign affairs spokesman in New York denied that any such statement had been made and refused to endorse it? Is my right hon. Friend aware also that the whole House is behind her stand against terrorism? It is perfectly consistent with that stand that any Government should say to anybody—

Order. Briefly. This is not a statement, but Prime Minister's Question Time.

As far back as 1985, when we were considering speaking to certain PLO executive members, I made clear my position that three conditions must clearly be met. First, that United Nations resolutions 242 and 338 must be clearly accepted; secondly, that Israel's right to exist behind secure borders must be clearly and explicitly accepted; thirdly, that violence must be utterly rejected. When the Palestinian National Council resolution came out, I took the view that, although it was not absolutely clear, what had been done in respect of United Nations resolution 242, although allied to other United Nations resolutions, was a clear step forward. On the other hand, Israel's right to exist has not been explicitly recognised, nor has violence been utterly renounced.