asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the cost of food has increased since 18th June, 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what amount food prices have increased since 18th June, 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen between 1st June, 1970, and 30th September, 1971, and by what percentage during the year ended 30th September, 1971.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the cost of food has risen since 18th June, 1970; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the Food Index has risen from June, 1970, to the latest available date.

Between 16th June, 1970, and 17th August, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 11·6 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that that is a scandalous message for the nation? Is he further aware that his belated recognition of the fact that people have been profiteering and fiddling over decimalisation is in itself a contribution to this rise in prices? What action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take to stop these spivs carrying out these practices?

The hon. Gentleman uses extravagant language about the decimal currency with which I do not think anybody will agree. I am sure that once housewives become fully accustomed to the new currency they will he as keen shoppers as ever they were. Meanwhile extra vigilance is required.

Is the Minister aware that these figures show only too clearly that this Government were elected as a result of the biggest confidence trick in history? Since entry into the European Economic Community will aggravate the position, why does not the Minister, as the Prime Minister's side-kick and messenger boy, tell his right hon. Friend to set British housewives free and to give them a chance of a free vote on this issue?

I think the right answer is to get prices under control if we are to have a prosperous and competitive economy. Our policy, which has low taxes and high economic growth as its aim, will do that, in sharp contrast to the six wasted years of Labour Government.

Is the Minister aware that the main burden of the scandalous increases falls on people least able to bear them, particularly the old? Is he also aware that these increases will well nigh use up the small increase in pensions which has been made to old people? What does he propose to do to keep up the buying power of what little money our old-age pensioners get?

I share the hon. and learned Gentleman's sentiments. Of course higher food prices, as other increased prices, bear most heavily on the old. The Government have this matter very much in mind, but the House will know that the retirement pension has recently been raised to bring the pension in real terms to the highest level it has ever reached

Why does not the Minister come clean with the House and the country and accept full responsibility for this appalling increase in the cost of living, rather than follow the line of all the rest of the lame ducks on the Government Front Bench who blame it all on the Labour Government? Furthermore, is he aware that this is only the first instalment of what will happen to the cost of living, and to food prices in particular, if the steamroller comes out and we are pressed into the Common Market on 28th October?

When the hon. Lady talks about the steamroller, I do not know which way she is looking.

While dissociating myself from the extravagant nature of the four preceding supplementary questions, may I ask my right hon. Friend, rubbing his nose in realities in doing so, whether he realises that the great British public believes that he is deliberately trying to raise food prices in this country to Continental levels in order to lessen the blow of going into the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend disabuse the public in these matters and assure us that he is trying to bring down food prices, not push them up any higher?

I hope that my hon. Friend, who is a known anti-Common Marketeer, will have been explaining to his constituents during the Summer Recess that prices in the world outside the Common Market, where he wishes to remain, have been rising at a considerably faster rate than prices inside.

Is the Minister aware that one of the more disquieting aspects of this matter is that he, as Minister of Food, during the weeks and months following decimalisation said that the introduction of decimal currency was having no effect on food prices? Will he admit now that it was a cardinal error to abolish the early warning system and the system of scrutinising food prices day by day, as was done under the Labour Government? Furthermore, will he recommend to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues that retirement pensions should be increased, since they have been eroded by the increased prices for which he is responsible?

No, Sir—and that is not true. The pension is now at a higher rate in real buying power than it has ever been in the history of the country. As for the right hon. Gentleman's charge on decimalisation, there is no inconsistency between what I said earlier today and what I said in September. However, it is clear that many people are still confused about the real value of the new money, and it would be unreasonable to suppose that some of the less scrupulous traders have not sought to take advantage of the situation

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage change in food prices in the last 14 months as measured by official indices; what were the figures for each of the previous six comparable periods; and what steps he is now taking in relation to the trend revealed.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when the housewives may expect that stroke to occur which was promised just prior to the General Election? Will he tell us whether he expects food prices to fall, to stay as they are, or to rise in the next 12 months? In view of the advice which he gave to the housewives at an earlier date, will he tell us the state of the market in peaches and pigeons at the moment.

As I have already explained this afternoon, it is difficult to give a forecast of food prices in the next 12 months. Certainly we can see some signs of world food prices stabilising and not going on increasing, at any rate at their present rate. What happens on the home side depends to a large extent on how we tackle inflation and get it under control.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the recent trend of food prices; and if he will make a statement.

