asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of total agricultural activity in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, is concerned with each of the following, namely, livestock, livestock products, cereals and horticultural products.

Since the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Whilst I await the OFFICIAL REPORT with interest, will my hon. Friend confirm that at least the figures show the unique dependence of Northern Ireland agriculture upon livestock, and therefore, upon cereal imports? As diversification is almost impossible, what consideration is being given to this matter in the present E.E.C. negotiations?

It is true, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, that livestock products form an extremely high proportion of agricultural activity in Northern Ireland—75 per cent. of all her output, second only to Wales. There is an awareness of the regional problems in the E.E.C. negotiations, and the Northern Ireland Government have made proposals for new schemes to help offset the higher food costs in Northern Ireland.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advisory services he operates to assist in farm amalgamations.

Advice is given by staff of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service as part of their normal duties.

Has the Minister any information that our application to join the E.E.C. has had any undue influence on farm amalgamations?

I do not think that the application has had any effect upon the rate of amalgamation. My right hon. Friend is reviewing the whole policy on amalgamations to see whether we can make it more effective.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from horticultural producers that they should be permitted to carry forward losses or profits to the next year, in view of the particular problems of the industry.

I have received representations on this subject from the National Farmers' Union.

While I appreciate that this is not an original suggestion, does not my hon. Friend agree that, in the light of both the E.E.C. negotiations and my right hon. Friend's exhortations to greater specialisation in this area, the proposal must receive much more serious consideration?

I hope that this will not disappoint my hon. Friend, but I think that I should not express views on this matter as a Question is down to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer today.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the percentage effect of shop assistants wage increases, raw material costs and food manufacturers' costs, respectively, in relation to the total increase in food prices between 1964 and 1970.

The available figures do not enable this breakdown to be made.

Put another way, by how much has consumer expenditure on food increased compared with farmers' incomes? Will not those figures show that whilst almost everyone else—the shopkeeper, the wholesaler, the taxman and the transport man—has had his hand in the till, the farmer has had an extraordinarily small share?

What the figures show is that consumer expenditure over that period rose by £1,376 million. Over roughly the same period the value of farm sales rose by £345 million, and net farm income by £58 million. So the figures show conclusively that the farmers' share of the increase in consumer expenditure was very small.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that consumers are prepared to pay reasonable prices to give shop assistants a living wage? Does he also recognise that the consumers object to the fact that they were advised that there would be a cut in prices "at a stroke" and that this has not happened?

What the hon. Gentleman is asking me to do is to recognise that the shop assistants should have a reasonable wage, and, of course, that means again increases in wages and increases in prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of food, as measured by the retail prices index in the seven months 1st July, 1970, to 31st January, 1971; and what were the comparable figures for each of the previous six years.

The Food Index increased by 3·8 per cent. between 16th June, 1970, and 19th January, 1971. In the same period of the previous year there was an increase of 1·1 per cent. I shall, with permission, circulate the figures for the five earlier years in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer. What effect is his policy of competition having on price increases in the food sector?

The policy of competition is working as well as can be expected[Laughter.]at a time of rampant inflation. As the hon. Gentleman may have heard before, one man's wage increase is another man's price increase, and the whole nation suffers from a price increase.

Will my right hon. Friend make a comparison with the first six months of the year under the Labour Administration, when the food index prices went up 5·1 per cent.? Will he continue to press his right hon. Friends to reduce taxation which was loaded on to food prices by the Labour Government?

There is no doubt that increased taxes of one sort or another, whether in the form of selective employment tax or the effects of the Transport Act, during the period of office of the Labour Government did much to increase prices and this has been carried forward into our term of office. However, I am certain that over a period of years we shall do better than the record of the former Administration, when prices rose by over 25 per cent. in five years.

Is the Minister aware that non-seasonal foods, which form the bulk of most people's purchases, went up 6·6 per cent. since June and went up by a full 1 per cent. from mid-December to mid-January? Since the food index is not yet picking up the impact of decimalisation, nor the further increases which the Minister warned us were coming, does he not feel that if he continues to fail to intervene the increases in retail food prices at the end of the first year of this Government will be unparalleled?

