asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give additional financial encouragement to those farmers who conform to agreed standards of nature conservation and preservation of the countryside.

This is a matter which I believe must be left to the good sense of landowners and farmers because of the obvious practical difficulty of defining any basis upon which such encouragement might be given.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the conservationist lobby, in the broadest sense of the term, is breathing ever more heavily down farmers' necks, for good reason, though farmers feel that they should not be left to bear the entire cost of preserving the countryside for the nation? Will he consider approaching the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether, for example, farmers could be given a tax incentive from earned income to enable them to co-operate in nature conservation?

I recognise the point of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but it would be very hard indeed to put it into practice. Farmers are being asked nowadays to undertake, on behalf of the community, a large conservation job, but it is a task which I think they prefer to work out in their own way.

As the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that a definite cost is involved, does he agree that the agricultural community should not be expected to meet all these costs, some of which are becoming extremely heavy?

This is a factor which I believe should be taken into account each year in assessing farmers' prices because this is something which the farming community as a whole has to bear on behalf of the nation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his consultations on the future of bull and boar licensing; and when he intends to make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet completed his review of policy on sire licensing.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to the reply given on 24th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.—[Vol. 812, c. 145.]

Is the Minister aware of the suggestion that bull licensing might be abolished in England and Wales but not in Scotland? Does he appreciate that such a decision would be scientifically indefensible and quite impracticable?

I do not wish to go beyond what I have already said. I hope that I shall not be guilty of an anatomical inaccuracy in saying that the Government will be taking the bull by the—well, by the horns before long.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of good agricultural land have been acquired for private afforestation in each of the last three years.

Statistics of land acquired for private afforestation are not available, but almost all such planting takes place on land of relatively low agricultural value.

Would not the Minister agree that this seems to be a rather inequitable situation, since it is possible for private forestry concerns to plant on good agricultural land whilst the Forestry Commission is not easily or generally able to plant on land of that quality? Would he, therefore, reconsider and review the whole situation?

On 8th December I said that the Government were undertaking a review of various aspects of forestry policy. This is one of the matters that would be considered.

Is it not a fact that 95 per cent. of our timber requirements are imported, at great expense, and that, therefore, all afforestation of land, good and bad, should be encouraged, whether it is private or public?

There is a considerable import-saving potential here. I am a very strong believer in an integration of forestry with agriculture for the benefit of each.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to effect a change in the taxation arrangements for private forestry, particularly where this activity prohibits public access or makes no provision for amenity or conservation.

Taxation arrangements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is the Minister aware of recent studies of the possibility that in a few years' time we may find that the greatest value from British woodland will lie in the amenity and capacity for recreation which it may provide? If that is the case, would he not, therefore, recommend to his right hon. Friend that tax concessions should be reviewed so that the possibility of providing for the nation's future needs is at least allowed?

I agree that amenity is an extremely important consideration. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Gentleman has said. It may be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman to know that all private schemes which are submitted to the Forestry Commission for grant aid are scrutinised for the effects which they may have on the landscape. If the Commission thinks that amenity will suffer, applications are not accepted without amendment.

Is the Minister aware that, beautiful though trees may be to look at, they are also a crop, just like wheat, barley or oats? Would he have regard to that fact and so increase taxation concessions that there may be, in the national interest, a growth of this industry and crop to the benefit of everybody?

My hon. Friend will not be in the least surprised to know that I have no responsibility for tax concessions.

I associate myself completely with the need for more timber. Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the country, especially in the Yorkshire Dales, there is increasing disappointment and disillusionment about the amount of private forestry which is taking place in areas to which the public are being denied access.

I repeat that both private and Forestry Commission plantings have a great deal to contribute to our economy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes any changes in the functions of his Department's experimental husbandry stations; and whether he is satisfied that their organisation is consistent with the new advisory objectives of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.

My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the functions of the experimental centres are consistent with the objectives of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, but he will, of course, keep their work under review.

Would my hon. Friend accept that his answer will give partial satisfaction to the industry, but the right to review the situation must continue to cause a certain degree of alarm?

I can only repeat that we shall keep the work of the institutes under the most careful review. Their aims—to provide information for advising officers and farmers, and for development under local conditions work which is done elsewhere—we regard as of the greatest importance.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the area of glasshouse crops and how this compares with the position in 1960 and 1965.