No, but I am confident that the measures taken by the Government, together with the Confederation of British Industries' initiative to restrain price increases, will help to combat the rate of inflation.

After that vague answer and the equally vague comments which preceded it, can the Minister tell us how his future policy on food prices will contribute to the Prime Minister's promised period of unparalleled prosperity and growth—or did he not take the Prime Minister seriously?

The answer is that the combination of the C.B.I. initiative, which the Government welcomed, the restraints imposed by the Government on nationalised industry price increases, which are very valuable, and the reductions in purchase tax and selective employment tax will all help to keep prices under control.

When?

This Government reduce taxation. The other lot put it up.

Will my right hon. Friend say how much of the percentage increase in food prices is due to higher costs as a result of wage inflation in terms of transport in particular and costs in general?

In assessing increases in food prices, between 30 and 50 per cent. is due to higher world prices, and the balance is due to inflation.

Does the Minister agree that the worrying feature of the latest figures in the food index is that there is no evidence of any moderation in the rising trend of food prices? At this time of the year, we must look at the nonseasonal subsection and not at the seasonal one, which remains fairly stable Is the Minister aware that the non-seasonal group shows an increase of 2 per cent. between June and August, 1971, which is the same disastrous rate of 12 per cent. a year which occurred during the first year of Tory Government?

As I have said, world food prices account for between 30 and 50 per cent. of the increases in food prices. However, there are signs that the storm is blowing out a bit, and that we may expect a little better later in the year. With regard to inflation, which is the other side of the cost increases, the quicker and the sooner that wage settlements come down to realistic levels, the quicker we shall get on top of it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has now made of the effect on food prices of the reduction in selective employment tax; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) and others on 20th July.—[Vol. 821, c. 1240–4]

Which all adds up to the fact that the "dear old" S.E.T. was a very effective way of raising public funds.

The reduction of it by half is a good way of reducing taxation.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any evidence to make him disagree with the estimate which the Grocer, the trade magazine, produced earlier in the year, that, for a typical supermarket, the general reduction in price across the board made possible because of the reduction in S.E.T. was less than ½p in the £1.

The Grocer is a popular document for Oppositions to quote at Governments, and both sides of the House have experienced that. The effect on food prices is difficult to estimate, but there have been a good many reductions, particularly by leading food retailers, as a result of the reduction of S.E.T.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what has been the increase in the average weekly food bill paid by shoppers over the past nine months; and if he will make a statement;

The most recent information available from the National Food Survey relates to the second quarter of 1971 when average weekly expenditure on food was £2·32 per head. This was 16p. or 7·4 per cent. higher than in the last quarter of 1970. The increase between the first two quarters of 1970 and the first two quarters of 1971 was 18p or 8·7 per cent.

Will the Minister tell housewives categorically that he has been unable to keep down food prices? However much they shop around, they cannot save money. What they are concerned about now is the effect that V.A.T. will have on food bills. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that the Government do not intend to put V.A.T. on food?

Yes, Sir. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech, made it plain that V.A.T. would not be charged on food, or that it would have an exempt rate, except for those items of food which already bear purchase tax, where he reserved his position. The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is that the figures which I have given bear out the fact that housewives have a knack of being able, as it were, to beat the cost-of-food index.

Will my right hon. Friend he explicit about this matter? We all accept the undertaking that V.A.T. will not be applied to food itself, but it will certainly be applied to the distributive processes for food, which will have the same effect generally as the levying of S.E.T.

I think that my hon. Friend would be well advised to put down a Question on that to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is it not correct to say that the trend is that the housewife is now buying less food for more money than she did in the past? Will the Minister give us some assurance that food prices will be held clown in future?

The hon. Gentleman is not right, because the National Food Survey shows that one-fifth of the higher expenditure on food is attributable to increased consumption, particularly of meat and citrus fruits.

To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in retail food prices has taken place between June, 1970 and September, 1971, or the latest convenient date, expressed per centum increase; and what further steps he is now taking to stabilise food prices.

Sir Gerald Nabarro.

Mr. Speaker, you called my Question earlier, with Question No. 1.