It is extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen opposite can still call for intervention, in view of their abject failure to control prices during their period of office. When the hon. Gentleman says That we have not yet felt the effect of decimalisation, how does he know? On the whole, our evidence is that decimalisation has gone extremely quietly and that very few price increases have resulted from it. As for the last part of the question, some of the increases in recent months were those to which I was referring on 19th January when I said that some increases were still to come.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reconsider his decision compulsorily to acquire for £3 a plot of building land at Peacehaven owned by a resident in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, particulars of which have been sent to him.

This small plot of 1/17th of an acre was acquired in 1960 in order to amalgamate it with neighbouring land and keep it in agricultural use. It is still used for this purpose. The compensation was assessed as the fair price by the Lands Tribunal, and I regret that it is not open to me to increase the assessment.

I thank my right hon. Friend for the personal trouble which I know he has taken over this case. Is it not the case that if the law is such as to produce this legalised robbery, surely that is an overwhelming argument for early amendment of the law and suspending action over this plot until the law has been properly amended?

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on putting down an agricultural Question. He will appreciate that there is a general code of compensation which applies to all these cases. I have no evidence that the code was not correctly applied, and it would be a very grave matter to seek now to over-rule the findings of the Tribunal. But I have noted what he has said and would like to consider it further.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what means Her Majesty's Government will finance their policy of expanding agricultural production in view of the Government's policy of giving more freedom to the agricultural industry and enabling farmers to obtain their return from the end product; and if he will allow the industry to have more freedom in marketing these products.

When a comprehensive levy system is introduced, it is the intention to set minimum import prices which should enable efficient farmers to secure better returns from the market and so to finance increased production. The system should also allow the industry greater freedom in marketing.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, because of the previous Administration, British agriculture is not in a position at present to finance this forward movement of production which we all want? Although he rightly asks agriculture to stand on its own feet, would he not also agree that if it is to do so it must be given freedom to market its own products?

The first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question relates really as much as anything to the problem of inflation, and that is a problem from which the whole country is suffering and which we must get on top of as soon as possible. I have an open mind on the subject of marketing and I am willing to have discussions with the N.F.U. as soon as the Price Review is over.

Does not the policy of the Government mean increased prices for the housewife, and, if so, by how much?

That is a completely different question. There are Questions on the Order Paper dealing with that matter later.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the freedom which farmers enjoyed before the last war damaged the agricultural industry almost beyond repair and that the 1947 Act brought security and efficiency to the industry? Will he give an assurance that marketing boards, including the Milk Marketing Board, will not be abolished?

As far as I am concerned, I am ready to give the assurance the right hon. Gentleman asks for in respect of the existing boards for milk, potatoes and hops. As I have already said, I am prepared to consider any views put to me by the N.F.U. or others.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effects of fowl pest during the 12 months ended 28th February, 1971 both ad valorem and in relation to numbers of birds lost; how this compares with those for earlier periods; and what are the results of vaccination.

Since 1963 no information has been available on the number or value of birds lost as a result of fowl pest. However, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the annual numbers of outbreaks and birds involved in that period. As for the effect of vaccination, losses in infected flocks which were properly vaccinated have in almost all cases been very substantially lower than in unvaccinated flocks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the ravages are now appalling? Has he learnt of the case in my constituency where 86,000 birds were lost in a single incident? Is he aware that in the last few days there have been numerous cases in Northumberland and Durham? Is it not time the Government gave a lead in this matter and insisted compulsorily on vaccination with the latest and best vaccines available?

It would not be practicable to insist on compulsory vaccination because the policing required would make such demands on manpower that it really could not be enforced. It is true that there have been over 5,000 outbreaks now and it is a tragedy that only 11 per cent. of the flocks have been fully vaccinated. If it is any satisfaction to my hon. Friend, in Worcestershire, at least, that figure is 18 per cent. and I commend the county for it. The message which must be given is that vaccination must be done.

Now that these birds are to be herded in cages the size of which is still undefined, can the hon. Gentleman assure us that there will not be an even greater danger of fowl pest outbreaks with the birds being kept so closely together?

I can hardly imagine that the disease could be much worse than in this present epidemic.