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

Would my hon. Friend say whether they have increased? If they have, would he not agree, therefore, that there is a fair profitability—there must be if they have increased—in these particular crops? Would he also not agree that to ensure profitability, as they are not covered by the Price Review, special arrangements will have to be made in the near future?

It may help my hon. Friend if I tell him that the figures for 1970 are 240 acres higher than in 1960, but in 1960 figures did not include 230 acres on holdings of under one acre; therefore, the position has been pretty static. A great deal of help has been given in that £37 million of investment in glass has been grant-aided since 1966.

What are the Government saying to the Horticultural Committee of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, which is concerned about dumping, especially of cucumbers and tomatoes?

That is more a question for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Federation of Meat Traders' Association about the Meat and Livestock Commission's meat labelling scheme; and what replies he has sent.

None, Sir. This is a voluntary scheme introduced by the Meat and Livestock Commission and any representation about it should be made to the Commission.

Does the scheme have the full and unqualified support of the Minister? What steps has he taken to persuade the federation to cease its petty opposition and to adopt the more responsible attitude of its Scottish counterpart?

This is a voluntary code entirely within the responsibility of the Commission. I can well appreciate some of the objections voiced by the federation. They are practical objections. But it is encouraging that the Scottish butchers, Sainsbury's and the Cooperative movement, have recommended the code.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the essential feature of these codes is that they should remain voluntary?

Yes, Sir.

Would the Minister think again about this matter, bearing in mind that the labelling scheme gives valuable information to shoppers, who find it increasingly difficult when buying meat because of the modern methods of preparing and displaying meat by butchers?

That being so, I am certain that, if this is a useful exercise, housewives will favour it in going from one butcher to another.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what, according to the latest available figures, are the guaranteed prices in Great Britain, and the European Economic Community intervention price, for barley and wheat, respectively.

The United Kingdom guaranteed prices for 1971–72 are £1·45 per cwt. for barley and £1·63 per cwt. for wheat. The European Economic Community's intervention prices for January, 1971, are £1·94 per cwt. for barley and £2·18 per cwt. for wheat. Prices for 1971–72 are still under consideration by the Community.

Would my hon. Friend say whether, in the event of our negotiations with the Community being successful, this would be a favourable matter for our producers, or the reverse?

As a producer of both these commodities myself, I should not have regarded the future as altogether unpleasant.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what will be the effects of his right hon. Friend's proposed intervention price of £3·5 up to £6 on the price of bread in this country?

With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I see no connection with the Question which has been asked.

Is the Minister aware that today in the Common Market countries there is a great demonstration by farmers demanding higher and higher prices? What effect will this have on the budget of British housewives if we should enter?

I notice that farmers in the Community are demonstrating, and the proposals for 1971–72 are that the price of barley and wheat should rise to £2·04 and £2·20 respectively. Without having a Question put down, I could not give the sort of answer which my hon. Friend, with his very meticulous mind, would wish me to give.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent he estimates that Great Britain will be able to influence the development of the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community if she joins.

As a member of the Community we would have a full voice in its institutions and the development of the common agricultural policy.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether during the negotiations he has found that those responsible for the agricultural aspects of the Community are flexible or inflexible in their approach? Will he further say that the progress they have made in restructuring the Community's agricultural policy and the reduction of surpluses are matters in which we might be able to make a contribution?

To the latter half of my hon. Friend's question the answer is "Yes". To the former part, about the flexibility of the Commission in respect of British agriculture and British entry, the answer is that we would like them to be more flexible still.

Does the Minister's answer to the first part of his hon. Friend's supplementary question indicate that the Government, in the context of the Common Market, would use their influence to see that producer prices were reduced rather than increased?

I think it would be wiser to get the terms of entry before we discuss what we shall do after we get entry.

Is my right hon. Friend persuaded that if negotiations go on he can obtain favourable considerations for the hill farmers of this country under the terms of the E.E.C. agricultural policy?

This remains to be discussed and negotiated in Brussels. I assure my hon. Friend that we have the position of hill farmers very much in the forefront of our minds.

Have not the Government, by committing themselves to a levy system, lost a point? If we join the Common Market and want to change the common agricultural policy, we have committed ourselves already and lost the argument.

No, Sir. It was the previous Government that committed themselves to the common agricultural policy. Once that step was taken, that was the end of the story.

Is the Minister aware that he has committed himself to a managed market before entering the Common Market, which was not the policy of the Labour Party? Does he accept that, in the event of our entering the Common Market, a transitional period of less than five years would be damaging and unacceptable to British agriculture?