No. Mrs. Butler, to ask Question No. 21.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is so much noise in this part of the House that I thought that you had called my Question No. 20 with Question No. 1. That was not so, but as you at that time gave me the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, I will not ask Question No. 20.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what meetings his officials have had with the Brewers' Society to discuss what effects the introduction of the European Economic Community draft regulations on hops would have on British beer.

No formal meeting has been necessary, but there has been contact on a number of occasions between staff of my Department and of the Brewers' Society about the Community's proposals for hops.

In these meetings, have the representatives of the Brewers' Society at any time withdrawn from their previous statement of December last year that the Community's proposals, if introduced, and if we go into the Common Market, will mean the end of British beer as we know it?

No, Sir. The brewing industry sees no difficulties facing it with regard to the regulations, either approved or in draft. It is perfectly capable of using a female hop, if that is necessary, to make British beer.

Is not the key word in the Question of the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) the word "draft", and will my hon. Friend confirm that these are merely draft regulations which are capable of amendment?

If any regulation on the seed content were passed before we acceded to the Treaty, our position would be reserved.

Whatever the position about the female hop, can the hon. Gentleman say what consultations he has had with the British Hops Board, which has carried out first-class work on this subject? What are the views of that body?

It, too, is interested in trying to develop the female hop—[HON. MEMBERS: "Seedless"]. Very well. The seedless hop. With great respect, I think that that is naturally a female hop. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we put a few male plants among our vines. I am certain that the E.E.C. will appreciate this healthy attitude to sex.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the effect of joining the European Economic Community on the pattern of farm production in Great Britain.

I have nothing to add to the assessment which my right hon. Friend gave in the debate on 23rd July.—[Vol. 821. c. 1853–5.]

I am very disappointed with that reply. Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in a letter to me of 16th September, his right hon. Friend told me that the full impact of the Common Agricultural Policy could not be forecast with any degree of accuracy but that any technical disadvantage to British agriculture would be offset by income to the farmers themselves? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the arbitrary imposition of European price structures on British agriculture could have an effect upon standards of husbandry? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that deserves a better statement from the Government?

It is impossible to be precise about the future pattern of agriculture, even of an individual farm, be cause prices, costs and demands all change. I think that my right hon. Friend gave an admirable assessment in the debate, which was both detailed and full. Further than that, he could not be expected to go.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect on the fishing industry of the latest negotiations with the European Economic Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the progress made in the negotiations to secure a modification of the European Economic Community Common Fisheries Policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the further negotiations for a common European fisheries policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in his negotaitions upon fisheries policy with the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress made in his negotiations on the subject of a revised Common European fisheries policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his negotiations with the European Economic Community countries to protect the fishing rights of Great Britain's inshore fishermen.

As the House is aware, the European Economic Community agreed that changes will be required to the present common fisheries policy, particularly in regard to access to waters. They have now acknowledged to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that a new policy must establish a satisfactory new overall balance of advantage that takes account of the legitimate interests of all member States, new and old, and I share his confidence that this will lead to terms sails factory to our industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter is of great importance to certain hon. Members in deciding which way to vote next week? Will the Government do everything possible to maintain existing British limits and, in any event, not sign any agreement which accords Britain narrower limits than those accorded to other applicants?

Especially Norway.

On the first part of my hon. Friend's questiton, the answer is "Yes". I will try to expand on my answer in the debate later this week, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that the Community has rejected both proposals that the British Government put forward for modifying its policy, what chance is there that it will modify it satisfactorily following a vote in favour of entry? Is not it the case that the Government are asking this House to vote for a common fisheries policy which has not yet been decided but which is as much a condition of entry as are all the other common policies?

We have always taken the view that it was better to get the right answer than to take a quick decision and to get the wrong one. From what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has reported back to this House and from the reports of the latest meetings which have been going on between the Six and the other applicants, it is clear that, given patience, we shall get the right answer.

Is the Minister aware that a team of back benchers, including myself, from this side of the House was at the E.E.C. headquarters last week discussing this very matter? I came away with the impression that we would maintain the status quo for the next five years. Certainly Norway has been assured that she will have her 12 miles. All that we ask today is that our Minister also gets for us what we understand Norway will be receiving—that is, 12 miles.