On 9th February my hon. Friend said that 85 per cent. of affected flocks had not been vaccinated, adding that vaccination is vital. Will he consider possible compensation for farmers whose flocks are known to have been properly vaccinated but who suffer losses? Would this not be a useful inducement to get 100 per cent. vaccination?

In nearly every case in which it has been claimed that a flock has been fully vaccinated in accordance with instructions, investigation has shown that this was not so. I am afraid that I cannot give any assurance or any indication that we would be prepared to go back to the policy of 1963.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest weekly figures of fowl pest outbreaks; and what the prospects are of the epidemic ending.

The numbers of outbreaks of fowl pest during the two weeks ending 28th February were 200 and 159 respectively. These are considerably below the peak of 359 in the week ending 10th January, but are still very high. To reduce the risk of the spread of disease to the comparatively disease-free areas in the north and southwest of England and in Wales, my right hon. Friends have made an Order, to come into effect on 8th March, to prohibit the movement of live birds, excluding day-old chicks, into these areas. I will, with permission, circulate details of the areas in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Do my right hon. Friend's statistics show that there was a remarkable effect with the change to live vaccines, and in these circum- stances is he satisfied that the changeover was made as soon as it should have been?

The change was made as soon as there was an adequate result from the tests which we felt had to be made under working conditions in this country. The matter has been going successfully. We are making experiments with slightly stronger live vaccine, but it is too early to assess the result.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the losses in the quinquennium 1966–1970, respectively, for foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever, and fowl pest, and the aggregate losses for these three diseases; and what consideration he is giving to underwriting losses for these three diseases by an insurance scheme mutually agreeable to all farmers and his Department, and to giving producers security against losses on their farms from swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease.

The losses, excluding staff costs, incurred by the Ministry for the five-year period were £33,232,000 for foot-and-mouth disease, £112,000 for swine fever and £150,000 for fowl pest. It is not possible to assess aggregate losses by the industry and others, as the extent of consequential loss is not known. My right hon. Friend is not considering underwriting farmers' losses from swine fever and foot-and-mouth disease, but insurance is available through commercial channels.

Does not my hon. Friend recognise that there is some obvious inconsistency here in that the Government reimburse for losses due to foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever but not for fowl pest? Would it not be a good policy to try to secure a national scheme for insurance of animals and fowl against all these classes of disease and for all the owners of such animals and fowl to contribute compulsorily to such an insurance scheme?

I put it to my hon. Friend that there is compensation by the Government for foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever and that that is better than insurance so that the Government may have a free hand to slaughter. I would not rule out applying his idea to other diseases where it was more appropriate, but I must point out that the policy of slaughter and compensation did not work in 1963 and that the best insurance is vaccination. That is proved by the fact that the figure of outbreaks was about 2,000 a year in 1963 and fell to under 40 in 1969.

Is there anything at present to prevent farmers from insuring against these losses? Is the hon. Gentleman certain that farmers can get hold of a reliable insurance company?

I understand that commercial insurance against fowl pest is no longer available.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is virtually impossible to get any kind of insurance for fowl pest regardless of whether one goes for the dead vaccine or not? While ruling out compensation, does not he agree that there is a difficult position for poultry farmers when there is no form of insurance available, save the dead vaccine, which is not as effective as all that?

I can only tell my hon. Friend again that the success of the vaccination policy can be judged by the figure of outbreaks, which fell so substantially when vaccination was done. I am afraid that it is the fact that people have become slightly casual about it that really is responsible for the present outbreak.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the replies to Questions Nos. 7 and 8, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to ensure that consumers purchasing food in shops can know, from the labelling on the products, what is the last date upon which it should be consumed to ensure that it is safe.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to require the brewers to label all their bottled beers with an uncoded indication of the date on which the beer was placed in the bottle.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reply he has now received from the Food Standards Committee about the question of open date stamping of perishable food products.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to compel retail establishments selling pre-packaged and convenience foods to give direct date stamps on such items or to compel any codes used to be publicly displayed on their premises; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the Food Standards Committee following its reconsideration of the need for open date stamping of perishable food.

I have now consulted the Food Standards Committee on this question. In an interim report, which I have made available in the Library, the committee recommends that in view of developments since 1964 it wishes to review the whole question of date marking of food. It considers it essential to invite evidence from all interested parties. I propose to accept this recommendation.

