asked the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what is the total acreage of land under silviculture in the United Kingdom.

The total area of woodland in the United Kingdom is estimated at just over 5 million acres.

Is the Minister aware that that is a small percentage in comparison with that of most European countries and that it is serious when regarded in the light of our known requirements in the future? What further encouragement can the Minister give to private woodland owners to plant small parcels of scrub and derelict land with trees, so as not to use up more good agricultural land for forestry?

With particular respect to the hon. Member's concern about small areas of derelict land, I think that he will welcome the Government's introduction of the small woods scheme. Further, the increased rates of grant which came into operation last October should lead to some increase in private planting.

Does the Minister appreciate that compared with countries of similar population and development, such as France and Germany, we have less than one-third of what they have in forestry? With a timber import bill now of over £2,000 million, surely something drastic must be done in relation to our forestry.

Certainly we should like to see an increased acreage of forestry, but I think that the hon. Member will surely recognise that we have some very substantial areas of productive agricultural land which it would be quite inappropriate to plant with trees.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the present Government are not pursuing the policy that was established by the Conservative Government in 1972, which assumed that there was no economic future in forestry? Does he agree that the long-term interests of this country suggest that silviculture should be encouraged very strongly indeed?

I agree with both of my hon. Friend's observations. In this connection, I know that he will welcome the long-term study which has been carried out by a group set up by the Forestry Commission and which is now being circulated as a consultative document for comments.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too defensive about this matter. He is not being attacked. But does he agree that for a nation such as ours to be content to produce less than 10 per cent. of its timber requirements is really very dangerous and quite unsatisfactory?

I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for assuring me that neither he nor his colleagues are attacking me in any way. I certainly agree that we want to increase timber production. Indeed, leaving aside the planting programme, actual production ought to increase in the near future. But, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that we still produce less than 10 per cent. of our total requirements of timber.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the chairman of the Forestry Commission.

Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor I have any plans at present to meet the chairman of the Forestry Commission.

Will the Minister take the opportunity to read the recent report prepared by the Forestry Commission? Will he make it clear to the House what proposals in the report he intends to recommend to the Government? Does he want to keep the forestry industry as it is, or does he want to increase it by 1,000 hectares or 8,000 hectares? Will the Minister advise the House of the position?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to that important report. He may be aware that the Forestry Commission is treating it as a consultative document and is inviting comments from all interested parties. It will then put the issue to Ministers.

When the Minister meets the chairman of the Commission, will he discuss with him the Scotland Bill, in the light of the amendment made in another place to exclude forestry from the subjects to be devolved? Will he discuss with him shedding any political prejudices in the light of what will be in the best interests of Great Britain as a whole in future forestry policy?

The Government have made clear that they will be giving careful consideration to all the amendments carried in another place.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will set up a review of statutory and public bodies responsible for the regulation of the fishing industry and fishing grounds.

A first round of consultation about the future of the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board has been undertaken. The Expenditure Committee has recommended that the functions of Sea Fisheries Committees should be reviewed when the common fisheries policy has taken definite shape, and my right hon. Friend is considering the recommendation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we may have to wait a long time for the common fisheries policy to take any logical shape and that there is a state of some confusion in the inshore fishing grounds? Is he aware that as well as his Department and the Scottish Office operating off the coast of my constituency there are three other public bodies, namely, the Sea Fisheries Committee, the Water Authority and the Tweed Commissioners; that all of them operate their own patrol vessels and all deal with the inshore section of waters? Is there not much scope for review even before a conclusion is reached on the common fisheries policy?

Knowing the hon. Gentleman's interest in the fisheries around his part of the coast, I think that he will be aware of the role of these authorities, especially the sea fisheries committees. Before knowing about the regulation and enforcement provisions of the revised CFP it would be premature to take any action. The revision of regulation and enforcement provisions is most important and must have priority, but I shall take the hon. Gentleman's comments into account.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the fishery protection service that comes under his jurisdiction and that of the Secretary of State for Defence is doing an adequate job of patrolling and ensuring that EEC boats are using nets with the right size of mesh?

I can repeat the assurance that has been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and others about enforcement. At present we are satisfied. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter is kept under review.

If the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend went to Brussels and reached an agreement on the common fisheries policy which was later upset by a vote in this place, which agreement would remain valid, the Minister's or the decision reached by the House?