The longer the transitional period the better and the easier it is for us to make the transition—that is quite clear. We have always made it clear that we were committed to the levy policy, whether or not we went into the Common Market.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures will exist within the enlarged Community for British producer organisations to influence prices of agricultural produce.

There will be an annual review of the economic conditions and prospects of agriculture in the enlarged Community. This will provide for effective consultation with producers' organisations at the Community level before the Council of Ministers takes decisions on prices. At the national level, the Government will also be free to conduct an annual review with producers' representatives.

As it is an essential part of the Community's agricultural policy to rely on producer groups to stabilise the market, is there any reason why this should not be true for horticulture?

None at all, and it is a fact, I think—if I recall an answer which I gave my hon. Friend some months ago —that the amount of horticultural produce at present marketed by co-operative groups is very small and there is big room for improvement.

Why will not the Minister agree to place the arrangements for the E.E.C. review of agriculture for United Kingdom producers here on a statutory basis, which would give producers some confidence that their interests would be looked after both in Brussels and in this country?

Farmers will be able to put their views on prices to the Commission just as they can put their views to the Government now. They have no absolute right of consultation under the present system, nor have they any right to take part in the decisions.

What effect will the domestic review have? Will it be considered in conjunction with a later review in Brussels?

The review in this country will not be a price determination; it will be a general look at economic conditions and prospects, and thereafter there will be a review in the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which inshore fishermen are likely to benefit from entry into the Common Market; and if he will make a statement.

Our detailed examination of the implications of the common fisheries policy is still proceeding. This includes contacts with the Commission at Brussels on aspects of the policy, certain details of which have not yet been settled. It would be unwise to make an assessment until we have all the essential clarification.

If my right hon. Friend cannot make an assessment, will he nevertheless give an assurance that in our negotiations with the Common Market he will make it a prerequisite of acceptance of any package deal that our inshore fishing industry shall not suffer?

I am determined, as my hon. Friend knows, to protect the legitimate interests of the inshore fishing industry. But when one is negotiating, as we are at the moment, it would be unwise to declare all one's hand in advance.

What interests of the inshore fishermen are illegitimate?

I should have thought that there were certain interests, such as conservation, which were extremely important; and this is the sort of interest which must be worked out.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the food bill of both a single retirement pensioner and a married retirement pensioner couple has increased over the past six months.

The Department of Employment's Retail Price Index for a single pensioner household showed an increase of 1·8 per cent. for food between the second and fourth quarters of 1970; and 1·9 per cent. for a two person pensioner household.

That hardly answers the Question. Does not the Minister accept that, translated into real pounds, shillings and pence, this means a tremendous increase in the cost of living for old-age pensioners—a higher increase than in recent years? Coupled with the announcements made by the Minister in his review last week, this will amount in total to a drastic falling off in the living standards of old-age pensioners. Will he, therefore, urge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase dramatically the old-age pension in his coming Budget?

I am well aware that inflation bears most heavily on pensioners and others on fixed incomes, and I am continually stressing the urgent need for the country to get this under control. That is the complete answer to the hon. Member.

Would not my right hon. Friend admit at once that the increases that he has just denoted for food prices for old-age pensioners represent less than 2p in the pound, and are about one quarter of the advances which have taken place in nationalised industries? In view of all the increases put together, will he step along the corridor to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for a 10s. increase for the single old-age pensioner and 15s. for the two pensioner household to take effect at the earliest moment?

As my hon. Friend knows only too well, pension matters are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, not for me.

The longer the supplementary questions, the fewer I can call.

Hear, hear.

Order. I was not approving the hon. Member's supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what movement there was in the retail price of food items other than those which show significant seasonal variations from the middle of December, 1970, to the latest available date, according to the Index of Retail Prices.

The sub-group of the Food Index which covers non-seasonal foods rose by 1·4 per cent. between 15th December, 1970, and 16th February, 1971, the latest date for which figures are available.

Is the Minister aware that it does not give us any pleasure to go on about these figures every time he answers Questions, but the figures are bad news for the housewife? The figure which he has just mentioned means that non-seasonal foods will have gone up 7 per cent. since June. Will he clarify the words of the Prime Minister last June? I will not quote them, because I am not trying to make a party political point. Were the people of this country wrong to interpret those words as meaning that there would be Government action to reduce the rate of price increases?