We have always accepted from the start of the negotiations on fish that the proposals which we put forward originally would have to be acceptable to all the applicant and the member countries. That position applies to day. If the hon. Gentleman is right about Norway getting 12 miles, that puts us in a very strong position.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the more remote parts of the country, such as Cornwall, with limited alternative employment opportunities, any decline in the inshore fishing industry would have adverse social as well as economic results? Is he also aware that we must ensure that we maintain the status quo in the absence of any acceptable new policy?

Certainly I am aware of the great importance of this matter to many constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House, not least to the South-West. We put forward the status quo as a temporary measure, but we are aiming to get a fully agreed settlement as soon as we can because the status quo in itself does not give the assurance which we require for a long time ahead.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the status quo alone is not enough? Will he assure us that the agreement which will be reached will recognise that we must also have proper policing over the sizes and weights of Continental meshes and trawls used in our areas?

There is no problem over the size of net or any of the other conservation methods within our 12-mile area. That is sacrosanct to us. We, and no one else, have to decide that

The Minister has made a very important statement on behalf of the Government and it is important that he should confirm it. Is he saying that if Norway secures a 12-mile limit as a fixed term, Her Majesty's Government will not be satisfied with anything less? I should be grateful if the Minister would make it clear that that is the case.

Following what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said about what Norway was hoping to obtain, I said that naturally we should expect to obtain the same terms as Norway. Certainly the terms have to be known not just for Britain when she joins but for the other three applicant countries and, for that matter, the Six member nations as well, so that we can then see that the terms are fair and equitable between the Ten.

That is more vague than the Minister's previous reply. In any event, will he reassure the House by telling us quite clearly that the Government will not be satisfied with less than six miles as a permanent term, because any alternative would be extremely damaging to the British fishing industry?

I can certainly give that guarantee. I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, but it would be far better, rather than to engage in long questions and answers across the Floor of the House now, to wait until the debate on Thursday when I will try to amplify the remarks which I have made.

As the whole situation appears to be extremely confused, will my right hon. Friend, when and if he makes his statement on Thursday, tell us how far we shall be able to get on fishing questions before we take our famous vote on 28th October? This is tremendously important. My constituents are quite happy about everything except fish, and I want to satisfy them, because it is not only the fishermen themselves but also all the people who support our fishing industry on the North-East coast who require proper affirmation.

I do not underestimate the strength of feeling on this issue one little bit, and I know that it is felt in all parts of the House. I will do my best on Thursday to give an answer which I think will satisfy my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with representatives of the fishing industry following the meeting with representatives of the Six in September.

My officials have continued to keep in close touch with the representatives of both inshore and deep sea fishermen. I am of course ready to see representatives whenever they request a meeting.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what limitations would membership of the European Economic Community impose upon the planting of vineyards and the making of wine in Great Britain.

None, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend accept that that reply will be a welcome reassurance to the small but growing number of producers in this country who are planting vineyards?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that statement, and I am happy at the prospect that I shall continue to be able to enjoy British sherry when I partake of my hon. Friend's hospitality.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) by what percentage he now estimates the annual requirement for domestic sugar production will increase during the transitional period, if the United Kingdom becomes a member of the European Economic Community;

Sugar consumption in the United Kingdom is at best static; and, because of our commitment to take the full current quotas under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement until the end of 1974, there will be no scope for increased beet production before then. Thereafter we expect to share in the opportunities for expansion which the enlarged Community will then offer.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the industry is anxious that as much advance warning as possible should be given of our increased production requirements, in order to ensure that production facilities are made available in good time?

Yes, Sir.

What opportunities will there be for expansion in domestic sugar production after 1974, if we are to maintain our commitment to the Commonwealth sugar producers that we shall take much the same quantities?

There is, as I think the House knows, no undertaking with regard to Australia, in respect of which there will be a gap of 335,000 tons to fill, and which will be phased out.

In the event of the success of the negotiations at present going on about the factory in Scotland, will a quota for growing sugar beet in Scotland be available?

The acreage quota is, of course, a matter for the Annual Price Review, but the Government would certainly not have assisted in getting discussions going between the British Sugar Corporation and the consortium if acreage were going to be a problem.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have been instituted under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968, regarding unnecessary suffering caused to animals; and in how many such cases a failure to observe the Codes of Recommendation for the Welfare of Liverstock was quoted in evidence.

One prosecution has been brought under Section 1 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968. It resulted in a conviction. Failure to observe the Codes of Recommendations was quoted in evidence.