I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I told the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), that we have to know what the policy is before we go into some of these aspects. I agree that the matter is urgent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now propose a further devaluation of the green pound.

No, Sir.

Is it not vital for the safeguarding of the future of British agriculture that negotiations be speeded up to try to bring about an amelioration or an effective reduction in the monetary import subsidies? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most effective ways of promoting negotiations towards that end would be for the Government to propose a further devaluation of the green pound?

There are about three things wrong with the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. First, Governments do not propose green pound devaluations. I am not being pedantic. It is for the Commission to propose green pound devaluations. The Commissioner has said in the course of the very many days of recent meetings of the Council that only in the most exceptional circumstances would he propose green pound devaluations, apart from price fixings.

Really?

The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has knowledge of the weather. That does not come within my Department.

Will my right hon. Friend resist invitations endlessly to take steps to increase the price of food? Is it not the case that the 7½ per cent. green pound devaluation that was forced on the Government by the Conservative Opposition and other parties will be responsible for far more price increases than the price settlement that was recently negotiated? Is it not true that the Conservative Opposition's policy of abolishing the green pound could cost British families, on average, an extra £50 a year on their food bills?

As for price fixing, the 2·25 per cent. increase in average prices is the lowest since we joined the Community and represents an increase of one halfpenny in the pound on the retail food bill. The 7½ per cent. devaluation, even phased to protect the Community, worked out at a cost of about 1½p in the pound, about three times as much. The Opposition's most recent proposal was that all MCAs should be equalised out. On the present wrong basis of accounting, that would lead to an increase of 10p in the pound.

Regardless of the partnership that the right hon. Gentleman may enjoy with his hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), does he accept that his hon. Friend is not the best spokesman on the Opposition's agricultural policy? Am I not right in thinking that the French pressed for and were quite readily granted a special concession on the devaluation of the green franc in respect of pigmeat? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not do the same here, knowing, as he does, the special difficulties of our pig industry and the pigmeat processors?

The French special concession followed the 7½ per cent. devaluation, especially for pigmeat, until August, that the United Kingdom was granted in January. I agree that part of its effect was deferred until after the price fixing. However, the concession to the French is more apparent than real. It involves the French having to catch up on every commodity within a given time—in other words, much what we did, but over a slightly longer period. Had we followed the French—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand me—we would have been committed to devaluing the green pound on every commodity up to whatever figure it might be, in 1979, not knowing what the circumstances might be at that time. That is what would have happened if we had followed the French. I do not think that that would have been a very good example to follow.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of pigmeat monetary compensation amounts.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest position adopted within the EEC towards his proposals for ensuring that the British pig industry does not continue to be subjected to unfair competition within the EEC.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations with regard to the basis for the calculation of pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards a recalculation of pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts.

The rate for bacon sides is now £256·30 per tonne. The change in the basis of calculation which I announced last week, which will be implemented once the Opinion of the European Assembly has been received, will cut the monetary compensatory amounts by a further 8 per cent. I have also secured an undertaking that the coefficients used for calculating MCAs on processed pigmeat will be reviewed in the coming months. This should mean further reductions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the 16 per cent. MCA reductions still leave a £235-per-tonne competitive advantage to importers, which is £43 per tonne greater than in February? Given these figures, does he feel that he has achieved anything near the desperately needed and substantial drop required by United Kingdom producers and manufacturers?

If we are to consider these matters correctly, we shall have to review the position on Monday, when the new marketing year fully takes effect. On Monday, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware, the new marketing year comes in and all the effects will then have worked themselves through. I think that he will find that the position will be better. I had better not say by how much it will be better on Monday compared with the present position, as matters of speculation are involved. However, the position should be better than it is at present. I take the hon. Gentleman's general point that we have not succeeded in getting the full recalculation that we wished. In that respect I agree with him. The position will be helped by the promise to reassess the coefficients. In the first instance that will help the processors, or, as the hon. Gentleman called them, the manufacturers. I think that that is right. As for the producers, the present price of pigmeat is firm. I hope that it will continue to be so for some time. However, I agree that we have a long way to go.

rose—

Order. I shall call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.