The whole time there is Government action to reduce the rate of increase. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman who does not want to make a party point by saying that in two out of the last three years of Labour Government the increase in non-seasonal food prices between December and February was greater than it has been this year.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) that this country still has the cheapest food in Europe, that a weak agricultural industry would mean that we were at the mercy of imported food and that the real reason for the increase in the cost of food is the legislation introduced by the Labour Government?

That is very much to the point. As I said two months ago, we know that we have a difficult period ahead of us, but, as the Prime Minister has rightly said, we are now beginning to get on top of inflation, and that is the best thing we can do.

May I help the right hon. Gentleman by asking him whether he is aware, on the basis of evidence in respectable newspapers, that there appears to be a serious racket in the prices of retail bacon and pork'? Will he reduce the cost of living, especially for poorer people, by investigating this? For old people, and others, there is nothing tastier than a bit of nice cheap bacon for breakfast.

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the price of bacon is cheaper now than it has been for three years.

Danish bacon.

Is the Minister aware that the way in which at Question Time after Question Time he blusters through his Questions is not appreciated by the country as a whole? Has he estimated the likely increase in food prices during 1971? Is he aware that some experts say that the increase may be as high as 10 per cent.? Whilst the House realises that there are some factors beyond his control for which he cannot be blamed, there are other matters which are well within his control. Will he now do something about it? Will he, for example, call a meeting of the Food Manufacturers Federation to discuss whether the manufacturers can absorb some of their costs in their profits and so stabilise the price of food?

No, Sir. I am well aware of the difficulties of this subject, and I want to be as helpful as I can to the House, but I do not think that trying to make an estimate for the rest of this year would be helpful.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what movement there has been in the price of the 100 faster-selling branded foods covered by his Department's survey of retail prices between the last survey before decimalisation day and the latest available survey.

In the four weeks between 9th February and 9th March about 92 per cent. of the price quotations for the faster-selling branded foods covered by this survey were unchanged or correctly converted to the decimal equivalents of their former £.s.d. prices. Of the remainder, just over 4 per cent, were dearer and over 3 per cent. were cheaper. These changes mainly reflected movements in manufacturers' prices, wholesale market prices or the incidence of special promotions.

I agree that the changeover to decimal currency went fairly satisfactorily, except, perhaps, in the greengrocery trade where there is, I think, some evidence of rounding up, but is the Minis- ter aware that the Financial Times grocery index indicates that the upward trend, which was very marked between December and January, is still continuing between February and March? To come back to the point which I put previously, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government's incomes policy, such as it is, would have a much better response if the action which the Minister says the Government are taking over food prices were more evident?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now says that the situation as regards decimalisation was comparatively satisfactory, and I hope that his hon. Friends will support him in that, since it was not what they said on the last occasion when we answered Questions on the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of food as measured by the retail price index for the nine months between 18th June and 18th March.

Between 16th June, 1970, and 16th February, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Index of Retail Food Prices rose by 4·2 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that, bad as those figures are, the housewife is in for a much heftier increase as a result of the Price Review last week, and will he now publish, out of the thousands of prices which go into the compilation of the retail price index, a list of the prices which have been cut at a stroke since 18th June, and also a list of the shops at which the housewife can buy those goods?

What the hon. Gentleman presents as facts are not true. The increase resulting from the Price Review determination last week consists of an increase in the price of milk which is equivalent to ¾ per cent. on the cost of food index, and once the levy schemes start to operate, there will be an additional ½ per cent. over the following 12 months. That is the sum total of the increase stemming from the Price Review.

Could my right hon. Friend say what relation the retail food price index bears to the total cost of living index?

The retail food index comprises one quarter of the costs covered by the cost of living index.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that greengrocers throughout the country have just raised the price of cauliflowers by 10 old pence, an increase of 50 per cent., following the Government's levy just imposed? What will he do to restore the former prices?

Apart from the fact that I do not for a moment believe that to be true throughout the country as a whole—

My wife has just paid that.

—there are ample supplies of fresh vegetables of different varieties available at the moment, and I suggest that the housewife takes advantage of them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect the Farm Price Review will have on prices in the shops.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect on retail food prices of the recent Price Review determinations.

The price of milk is to be increased by ½p per pint in July and will add about ¾ per cent. to the Food Index. The only other determinations which can effect retail prices are those for sugar beet and potatoes but these should not in themselves lead to any increase in retail prices.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The housewife is interested in the effect on her overall family budget. How do the determinations affect the direct price to the customer and the taxation price to the customer?