Aside from his having ruined my supplementary question, is the Minister aware that this is a substantial step forward? Will he accept that, for example, Marks and Spencer's has already announced that it will put date stamps on food, so that this is possible? Will he further accept that there is overwhelming evidence that the public has a right to know that the food it is buying is safe beyond any doubt and is not likely to be mouldy?

It might be dangerous if I were to go quite as far as the hon. Gentleman has gone because, as the Consumer Council report some months ago said, this is a superficially attractive idea. It is right that it should now be examined properly once more, and I would not want to prejudge any decision likely to be reached.

While I welcome the Minister's statement, may I ask for an assurance that this will not be just one more example of a situation in which the brewers alone are exempt from the labelling requirements of this country?

If the hon. Gentleman drinks a bad bottle of beer good luck to him. [Interruption.]

Will the Committee be seeking evidence from overseas, from countries such as France and Germany where open date stamping is working smoothly and effectively to the benefit of suppliers, retailers and customers?

Yes. The Committee will be free to take evidence from whatever source it wishes, including health departments, both at home and overseas and international organisations. It will start by inviting the Association of Public Health Inspectors to give oral evidence at its next meeting on 22nd March.

In view of the public interest in this question, can the Minister say whether this inquiry will be making its report reasonably soon because it would be unfortunate for consumers and traders if the proceedings dragged on for an undue length of time?

I recognise the importance of what the hon. Lady has said but if we are to have a proper report on this it will take some time to collect all the information. I think it would be unlikely to be less than a year. It would be better if a proper job were done rather than hurrying this.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Early Day Motion on page 6635 of today's Order Paper? Is he further aware that in the national health survey of the Public Health Inspectors Association report there is conclusive evidence—this is why this matter is imperative—that stocks are being moved from shop to shop until they are sold?

This is what is known as the "sale or return racket." This is against the law in so far as it does not comply with the Food and Drugs Act. I am aware of my hon. Friend's complaint, and this will be taken into consideration by the Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert), who put a reasonable question, was totally unworthy of a Ministerial reply? Will he now be good enough to give a reasonable reply? Secondly, is he aware that the information he gave about the length of time that this inquiry will take is rather disquieting? Will he give the House an assurance that he will consider, at his discretion, making an interim report and publishing it because of the great public concern over this important question?

I recognise that there is great public concern on this matter. On the other hand, the public must understand that a storage condition by itself is absolutely meaningless because it depends very much on the method under which the food is being kept and stored. There are, therefore, two sides to this question, as was put forward by Focus, the Consumer Council publication, in February, 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on Government policy on compensation for those sections of horticulture that would be adversely affected by Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

My right hon. Friend has already made known his readiness to discuss with the leaders of the industry what help the Government can give in the case of growers faced with difficult problems of adjustment on entry to the European Economic Community. The time to carry this further will be after the transitional arrangements for horticulture have been settled.

While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the breadth of his answer, can we be reasonably assured that all sectors will be included in this review? When my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) first outlined it some years ago he clearly had glass in mind. Can we be assured that all sectors will be fully considered?

My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he is ready to discuss with the leaders of the industry any problems of this kind which they wish to raise.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he will specify the article of the Treaty of Rome, or regulation, which lays down that a high proportion of the Community budget should be spent on agricultural support.

There is nothing in the Community's legislation which lays down that a high proportion of the budget should continue to be spent on agricultural support.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does it not show how misleading are some of the comments of those who say that our entry into the Common Market will be merely a method of subsidising the inefficient producer on the Continent? Are there not influential voices already within the Community arguing for a higher proportion of the Community budget to be used on non-agricultural matters such as regional policy?

The proportion of the budget devoted to industrial, regional and social policy could well be increased, and we certainly would want to see increases in those areas.

Will the Minister give the Government's reaction to the overnight news from Brussels about the length of the transitional period in which we shall be allowed to adjust to Common Market price levels? What representations is he making to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on behalf of the British housewife?