I applaud the efforts made by my right hon. Friend in this sphere, but is it not a fact that Danish farmers still enjoy a price advantage in the MCAs on bacon which is exported to this country? Does that not illustrate the totally unfair basis of the negotiations on the MCAs which still remain? Will he take note that there is considerable support among efficient pig farmers for any further action that he deems necessary on this issue?

I agree with everything said by my hon. Friend. This is a useful step in the direction of avoiding thoroughly distorted competition. I do not intend to let go of it. I was a little disappointed that the French and the Italians did not come all the way with me at the Council, but it does not matter. We are on the way, and I do not intend to let the matter go.

Why did the French and Italians suddenly reverse their earlier support for the Minister?

I am not qualified to speak for the French and the Italians, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) is qualified to speak for the Opposition. If I am asked why, I should say that it was because they have a slightly different problem from ours. Our problem is mainly concerned with Danish bacon. On the whole, very few Italians and Frenchmen eat bacon.

In view of the disastrous effect that our entry into the Common Market has had not only on consumers, but on workers in the bacon curing industry, will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to copying the example of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and taking unilateral action in whichever way is best to protect consumers, the industry and the jobs of workers in the industry?

I had not appreciated fully that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport took such an active interest in pigs, but if my hon. Friend tells me so, I shall certainly talk to him.

Will the Minister comment on those voices coming from Brussels which suggest that he failed to make common cause with the French and the Italians on the pigmeat MCAs and that he would have made a great deal more progress had he done so?

I do not know to what voices the right hon. Gentleman is referring. From the beginning to the end, I said that I required a minimum reduction—that was the Commissioner's original suggested proposal, but it never got to the table—of 15 percentage point. But when the French and the Italians decided to settle—after all, this is a package, and the Mediterranean is an important area for them, but not so important for us, except in payment, and they may have had their reasons—I insisted that the coefficients should be examined with a view to their being cut. If that is so, we can get exactly the same effect. However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have not gone nearly far enough.

Whatever the Minister may say, we have to look at the track record of the Socialist Government on the pig industry, and the fact is that the industry is slowly dying. In fact, there has been less production and more people unemployed in the pig-meat industry. Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that the industry does not continue to die?

I do not think that pig producers are in a difficult position at the moment.

They are.

They are not, because the price is firm at the moment. The pig cycle, which we are all aware exists in the pig industry from time to time, has been multiplied by our going into the Common Market. That has had an effect. The difficulty is that there is overproduction of pigs in Europe as a whole. The hon. Gentleman should know that. What I might have been able to do in other circumstances to protect our pig industry I am no longer able to do, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to assist carnation growers of the United Kingdom who are being forced out of business by the excessive importations of inferior products.

Carnation imports have been much higher over the past winter than last year, but they were generally of a quality commanding a premium price. Our growers are already protected by a high tariff and are being helped to improve their efficiency, but bad weather has been holding back home supplies.

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to agree that imported carnations are superior to those grown in my constituency. Does he accept that the amount of land put under glass for carnations has decreased by nearly half over the past 10 years, that the returns to local growers have gone down by 4p per bloom this year, and that if it goes on like this—

The EEC.

Not the EEC. The situation is due to imports from Israel, Turkey and Columbia. Will the Minister deal with that problem? Will he also have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest that he should take VAT off flowers?

It is true that the increase is substantially accounted for by increased imports from Israel. It is also true—I hope that this will help to improve the situation—that from the beginning of next month there will be a significant increase in the tariff, because we are now coming into the summer season.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some carnations imported into Britain and on sale during the past week were priced at only four-sevenths of the break-even price of blooms produced in the Lea Valley? Is there not a strong argument for some action to be taken, at least during the main growing season from May to October, to protect our extremely good and efficient producers, who have much better conditions for their employees than prevail in some other countries?

As I said, the higher tariff applies from June to October. I shall look into my hon. Friend's observations. My advice is that imports are commanding a higher price than home-produced carnations. I shall certainly pursue the point that he has made.

Will the Minister also consider the plight of the raspberry and soft fruit industry, which is faced with bulk subsidised East European—

Order. We can go all round agriculture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the EEC.

The Council will next meet on 19th and 20th June.

Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues the level of FEOGA grants? Is it not necessary to get these useful grants reviewed, in view of the decision by the British Treasury that capital allowances in Britain should be reduced by an identical amount?