Far from being the soak-the-housewife price review that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) talked about, the last Price Review compares very well with some of those conducted when the Opposition were in power. The housewife will bear 44 per cent. of the increase this year, compared with 48 per cent. in the right hon. Gentleman's last Price Review and an average of nearly 50 per cent. over the past six years.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to the £60 million-£70 million extra will fall on the housewife as a direct result of this year's Price Review determinations, there will almost certainly be extra costs as a result of the introduction of import levies on meat, and that in the event of world cereal prices falling in the coming year, which is extremely likely, the raised minimum import prices for cereals will also lead to higher prices for bread and flour-based products than would have been the case?

Most of that question was hypothetical. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to put unnecessary fear into housewives that prices will go up.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a White Paper showing the effect of the policy of encouraging competition in the stabilisation of food prices during the last nine months.

No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) on 8th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 59.]

That answer is not surprising, because the White Paper would be a blank sheet. Can the right hon. Gentleman comment on the Grocer's estimate that since the General Election there have been 5,856 price increases? If he is not prepared to publish a White Paper on price reductions at a stroke, will he consider publishing the items to which the Grocer refers?

No, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend publish a White Paper showing the difference between the rise in the retail prices of groceries during the six years when the Opposition were in Government, when they went up astronomically, and the price increases since then, which have largely been due to the Opposition's mismanagement?

As Labour hon. Members know, and hate to be reminded, in their five years in office prices went up by 25 per cent., whereas in the previous five years they went up by 11 per cent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now consider holding a specific investigation into increases in food prices as a result of decimalisation, in the light of information received since 15th February.

No, Sir. The changeover to decimal currency went smoothly.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea how he reached that conclusion? For example, how does he canvass the housewife, who, according to quite substantial Press reports, doubts his statement very much?

It happens that I think I am better informed about public opinion than the hon. Gentleman.

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the change-over to decimalisation in so far as it affected the greengrocery trade, which was a specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and not answered by the right hon. Gentleman?

There were reports in the Financial Times article, which I think is the one the hon. Gentleman saw, that greengrocers had tended to even up rather than to pull down. This I regret, but I think that on the whole decimalisation went extremely smoothly and was a great credit to customers and shopkeepers alike.

Whilst I agree with my right hon. Friend, does he not agree that it could have gone still more smoothly if traders had made more use of the new half pence and had made use of the old sixpence?

I think that that is perfectly true.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect of the recent Price Review determination for pigs upon the size of the pig herd.

The immediate effect of the increase in the guaranteed price should be broadly to maintain profitability when production is stabilised within the middle band of the flexible guarantee. I cannot speculate on the longer-term trend in the size of the pig herd, but, if necessary, the Government will review the operation of the flexible guarantee arrangements later on in the year to encourage the desired level of production.

Is it not a fact that the February determination under the flexible guarantee arrangement showed the pig herd, or estimated marketings for the year ahead, to be at the top of the mid-band of 14·7 million, and is it not, therefore, almost certain that in May there will he a cut under the mid-band, unless the Government take emergency action, which will take away from pig producers with one hand what the Government gave them with the other at the Price Review?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well how the middle band operates; it is designed to keep pig numbers broadly in line with the increase in consumption. I cannot speculate too far ahead, but it seems to me that there is a fairly strong chance that there will be a cut in May.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to combat the damaging effects which direct sales to large retail distributors are having on the wholesale marketing system for food products.

I have no reason to think that efficient wholesalers cannot compete successfully.

I share my right hon. Friend's opinion that competition is the housewife's champion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—hon. Members should ask the "Co-op"—but is he not aware that the position of the small man is being adversely affected by higher prices now as against the bulk large-scale purchaser, and it is important to keep the small man in business since this is ultimately in the interest of the housewife's purse?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says. The cash-and-carry warehouses and voluntary symbol groups can play a part in helping the small independent grocer to obtain the advantages of the large multiple store.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that confectioners, greengrocers and grocers, ordinary shopkeepers, complain bitterly that they were taken for a ride by wholesalers over decimalisation and that they are still being filched and cheated because they have to face the angry housewife over increased charges imposed on them by wholesalers? Will he do something about that to help the ordinary shopkeeper?