Does the Minister agree that, in view of the many serious malpractices which the revised Codes of Recommendations are designed to prevent, it is a great pity that only one prosecution has been brought in which the Codes have been quoted in evidence? Would there not be more successful prosecutions if the Codes were mandatory?

I think that we should look at this matter in perspective. Out of 26,000 visits by our veterinary staff in the course of a year, only 74 cases were found involving unnecessary suffering and all were resolved by the advice given. Frankly, I think that that is a better way of getting results than merely saying that we are chalking up prosecutions.

Has the right hon. Gentleman looked at or visited these little hutches in which farm animals are being housed? Does he realise that in the space which they are allowed in these little dens it is impossible for animals to escape suffering? Will he look at the matter himself and not depend on other people for reports?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have visited many of these establishments.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the regulation that all imports of poultry, meat and offal will have to be accompanied by official veterinary certification as to the health of the birds from which the meat or offal is derived, he will take steps to arrange for similar certification to be demanded in respect of home-produced poultry.

Overseas veterinary certification of imports of poultry meat is required to prevent the introduction of poultry diseases, especially those exotic to this country. There is not the same need for the certifying of domestic production. Public health considerations are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the enormous outbreaks of fowl pest, the high incidence of mareks disease and infectious bronchitis, and also of food poisoning can all be traced to home-reared chickens? Does not the Minister think that in future consumers will prefer to buy imported chickens, for which a certificate of health is required? If that were to happen, would it not have a damaging effect on the home industry?

I do not think so. As regards fowl pest, it is forbidden to move infected birds off farms, and under the Food and Drugs Act local authorities have powers to examine all food, including poultry carcases, for human consumption. I think, therefore, that the safeguards are adequate.

Will the hon. Gentleman give particular attention to the health of pigeons, as we are concerned about the exotic diet of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture?

I think that my right hon. Friend looks very well on what I understand is the grapefruit diet.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which body is to undertake the analysis of shell-fish in the Thames Estuary for mercury; what will be the scope of its investigations; when it is expected to report; and if lie will make a statement.

Details of the analyses of fish and shell-fish from the Thames Estuary and other areas, which were made by the Fisheries Laboratory of my Department, are included in the First Report of the Working Party on the Monitoring of Foodstuffs for Mercury and other Heavy Metals which was published on 15th October.

I welcome the Report. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to receive a report on the longterm combined effects of mercury, lead and cadmium on human health? Will he also report progress on identifying sources of mercury pollution, and the means of stopping it?

Testing for lead and cadmium has only just begun. I think that it will take about a year to get accurate results, but I shall consider whether it is possible to inform the House of the position at an earlier stage than that. The tracing of the sources of mercury, cadmium and lead is something that we are tackling all the time, and already we have brought about a considerable improvement as a result of the tests that we have made and the information that has come to us of their sources of origin

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce his plans for the establishment of a cereals marketing board.

Under the Agricultural Marketing Act, it is for producers to take the initiative.

Can my hon. Friend say what representations he has had in this connection from the producers, whether he has had a chance of considering them, and when lie intends to take the necessary action.

We have had no representations of any kind.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the shortage of milk for butter and cheese production, he will do away with standard quantities and thus give the go-ahead for further milk expansion.

At the last Annual Review we undertook that the method of supporting milk production, including the standard quantity system, would be reconsidered as part of the changeover to levy arrangements. Discussions with the Farmers' Unions on the standard quantity are just beginning.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the present shortage of butter demands an increase in milk production to satisfy the needs of the consumer? Is there not a very serious warning in the fact that the previous Administration allowed this production to fall away so that we are in this present position? Would my hon. Friend seek to give every assurance that the go-ahead for milk production will be given?

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that the best go-ahead for expansion is a good price. The not price ex-farm at the moment, at 19.3p, compares with 16·35p two years ago. This obviously accounts for the expansion which has taken place.

But would the hon. Gentleman treat this suggestion with considerable reserve, bearing in mind the fact that the shortage is temporary and that a free-for-all could land the British milk producer in considerable difficulty?

I am not at all sure that I agree that this is a temporary shortage. There is a very definite trend, certainly in other countries, towards people getting tired of milking cows on Sundays.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on marketing of the 1971 cereal harvest.