The question of FEOGA grants is almost certain to come up at the June meeting. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific point that he wants to make—it sounds to me as though he has—I shall be grateful if he will write to me about it.

When my right hon. Friend meets his EEC counterparts, will he make clear to them his unalterable opposition to the importation of the sheepmeat regime in the EEC? Does he realise that if he does he will have the unqualified support of Mr. Muldoon, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who has expressed grave misgivings about this matter? Does he also realise that most hon. Members would support his action in helping the British housewife and the New Zealander?

The sheepmeat regime is still, to my mind, rather premature. We have not yet got down to discussing it. My hon. Friend is right in saying that it appeared in the price negotiations, but it was not discussed. The real point is that, whether we have a regime or not, three essential factors must be maintained. First, we must protect New Zealand imports into this country—

Hear, hear.

secondly we must safeguard the interests of our own producers. Thirdly, we must safeguard the interests of our consumers.

When the Minister next attends the meeting of the Council will he draw attention to the unprecendented confusion and uncertainty in the potato industry? Will he further draw attention to the fact that growers in this country, for the first time for a long time, have been planting potatoes having no idea of what the price will be? Very few contracts have been signed and, above all, there is no idea what is to be the future of the Potato Marketing Board. Will the Minister treat this as a matter of extreme urgency?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a very difficult matter, especially for growers. We try to give what guidance we can, but the position is uncertain. The sooner we can settle the matter to the advantage of our potato industry, the better.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the matter of sheepmeat, it is vital to protect our interests and particularly the interests of ports such as Liverpool, which will be most badly affected by the drying up of the New Zealand trade? Ships would be put out of commission, dockers put out of work and shipping workers of all kinds affected, apart from the effect on the imports of sheepmeat that we require.

My hon. Friend is right. These are additional reasons, together with a natural kinship and affection for New Zealand and the interests of our own consumers, why we have to watch the matter, and I intend to do so.

Although the Minister seems pleased with the results of the negotiations in Brussels last week, is it not a fact that the three products that received the largest amount of price increase, namely, beef, sugar and milk, are also the three products in greatest surplus in Europe? Will he say whether, at the next meeting of Ministers, the Government will produce constructive plans for reducing surpluses and for containing the structural difficulties without necessarily always reducing farmers' prices?

Milk, sugar and beef—in that order—are the commodities in greatest structural surplus in Europe, though the hon. Gentleman has forgotten cereals, perhaps intentionally. There was a very small increase in the price of cereals. If the hon. Gentleman considers the matter, he will realise that the increases in the support prices are not only very small but reflect a drop in real prices, to the extent that I have had some criticism from certain farming interests on the ground that I did not sufficiently increase the support prices. I believe that the House and the country were well satisfied with what is the lowest increase since we joined the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making on the renegotiation of the Common Agricultural Policy.

I refer my hon. Friend to my statement to the House on 12th May describing the outcome of the meetings of the Council of Ministers during last week.

That was a widely welcomed statement. As the Minister said at the time, it marked an improvement in the CAP. He has just emphasised that. Is it not still the case that the EEC prices for some of the commodities, to some of which he has referred, are several hundred per cent. above world prices? Therefore, with the growth of food mountains, not only on the Continent but in this country, we have passed beyond the stage at which there can be an improvement. Has not the time come for the Minister to denounce root and branch the whole idea of the common agricultural policy and prepare to get out?

The time has come—I have been working on this basis—so to change the CAP as to get away from the difficulties to which my hon. Friend has referred. Primary amongst these difficulties are the structural surpluses, which are a disgrace to the Community. One best tackles the problem at the price end. However, to expect one to be able to get an answer in one year, let alone in five weeks, is asking too much, even from my hon. Friend. Give us time and we shall do it.

As part of the Minister's renegotiation of the CAP, will he consider the plight of the raspberry and soft fruit industry and the problem of highly subsidised East European imports into the EEC? Will he reassure us that he is aware of the importance of these industries to Scotland and that he will closely watch the situation?

If I was not previously aware of the importance of the industries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I am now. I shall keep the matter well in mind and I shall be glad of any information that the hon. Gentleman can give me.

The question that I want to put in congratulating my right hon. Friend for defending the interests of the British housewife and protecting the daily pinta is this: does he agree that it is time that the other Common Market Agriculture Ministers realised that as food prices in the EEC are so much higher than world prices the present policy cannot continue?