These are proposals which I understand emanate from Brussels, and they are counter-proposals to the ones which we have already put to the Commission and to the Community. I am certain that my right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of them and will be taking them into account.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what machinery exists within the European Economic Community to guarantee producer prices for farmers; and how these producer prices compare to the average received by farmers in this country now.

The mechanisms used to support prices under the common agricultural policy include levies on imports, intervention on the market, and restitution payments on exports. Their target and intervention prices are in general higher than our guaranteed prices, as was shown in the detailed reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) on 9th November last.—[Vol. 806. c. 46–8.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these higher producer prices will be a great spur to our agricultural community and may well lead to higher productivity? Will he confirm that some of the difference between our food prices and the higher food prices on the other side of the Channel is due to the less efficient retail and distributing mechanisms over there?

Yes, Sir. There is no doubt that our systems of food manufacture, distribution and retailing are far in advance of those in the Common Market area. Certainly I should think that British agriculture with its efficiency would increase production very considerably given the price levels that rule in the Common Market.

Is the Minister aware that in no sense can E.E.C. farmers be said to have a guaranteed price as British farmers have? Does he not agree that the inevitable consequence of entry into the Common Market is that farmers will have to accept prices which are subject to much sharper fluctuations?

The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there are no guaranteed prices as such, but the intervention price levels are higher than our guaranteed prices are now by quite some margin. Of course, in a market economy there would tend to be more fluctuations, but the hon. Gentleman must know that even under our system there are considerable fluctuations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with that part of Dr. Mansholt's report which says that the cost of agricultural support in E.E.C. will continue to rise until the price mechanism is allowed to work in the case of surpluses, by which he clearly meant lower prices?

It would obviously suit the book of this country for price levels within the Common Market to be restrained. This has happened over the past few years, and, as a result, a good many of the surpluses are no longer present. I should have thought that some of the less fortunate parts of the common agricultural policy are now being brought under control.

Does not the Minister agree that in the hill and marginal areas farmers depend not only on producer prices but on grants and subsidies? Would it not be helpful if he were to publish a list of those subsidies and grants which would still be valid under the Common Market system?

Some of our grants and subsidies would undoubtedly still be valid under the Common Market system. Individual countries in the Common Market have their own national policies for other areas, but I would not necessarily want to encourage that. I should like to consider further the point the hon. and learned Gentleman has made.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about improved grubbing-up grants for horticulture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce his proposals for improved grants for orchard grubbing.

My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement on the future of the orchard grubbing grant. He will do so as soon as he can.

May I ask my hon. Friend to communicate to his right hon. Friend the necesssity for ensuring that at the very least the grubbing-up grants compare favourably not with the present level but with those operating with the Commission in Europe? Would he also see that they are available to cover all types of fruit?

I have so communicated.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the result of his review into the operating subsidy for the deep sea fishing fleet after mid-1971.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will be meeting with the British trawling industry to discuss his review of subsidy policy.

I cannot yet say, but I shall be in touch with the industry as soon as possible.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes discussions will start? Can he give an undertaking first, that the principles upon which the subsidy operates will remain the same and, secondly, that there will be more money available for the industry in view of its increasing costs?

Consultations with the industry will be taking place before long. It would be wrong of me to prejudge those consultations by giving the hon. Gentleman the assurances for which he asks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is the important year for the Common Market negotiations? Will he give the House an assurance that he will keep in the closest touch with all sections of the fishing industry—owners, unions, merchants and the like? Will he afford to them the care and courtesy which he gives to the N.F.U. when he discusses the annual Price Review?

The care and courtesy with which I consult the N.F.U. remains a matter of some conjecture. Certainly I am willing at all times to discuss the problems of the fishing industry with all sections of that industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a further statement on the future of the White Fish Authority.

No, Sir. As I told the hon. Member on 19th January, the position remains as stated in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 17th December.—[Vol. 809, c. 237.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the time is passing? Is he aware that there is uncertainty, and that people would like to know definitely what is the position about the White Fish Authority? When are we to have a definitive statement?

There was a statement on 17th December which I thought was pretty clear. Any further statement must await completion of the review of Government-aided research and development and also clarification of the E.E.C. aspects. Until these two items are cleared, there will be no further statement on the White Fish Authority.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the White Fish Authority has been unable to deal with applications under the Fishing Vessels Scheme since his directive freezing these applications as far back as 27th October? The White Fish Authority has, therefore, been unable to carry out this important part of its work. As the Minister has now withdrawn his Order, what will be the position of these applications which have been standing idle for so long?