There is nothing which I can usefully add to what I said in reply to my hon. Friend on 29th June and to the information available from published sources.—[Vol. 820, c. 195.]

Would my lion. Friend acknowledge that this year's harvest has been exceptionally above the three-year average? Does his reply imply that he is satisfied that the marketing of this very good harvest will create no problems?

I am very glad to confirm that this has indeed been one of the best harvests ever. So far as marketing Roes, the minimum import prices are having their effect upon both spot and forward prices. The market is thus giving an incentive to store and I think that farmers do get good guidance on this from the Cereals Authority.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that not only has the harvest been very good in this country but that the world harvest has been very good and that, contrary to what his right hon. Friend said about world food prices still rising, the evidence is that cereal prices in the world are falling, and that this is reflected in the feedingstuffs price now paid by farmers? What steps does the hon. Gentleman and his Minister intend to take, in view of the fact that their own prognostication that world food prices would continue to rise has not proved to be correct?

I thought that I had given my view that the Government's policy, which is one of gradually increasing minimum import prices, is having its effect and stabilising the market.

asked the Prime Minister if he will update the information contained in his first White Paper on the Common Market.

No, Sir. The July White Paper remains a valid record of the negotiations and the issues involved, and I have no doubt at all about the conclusion that the right decision for us is to join the European Communities.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has now been forced to acknowledge that he cannot carry the Common Market decision purely on his own party votes, will he not follow his new policy through to its only logical conclusion and agree to abide by his own declared statement, in view of the clear verdict of public opinion, not to carry this country into the Common Market without the "full-hearted support" of Parliament and the British people?

It has long been said, both by the Leader of the Opposition and by myself, that the way for opinion to be expressed on this matter is through Parliament, the traditional way.

asked the Prime Minister what rearrangements in Ministerial functions he contemplates should the United Kingdom enter the European Economic Community.

As the House knows, I have already asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to co-ordinate the preparatory work that will be required in the Government, if Parliament approves the decision in principle that Britain should accede to the European Communities. All Departments are considering how their organisation would be affected; but I do not contemplate any other changes in Ministerial functions.

As the right hon. Gentleman disclosed a few moments ago that the free vote on his side of the House on 28th October will be totally bogus, showing how little confidence he has in getting a majority, may I ask him to tell us what rearrangements in Ministerial functions will be necessary if we do not enter the Community?

The hon. Gentleman seems to show scant understanding of Parliamentary procedure. Any Government are entitled to ask for the support of all hon. Members in the House; and if all hon. Members were free to express their support, then perhaps we would get the best result.

Now that the Prime Minister has decided to allow his colleagues a free vote on the Common Market, may we expect that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) will be invited to rejoin the Government?

Hon. Members will vote in the way they decide best. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so envious and jealous. There is no need for that.

asked the Prime Minister how many letters he received on matters for which he is responsible during the Recess.

asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received since he took office on the questions of rising prices and unemployment.

asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has now received since 18th June, 1970, on the subject of old-age pensions.

asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on the subject of the Common Market since 5th August.

asked the Prime Minister how many letter he has received this year on the problem of unemployment.

asked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received in the last three months on the subject of unemployment.

Since becoming Prime Minister I have received about 120,000 letters from members of the public on issues of Government policy. A number of these letters were concerned with entry into the Common Market. Pensions, the cost of living and employment. The cost of a more detailed statistical breakdown would be disproportionate.

How many people have written to the right hon. Gentleman bringing to his attention the fact that. since he became Prime Minister, the West Midlands has gone into economic decline and now shows, in employment terms, all the aspects of becoming an industrial dustbowl? What specific proposals does he have for remedying this situation?

As I have said, it is not worth the cost of going into a statistical breakdown about the nature of the list. However, on the hon. Member's particular point, as he knows, I paid a visit to the West Midlands during the Recess, where I had a long and very valuable discussion with the planning council on the document which they themselves have produced. I would suggest to him that he does not help the West Midlands by grossly exaggerating their particular problems. But I agreed with them to study the whole question of I.D.C. arrangements and the rest of it.

Instead of castigating union leaders as being responsible for unemployment, would the Prime Minister now accept that it is the Government's policies which are largely contributing to unemployment and rising prices? Could he now switch his sympathies from surtax payers to ordinary people, which would help the situation considerably?