It will take some time fully to convince them of that, if only because I am the only Minister at the Council of Agriculture Ministers who is a Food Minister as well. However, I believe that the other Agriculture Ministers are aware that there is some degree of British determination to get prices to a proper level, and that this degree of determination is something new and refreshing.

Is the Minister aware that successive Ministers of Agriculture have been saying just what he said—"I have only been here a short time and have not had time to do much about it"? However, the desire to restructure the CAP has been prevalent for 11 years. Is not the truth of the matter that there are so many vested interests on the Continent that the policy will never be changed?

It is being changed, but not as dramatically or as quickly as I wish. Reductions in the price level from 9·6 per cent. to 7·7 per cent. and to 3·9 per cent. last year—which was the lowest until then—and now down to 2·25 per cent., illustrate a change. There is at least a reprieve of a number of British institutions, such as the Milk Marketing Board. We will, I hope, be able to preserve a certain amount of importations from third countries. However, that is not enough. We have to do a great deal more, and I am aware of it.

When considering changes in the CAP, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any reduction in imports of sheepmeat from New Zealand will have serious effects on Tilbury, which contains the largest refrigerator/cold storage facility in the world, designed specifically for trade with New Zealand?

I will bear that in mind and bear in mind the effects on New Zealand, which I believe to be very important and near to our hearts.

Now that the Minister has got over his self-congratulatory phase, will he comment on statements made by Mr. Roy Jenkins and Mr. Gundelach that neither the Milk Marketing Boards nor the daily pinta were ever in the slightest danger during current negotiations?

I prefer self-congratulation to sour grapes. There is all the difference in the world between saying that we accept the principle of Milk Marketing Boards—for about 15 months I have told the House that the Commissioners said that—and introducing conditions which make it impossible for the boards to continue. That is no different, in effect, from saying

"Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive".

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received calling for a ban on the export of live food animals; and if he will make a statement.

Following publication of the report by officials, my right hon. Friend the Minister is having discussions with representatives of the welfare interests and with those of the producers and exporters. He hopes to make a statement when he has considered all representations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 102 Members on the Government Benches have immediately signed an Early-Day Motion asking

"that the export of live farm animals for slaughter or further fattening should cease"?

I had noticed the striking indication of the strength of feeling on the part of Members on the Government Benches on this issue.

Does the Minister agree that he produced the report because there was obviously a need for it? Does he also agree that because it has been produced and because of its importance, Government time should be allowed in the near future for a debate on the report? A debate is urgently needed. The report should not be left on the shelf for a considerable time.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of the report's being left on the shelf. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is giving consideration to the question of a debate.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is pleasant to hear a voice from the other side of the Chamber agreeing with us on this matter? Does he also accept that we have immense pressures from farming communities, even on those hon. Members representing working-class areas in the cities? Is he aware that the feeling throughout this country runs far ahead of what the farmers feel? We want something to be done because we believe that the vast majority of people throughout the country feel deeply on this subject.

It is because of this concern that my right hon. Friend set up the working group. He is giving careful consideration to all points of view, in-eluding those of the welfare interests and my hon. Friends.

Can it be established clearly that there is nothing inherently cruel in the transportation of animals over the water?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a great divergence of opinion on the whole question of the appropriate safeguards and regulations in this matter and on the extent to which one can reasonably expect them to be applied throughout the Continent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size of the national dairy herd.

The provisional result of the latest census undertaken by my Department indicates that the size of the United Kingdom dairy herd at December 1977 was 3,322,000 cows. The results of the March census conducted in England and Wales only will be published shortly.

Does the Minister of State agree that there is a worry about the size of the milk lake as a result of the intervention fund? What are he and his Department doing to make it more attractive to farmers to switch to beef production?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that new confidence in the production of the dairy herd has been given in light of the future of the Milk Marketing Boards and because milk production is at record level, as are artificial inseminations. The prices for cows in milk are high and the future of the industry is one of increasing confidence and expansion of the herd size.