I am considering the position further in the light of the Select Committee's comments and the views which have been expressed by hon. Members, and I will make a further statement on this as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimates he has made of the acreage of winter wheat planted for harvest this year;

The acreage of autumn sown wheat in England and Wales at the December census was 2·3 million acres. Information about the cereals acreage farmers in England and Wales intend to sow in the spring will not be available until the March census figures have been examined.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I am sure he is aware that in the eastern part of England, because of the climatic conditions over which we have no control, in the last three years the harvests have been poor. Is he satisfied that his Department is doing everything to encourage good harvests?

Even with all the ability which my Department has, it is a little difficult for it to encourage a good harvest next August from the weather point of view.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the level of capital investment in the horticultural industry for the latest available 12-month period compared with the previous five 12-month periods.

The most useful figures I can offer my hon. Friend are those showing the estimated cost of proposals approved for grant under the successive Horticulture Improvement Schemes. I am arranging for these to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I thank my hon. Friend for those revealing figures. What does he intend to do to help British horticulture, which is in a serious state, if the Government should thrust this nation unwillingly into Europe, thereby crippling much of British horticulture?

I would not for one moment accept the premise that anyone will be thrust unwillingly into Europe. I have already mentioned in reply to a previous Question the discussions which my right hon. Friend has said he is willing to have with the National Farmers' Union on this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has reviewed the various publications issued by his Department.

Yes, Sir. Many are of a high standard, but there is room for significant savings.

While I accept that many of the publications are of a high standard, will my hon. Friend give me some idea what saving he intends to make in money and staff?

I cannot give precise figures. There is little room for a reduction of publications on diseases, grants, safety, subsidies and so on, but certain technical literature will be ceasing. There will be increased emphasis on leaflets for advice, and certain charges will be made for the larger technical publications but not for the advisory ones.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

The guaranteed prices for 1971–72 will be determined in decimal currency and the approximate £ s. d. equivalents will be published in the White Paper.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish figures on a monthly basis showing the relationship of imported supplies of apples and pears to domestic supplies.

I will, with permission, circulate a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT showing, by months. three-year average figures for 1968 to 1970 comparing imports and estimated home marketings of apples and pears.

When my right hon. Friend publishes those figures, will he not find that we are wasting large sums of foreign exchange on what we can perfectly well grow ourselves?

In the first five months of the main home marketing season home-grown apples were responsible for 93 per cent. of all supplies and the figure for pears was 72 per cent. In regard to excessive imports, the quotas on non-sterling area imports give some protection, but that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the numbers of store cattle imported from Eire in each of the last three years; and how these numbers relate to those laid down in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement.

In 1970, 506,809 store cattle were imported from the Irish Republic into the United Kingdom, the corresponding figures for 1968 and 1969 being 589,244 and 537,361 respectively. Under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement the Government of the Republic of Ireland undertook to use their best endeavours, consistent with the circumstances of the trade, to ensure that the export of stores to the United Kingdom should not fall below 638,000 head per year.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Could he say whether he is satisfied with the working of this agreement and whether he is either preparing or prepared to renegotiate all or part of it?

The present Government since taking office have impressed on the Government of the Irish Republic the need to meet undertakings to the best of their ability. Different aspects of the agreement are of particular interest to each country. It is necessary to consider each aspect against the overall balance of the agreement. I would not want to carry the matter any further today.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library of the House a copy of his public speech in Eastbourne to the National Conference of Young Conservatives on 7th February on Her Majesty's Government's policy for industry.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on Her Majesty's Government's policy for industry to the Young Conservatives on 7th February at Eastbourne.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters made to the Young Conservatives in Eastbourne on Sunday, 7th February.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his speech on economic policies to the Young Conservatives at Eastbourne on 7th February in the Library of the House of Commons.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Young Conservatives at Eastbourne on 7th February, 1971, on Government economic policy.

I did so two days later, Sir, on 9th February.