The hon. Gentleman should already have heard, if he was here, his hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) say that he thought that decimalisation had gone satisfactorily.

The Minister is answering me now, not my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will compensate the owners of vaccinated flocks which succumb to fowl pest.

No, Sir. It is not the Government's responsibility to compensate farmers for losses from disease except where we require animals or birds to be slaughtered.

Does not my hon. Friend think that the introduction of that policy would be a useful encouragement to flock-owners to vaccinate?

No, Sir. The policy of compensation was followed and was a failure up to 1963, when there were over 2,000 outbreaks in a year. The policy of vaccination caused the outbreaks to fall to fewer than 40, and vaccination is clearly the best policy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to make an official visit to South America.

I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

While I appreciate the pressures and commitments which prevent my right hon. Friend from visiting this rapidly developing and friendly trading area, does he agree that there is every indication of a strong and growing desire by this trading area, worth more than £4,000 million a year, for better, more fruitful and expanding trade relationships with this country? Will he consider the implementation of such measures as bilateral trade agreements and investment guarantees?

Many firms in this country have long had well-established trading relations with particular countries in Latin America. We regard it as a very important market. As to bilateral trading agreements, this country operates under the multilateral arrangements of the G.A.T.T. Investment guarantees are being investigated by the Department of Trade and Industry, and I hope that it will be possible to make a statement about them fairly soon.

If the right hon. Gentleman went to the Argentine or some other South American country, could not he pick up one or two useful hints about how to get rid of unpopular colleagues?

The Argentine would appear to have applied the procedure in reverse, which is not one that I wish to accept.

asked the Prime Minister how many invitations he has received to address trade union annual conferences on matters for which he is responsible.

I have accepted an invitation to address the annual conference of the National and Local Government Officers Association next June.

When the Prime Minister addresses trade union annual conferences, will he take the trouble to tell them what claim he has to have a mandate for Clauses 35 to 40 of the Industrial Relations Bill, which impose fictional agreements upon trade unions, especially as "Fair Deal at Work" denied that the Conservatives would do this?

I am looking forward to addressing the conference. It will give me the opportunity to deal with the point the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and it will also give the conference the opportunity of seriously considering the Bill which is before Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister how many representations have been made to him since 1st January regarding the level of unemployment.

I have discussed the state of the economy, including the level of unemployment, with a variety of organisations and individuals, and I have found widespread concern about the consequences for employment of inflationary wage demands.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has taken his Government only nine months to produce the worst unemployment figures since the war, and that by the end of July thousands of school-leavers will be added to the growing army of the unemployed? When he referred in the election campaign to building one society, did he really mean that he was giving equal opportunity to all men to stand in a dole queue?

What I am aware of, and what those with whom I have discussed the matter are fully aware of, is the rising wage-cost inflation which we inherited from the Labour Government. The fact that the escalation in these claims has now been halted, and that there are signs of de-escalation, can be the basis—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not want to see inflation conquered in this country. When inflation is conquered there will be the basis for a sound expansion.

Has my right hon. Friend had his attention drawn to the growing problem of unemployment in the South-East region, particularly in North-East Kent, where, although it is an area of relatively satisfactory economic conditions, there has been continuing and growing unemployment which the Department of Trade and Industry has not yet succeeded in solving?

With great respect to my hon. Friend, it is not the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry to solve the particular problem of North-East Kent. I am well aware of the problems, many of which have arisen through the rationalisation of the larger companies in this country in an endeavour to maintain their efficiency and retain their export markets. What we must do is to encourage industry to go into such areas to take up the place which has been made for them by the rationalisation of existing companies.

Leaving on one side the right hon. Gentleman's polemical utterances about alibis and scapegoats, has he received any representations or information about what I am sure he will agree is a very serious development, the growth of white-collar unemployment, for example, amongst sale staffs, executive staffs, design staffs, and so on? Perhaps he will look into this and tell the House later whether he is satisfied that the machinery of the Department of Employment is adequate to deal with the placing of those in the white-collar grades who are unemployed, not least those who are over 45 or 50.

To the best of my knowledge, I have not had any representations on this aspect of the problem, but I will make sure about that. I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to look further into the question. Particular cases may arise at present as a result of the problems of Rolls-Royce. Here the Department of Employment has already made special arrangements for trying to find employment for design staffs and others concerned with the film.

asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to hold official discussions with President Nixon.

I have at present no plans for a further meeting with President Nixon.