Despite the renewed confidence in milk production, can my hon. Friend tell me why, in a recent reply, he has stated that the EEC is willing to pay more than £23,000 to a farmer with a 70-head dairy herd to get out of milk, and to pay him even more if he transfers to beef production? Why has this regulation been made and how much does my right hon. Friend expect to pay out in this country?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we have always said that those countries in the Community which have efficient producers should be encouraged; and we have new encouragement for our milk industry in that respect.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 18th May.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I hope to attend a reception being given by President Seretse Khama of Botswana.

If my right hon. Friend finds time to consider last night's televised tour of the archives by the Conservatives, will he agree that it was a lament for the past by a party which offers old, simple solutions for new, complex problems and that, although incentives may be important, there is a danger that if they are peddled as a panacea, as they are being peddled by the Opposition, the incentive society may become the insensitive society, as many of us have good reason to believe?

I regret that I did not have the good fortune to watch this broadcast. I am not sure whether the commercialising and packaging of party political views is in the best interests of the party concerned, but that is for it to judge.

If the Prime Minister did not have time to see the broadcast last night, which I completely and totally accept, has he had time to look at the report issued by the Treasury yesterday, which shows that wages are going up faster here than elsewhere and that the growth in output has seldom been worse? Does he accept that this makes us much less competitive than similar industrial nations and that that is the result of his economic policies over the last four years?

The right hon. Lady is correct to call attention to these facts, some of which are good and some of which are not so good. It is good that earnings should be going up faster than prices, because that will improve the standard of life of our people. What is not so good is if production does not increase correspondingly. I am glad to say that there are signs of improvement there. I am told that the increase in industrial production in the first quarter of 1978 over the last quarter of 1977 was 1· per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that some rents are going up much faster? Could he find time to look into his duties and responsibilities as an ex officio Church Commissioner? Does he realise that the Church Commissioners are inflicting unacceptable rent increases on many tenants in my constituency? Does he not find it embarrassing, as a nominal member of the Church Commissioners, that they should increasingly behave more like Freshwater and less like Christians?

I fear that the duties of Church Commissioner do not take up as much of my time as perhaps they should. I shall certainly see that the matter is looked into, even though I am only ex officio.

Has the Prime Minister had a chance to reflect today on his recent meeting with the President of Turkey? If so, will he give the House his view of the effect on NATO of the continued United States arms embargo on Turkey, which is our partner?

No. I would not want to give my views about that because it is not the responsibility of the Government; it is the responsibility of the American Administration. The Turkish Government have asked whether it is possible for some European countries to assist them in their armaments programme, but most of the conversation between the President of Turkey and myself, which did not take place today, was concerned with the problems of Cyprus. I asked the President to be more flexible in his approach.

Will the Prime Minister amplify his earlier remarks about keeping earnings in line with output? Does he accept that earnings are bound to rise by about 14 per cent. over this pay round, that output cannot possibly rise by more than 3 per cent., and that the balance must be paid either by inflation or unemployment? What will he do to bring the two things in line for phase 4?

A little more help from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) would not come amiss. What I intend to convey is that all these matters must bear a relation to each other, not that they should be strictly in line with each other, which, clearly would not be accurate. The hon. Member knows my views about this almost to the point of boredom.

I recognise that my right hon. Friend has little time to read the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, but could he find time to read the speech that she made in a church in the City of London recently, and an article which she wrote in The Daily Telegraph? Is it not clear from that speech and the article that the right hon. Lady and her friends intend to undermine the National Health Service, to impose charges and to undermine the whole concept of the Welfare State as we understand it?

It is not part of my responsibilty to read these speeches or article, but I did read the article in The Daily Telegraph. The right hon. Lady's emphasis on and concern for the welfare of the family was set out in that article and I found that I was largely in agreement with it. It is a theme that I have taken up because it is of great importance. For that reason I am deeply sorry that the Opposition should find it necessary to make a party matter of it.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

I met representatives of the CBI on 6th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Against the background of rising industrial output and rising investment owing to the success of many of this Government's policies, what conversations will the Prime Minister be having with the CBI to get it on the side of making it easier for small businesses to be set up and for those in business to expand in order to provide many of the new jobs which are so urgently needed?

The Government's policy towards small firms is well known. As the small firms recognise, the Budget made a number of improvements, including improvements in value added tax limitations, capital transfer tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax. All these have been of great assistance to small firms. I find that members of the CBI appreciate this.