I thank the Prime Minister for his attention to this matter. Since in that speech he offered as a criterion for public investment the safety and efficiency of the Armed Services, is public investment not also justified to guarantee the safety and efficiency of insurance funds which carry the money of ordinary people? If it is justified as a rescue operation following a financial collapse, is it not also justified while there are some profits to be made?

In regard to the question about insurance, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be making a statement after Questions about that specific case. When in that speech I gave criteria I thought I was saying something that must be obvious to everybody in this House, which applies to management, trade unions and Government.

Does the Prime Minister recall that in that speech he issued a stern lecture to all and sundry to get rid of some of their illusions? Could he set an example today by getting rid of the illusion, first of all, that he ever answers a Question in this House satisfactorily, and, secondly, that Governments are never wrong—when all the evidence points to the fact that they are a disaster?

The hon. Gentleman used the word "Governments"—in the plural. What I said in that speech was that there were lessons to be learned by Governments on this matter. One is that we cannot secure prosperity by continuing to pour out subsidies at the taxpayers' expense.

Since the announcement on Friday that the Government intend to use investments grants to improve the deplorably low level of investment, may we take it that the Government have now changed their policy? Do they regard it as better than their policy on tax allowances? Why have they changed?

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the situation, which is that in the interim period investment grants are being phased out and investment allowances are to take their place. What my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done is to advance the payment of the existing investment grant money to improve the liquidity situation. This is necessary because of the state in which companies found themselves following the previous Administration.

Would not the Prime Minister have spoken more profitably on that occasion about some of the illusions he has fostered—for example, the illusion that the policy of the Government will provide "a better tomorrow", or that he would cut prices and unemployment "at a stroke"? Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman suffers from delusions of adequacy?

If the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the particular points made in that speech, he will see how over the last few years they have not been acknowledged and that if we address ourselves to them in the future we shall have a much greater chance of prosperity.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now ask the Prime Minister of South Africa to pay an official visit to the United Kingdom.

I have no plans to do so, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the representations made by his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary about the use of South African police in Rhodesia have been totally spurned by the Union Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in the very week that he announced his squalid arms deal with the South African Government, that Government have embarked upon a policy of persecuting Anglican clergymen? If the South African Prime Minister visited this countries, could not the right hon. Gentleman discuss these matters with him?

It is not necessary to invite the Prime Minister of South Africa here to do that. We have been carrying on a discussion of these matters through diplomatic channels, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has informed the House. As for the position of British citizens in South Africa, these questions are always taken up by the Ambassador.

Would not it be a very good idea to invite Dr. Vorster to visit this country for an exchange of views? Is not South Africa an indispensable ally for the defence of the Indian Ocean, and would not some hon. Members opposite do well to take notice of what a number of French-speaking and English-speaking African leaders are saying, that the way to deal with South Africa is by dialogue and not ostracism?

I think that there is a deep division of opinion as to whether the problems of apartheid in South Africa should be dealt with by ostracism or by trying to influence the South African Government to change their policies. This difference of view was clear at the Commonwealth Conference. It is a difference not only between former French and former British countries in Africa but between the former British countries in Africa themselves. But, as I have said, I have no plans to invite the South African Prime Minister here at present.

Are we to take it that, following the statement last week by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, there have been formal protests by Her Majesty's Government about the treatment not only of the Dean but also of other clergymen who were harried? Are we also to take it that the Government have formally protested about the expulsion of the priest who was thrown out of South Africa on Thursday or Friday of last week?

Some of these cases have been discussed by the Ambassador, obviously, on the instructions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. There have been some cases in which British citizens were not involved and, in the circumstances, we have not been able to take action. If the right hon. Gentleman wants information about specific cases, I will gladly let him have it.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot have heard my question clearly. [Interruption.] I have not had an answer yet. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would have wanted to give me an answer if he had heard me properly. I did not ask whether the cases had been taken up with the South African Government. I asked whether there had been any formal protest. In view of the Prime Minister's declaration that he opposes apartheid, which no one questions, did he not feel it appropriate to protest either himself or through his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, about the harrying of clergy, even though they be not of British origin?

This is not a procedure which is customarily followed through diplomatic channels. In the case of a Government which follows their own legal process, we have certain consular advantages, which we have used fully, and we are entitled to use them. But we cannot make a formal protest when another sovereign State follows its own process of law.