What did the British Government, as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference, say to the American President about the invasion of Laos?

To the American President we have said nothing. What we have said to the Soviet Foreign Minister is that we would welcome joint action by the two co-chairmen for the removal of foreign forces from the whole area.

On a different point, my right hon. Friend will recall that when he saw President Nixon he discussed the question of the sale of advanced computers by this country to the Soviet Union. Has he any progress to report on this matter, which has been outstanding for some time?

I cannot make a final statement about it today. The information I have is that the American Administration has given further consideration to the problem. I hope that we shall have a decision fairly shortly.

asked the Prime Minister when the Trades Union Congress last sought a meeting with him on matters of mutual concern.

I was glad to have the opportunity of discussing the economic situation with the T.U.C. on 11th March, and I look forward to further exchanges of view.

Now that the T.U.C. has condemned the strikes against the Industrial Relations Bill, would it not be logical for it to condemn the victimisation of those who did not strike against the Bill?

The condemnation was made at the Congress at Croydon. We would all hope that no action will be taken against members of trade unions who did not take part in a political strike.

Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that he will take cognisance of the point of view expressed to him not only by the T.U.C. but by the C.B.I., that he should reflate the economy, thereby giving the people of Scotland in particular some hope about this Government?

As both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. saw, my colleagues and I took very careful note of all the representations made to us, especially on the questions of investment, unemployment and inflation. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take careful note of them all in forming his Budget proposals.

asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence is a member of the House of Commons, in view of the expenditure for which his Department is responsible.

No, Sir. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence is well able to answer in this House on all defence matters, including defence expenditure.

Does not the Prime Minister think that it is an insult to the elected Members of the House of Commons that the head of the biggest spending Department in Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is the biggest at present, I think, spending £2,500 million. It is one of the biggest, in any case—[Interruption.]

Order. It is the Prime Minister who is being asked the question.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it unfair that the Secretary of State should be in the other place, where he cannot be challenged by the elected representatives of the people? It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Secretary of State has an underling in this House prepared to answer here.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's thesis. Until the Ministry of Defence was unified, it was customary for one of the Service Ministers to be in the other place, and he headed a major spending Department. As we have a bicameral system, I see no objection to a senior Minister being in the other place, and, of course, the House of Commons retains complete control over expenditure.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that those of us who take a rather more constructive view of defence expenditure than does the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) are thoroughly happy with the present arrangement?

I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend is thoroughly happy, even if he does give the impression at the moment of receding over the horizon.

asked the Prime Minister if he will increase the number of Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security.

No, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a desperate need to have a new Minister in the Department to do that which the present incumbents are not prepared to do—namely, to ensure that local authorities comply with the law, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which they are consistently refusing to do?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained to the House several times that the local authorities have been given very comprehensive guidance on what is required under the Act, that he proposes to give them the reasonable time that is required, because of the reorganisation of the whole of the social services now going on in local government, in order to implement it, and that he will make the necessary Order at the appropriate time.

asked the Prime Minister if he will define the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

My right hon. and learned Friend is the Minister responsible for the negotiations for British entry into the European Communities, and deals with certain wider European questions. He also controls the management of the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but would he not agree that it should not be the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come here with a set of faits accompli, the results of negotiations in Brussels, but that he should make far greater efforts to discover the true feelings of the British people towards the negotiations before going on to Brussels?

The House has had many opportunities of debating the question of the European arrangements and negotiations. My right hon. and learned Friend makes a statement each time he returns from Brussels and, in addition, answers Questions in the usual way in the House. There is no question of a fait accompli of any kind. No decision can be taken until Parliament decides on the proposed arrangements if and when they come to be placed before the House.

Mr. Spearing—Question Q10.

Does the Prime Minister recall—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not ask his supplementary question before he has asked the Question.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, Question Q10.

asked the Prime Minister when he plans to make an official visit to Oxford.

On 23rd June, when the university has invited me to receive an honorary degree.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply but—

Congratulate him.

—does he recall that during the election campaign he called for an intellectually honest approach to politics, at the same time mentioning certain prices in the shopping basket? Will he please reconcile these two points—

Reading.

Very good reading it is, too.

—with the Order, made in paragraph 49 of the Agricultural Price Review, to put new taxes on imported meat?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, even when post hoc, would appear to be somewhat far from Oxford. The whole question of agricultural policy was put before the electorate fully and in detail at the General Election.