Does the Prime Minister consider that his dinner with the CBI the night before last was a useful meeting? Does he remember that the president of the CBI then said that it was the CBI's aim to drop the phrase "the two sides of industry"? What is the Government's view of that initiative?

The hon. Member was there and he enjoyed the dinner as much as I and many other hon. Members did. I thought that I gave an adequate, full and acceptable reply on that occasion.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the CBI next week is due to receive a high powered trade delegation from the Soviet Union headed by Academician Kirillin? Will he express the deep disgust and distress of this House at the travesty of the trial of Yuri Orlov and the savage sentence imposed? Will he point out to the Russians that this is the worst possible way to achieve either detente or improved relations between our countries?

The whole House will agree that if the sentence has been passed on Mr. Orlov in respect of his attempt to monitor the Helsinki agreement, there can be no justification for a sentence on that account. The Government's view has been and will be made entirely clear on that matter. Certainly I shall lose no opportunity of making it so.

When the Prime Minister next meets the CBI, will he explain to its members why he believes that it is in the interests of trade unions, let alone the nation, that neither the nationalised industries nor British companies should be allowed to compete in the international market with the best management available because of the high tax rates that rule in this country?

The CBI has expressed its views to me abou this. We discuss it from time to time. I shall consider whether it should be on the agenda at the next meeting.

asked the Prime Minister when next he intends to visit the Aberdeen area.

I have at present no plans to visit the Aberdeen area.

I regret that the Prime Minister has no immediate plans to visit the oil capital of Europe which makes an inestimable contribution to our balance of payments. But, when he does visit the area, will he ensure that his staff route him by rail, air or sea from the central industrial belt of Scotland to Aberdeen so that he does not have to travel on the most congested and important single carriageway road remaining in the United Kingdom?

I am not sure that I fully understand the import of that question. But I do not intend to walk; I can promise the hon. Member that. If he is saying that there is need for a substantial improvement in the road communications, that may well be so. With respect, I wish that Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), would not constantly press for additional public expenditure, on the one hand, and seek to reduce taxation on the other.

When the Prime Minister next goes to the Aberdeen area, will he try to find out what has happened to the declaration of Perth?

I fear that the Conservative Party is losing itself in the Scottish mist over devolution. I think that they will suffer retribution for it.

When my right hon. Friend visits the fair city of Aberdeen, will he make it clear to the people of Aberdeen that Members of the Scottish National Party went into the Lobby with Members of the Tory Party in order to give massive handouts to the wealthy people in our community at the expense of the sick and elderly and the mass of working people?

Yes. I have already noticed in my postbag and other communications that it has not gone unnoticed in Scotland and elsewhere that the Scottish National Party voted with the Conservatives on that issue.

Is the Prime Minister aware that what has not gone unnoticed in Scotland, particularly in the North-East where the oil and gas is coming ashore, is that the local community is having to pay for the roads and services without adequate help from central Government? Will he reconsider this position and reprimand the Secretary of State for Scotland for failing to take action?

The hon. Member is not correct. A substantial sum of public expenditure has rightly been made available to Scotland for a great many functions, including the saving of jobs. That is well appreciated by the Scottish people.

When my right hon. Friend goes to Aberdeen, by whatever means other than Shanks' pony, will he ruminate on the fact that not only the people of Aberdeen and Scotland but the people of England, Northern Ireland and Wales will all suffer as a result of what happened this week when the Opposition tried to take £1,100 million from the ordinary people to give to their wealthy friends? Will he underline the message that if the Opposition had their way they would have a disastrous effect on the economy?

There is a growing understanding in the country that there must be a balance between public expenditure and taxation. People understand that a great deal of public expenditure has helped to save jobs in industries which, although they are efficient, are suffering a temporary recession because of the world recession. I believe that the country understands that and that that is why there is growing support for our Government.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, in addition to the real advantages brought to the North-East of Scotland by oil, there have been problems for indigenous industries which have emphasised the need to broaden the industrial base of the area in order to prepare for when the oil comes to an end? In those circumstances, was it defensible to reduce the industrial development status of the area?

The Aberdeen area unemployment rate has been well below the national average for some time, and it therefore seemed appropriate that the status should be altered. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis that we should use oil revenues not to reduce taxation, as his party wishes to do, but to provide the alternative sources of energy that will be required, and to regenerate Scottish and British industry. The Scottish Development Agency is engaged on that task now.