If the Prime Minister is not at the moment envisaging extending an invitation to Dr. Vorster to visit this country, is he aware that he himself would receive a very warm welcome in South Africa were he to visit that country? Since he and Dr. Vorster were on different sides in the last war, will he realise that, with the authority of his own very distinguished war record, he would be able to tell Dr. Vorster how wrong he was in his Nazi sympathies in the war and how wrong he is to perpetuate them now?

We are also on different sides on the question of apartheid, and I have always expressed my own views about it publicly. In private, my views are the same. However, a great deal is to be gained by closer contact with South Africa, and this was borne out by the recent visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

When the World Council of Churches proceeds to finance armed rebellion in South Africa and the invasion of her frontiers, can one really complain about the results of thereby converting dissent into treason? After all, the first Elizabeth in similar circumstances was even rougher with dissident parsons.

While I do not dispute the hon. and learned Gentleman's historical references, I prefer not to make a generalisation about the situation in South Africa. It is also true that it depends on one's view of the best method of dealing with apartheid whether one supports freedom fighters. There is great wisdom in the advice which has been given by others outside politics, that one cannot expect freedom fighters to overthrow South Africa. On the other hand, the disadvantages which accrue to other African countries from the activities of freedom fighters do them considerable harm.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment on Rolls-Royce; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. There continues to be close co-ordination between all Departments concerned with the affairs of Rolls-Royce.

Since the Minister of Aviation Supply misled this House on 9th December when he said that the £42 million would be given to Rolls-Royce irrespective of the report of the accountants—[Interruption.]—yes, he did; it was on 9th December—what does the Prime Minister intend to do for subcontractors and others who will be forced into liquidation as a direct result of misleading Government assurances?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation Supply dealt with this point fully in his speech on Friday in the course of the day's debate dealing with the matter—

No.

With respect to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend dealt with it in detail and quoted his original statement which made it clear beyond peradventure. He also explained that he had made a mistake in answering a supplementary question, which he then corrected by writing to the hon. Member concerned. In reply to a later supplementary question, he also made it clear that his original statement was what governed the situation. The position was made quite clear. The Rolls-Royce company and its board were quite clear. Anyone who read the statement in Parliament must also have been clear about it.

Do the Government have no advice for the sub-contractors?

In the debate my right hon. Friend said that most subcontractors will be continuing with the Government-owned firm of Rolls-Royce, in most cases with work which is being carried on. As for the RB211, that remains to be settled as a result of the negotiations which begin today with Lockheed.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the diversity of Ministerial responsibilities in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland already has a very wide span of responsibilities, including the co-ordination of the operations in Scotland of all Government Departments concerned with physical, industrial and economic development. Under successive Administrations other functions have been exercised in Scotland by Ministers whose responsibilities are countywide: but all my right hon. Friends whose responsibilities extend to Scotland work closely with the Secretary of State.

Is the Prime Minister aware that his Government are very unpopular in Scotland, where there is great dissatisfaction with them? Is he further aware that the situation is not helped when hon. Members find their Questions shuffled about to other Ministries, especially when they deal with confused development area policies?

Successive Governments have examined the question whether Trade and Industry should be a country-wide Department or whether it should be split so that part is in Scotland. I examined this question again when I became Prime Minister. I came to the conclusion which I held previously in 1963, and which was shared by the then Secretary of State and by the present Secretary of State, that on the whole it is more helpful to Scotland to have a country-wide Department concerned with trade and industry.

Is the Prime Minister aware that nearly all his Ministers appear to be on the one committee which is holding back the progress of this Bill enormously? Secondly, will the Prime Minister tell the House which Ministry will be in charge of the selling-off of State pubs to private breweries, because this is of great significance?

Mr. Younger.

Obviously, that will have to be done through this House. As for the general responsibilities for trade and industry, I repeat that I think that Scotland benefits from having these matters dealt with on a country-wide basis which ensures that development can be handled to her advantage. I had a long discussion recently with the Scottish T.U.C., and there was no request for trade and industry responsibilities as such to be moved to the Secretary of State for Scotland.