On the first part of that question, the hon. Member has only to discuss with the management of firms, as I did when I visited Stoke-on-Trent during the Recess, the reasons why they have redundancies to learn that excessive wage increases are one of the reasons. There can be no doubt about that, and we shall not find an answer to the problems unless we accept that. Second, on rising prices, the Chancellor's action in reducing purchase tax and halving S.E.T. is contributing to the process which the hon. Gentleman wants. As for taxation, the reduction in the standard rate benefited all taxpayers and the generous increase in child tax allowances helped all families.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will be increasing the cost of living by handing over millions of £s to the French farmers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]

The hon. Gentleman might have been fair enough to have acknowledged that if a letter from a pensioner concerns the pensioner's own particular circumstances and if that pensioner requires help, then much the most practical way of dealing with it is for it to go to the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that before the Summer Recess he said it was the duty of the Government to call on their supporters to follow their policy for entry into the Common Market? Has he changed his mind about that because of the letters he has received during the Recess? If not, what other reason has caused him to change his mind?

The Government will, of course, ask their supporters to support them—including support in the Lobby—and what is more, they will get the support of the great majority of them.

Does the right hon. Gentleman also recall that when he went to Birmingham and met the West Midlands Planning Council he refused, at the same time, to meet any of the trade union delegates who wanted to see him? Is he aware that they would have told him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) told him, that in the West Midlands we have an unemployment rate of 6 per cent. and that we are particularly concerned about the many thousands of young people who, having left school, have not been able to find any employment at all? Can he say specifically what action he now intends to take, having taken no action so far, to see that the prosperity of the West Midlands is restored?

The hon. Lady seems to have overlooked the fact that the trade unions are represented on the Planning Council and that their representative there was one of those who spoke, who said everything he wanted to say and took part in the discussion, having previously discussed the matter with his colleagues. I was, therefore, given the considered views of the trade unions in the West Midlands.

What is the policy on youth unemployment?

The policy is, first, to ensure that there is an improvement in employment in the country as a whole, which is the only way of getting more employment for youth. It is, second, to carry through a greatly improved training programme, which is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is doing.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if hon. Gentlemen opposite are so concerned about unemployment, they might be a great deal better employed joining hon. Members on this side of the House explaining to those who demand wage increases far in excess of anything which increases in productivity can justify the great damage they are doing to their own interests and the interests of those who have already been priced out of a job?

I have always made the point that that would be helpful, and I still believe that it would be helpful. However, as I understand it, the Opposition have now rejected their previous statutory incomes policy and have put nothing in its place.

Returning to the right hon. Gentleman's opening statement in which he referred to the disproportionate cost of answering the Questions, may I ask him whether he is telling the House that No. 10 no longer makes a weekly breakdown of the subjects of the letters that are received there? If that is still done, how much would be the cost of adding them together and so being able to answer my hon. Friends?

If I were to attempt to give an accurate reply, it would mean going through all the correspondence again to find out which letters dealt with more than one subject and to note those other subjects.

asked the Prime Minister what is the cost to public funds of maintaining the library at No. 10, Downing Street.

The cost to public funds of the Prime Minister's Library is negligible. It consists of books presented by Cabinet Ministers and former Cabinet Ministers; and the use of the books is not so heavy as to require special staffing or provision for maintenance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that that reply will give great satisfaction to many taxpayers who feared that they might be called upon to pay an exorbitant price for the very cheap memoirs of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition? But more to the point, can he confirm or deny rumours that the Downing Street copy of those memoirs is, in fact, in the right hon. Gentleman's own personal style—that is, that the backing is spineless to make it more easily reversible? [Interruption]—or even that it is in loose leaf form—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—to allow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."]—for easier amendment?

It is true that a copy of the right hon. Gentleman's book has not been presented to the Prime Minister's Library. However, a copy is available at No. 10. It was purchased at Government expense and is kept alongside other books of quotations.

asked the Prime Minister how many recent communications he has received from Mr. Ian Smith; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now make arrangements to meet Mr. Ian Smith in the light of the recent discussions conducted by Lord Goodman.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told the House yesterday, as a result of Lord Goodman's latest visit to Rhodesia further useful progress has been made, and exporatory discussions are continuing. I have received no communication from Mr. Smith, and we have no plans for a meeting.

Appreciating that my right hon. Friend would not wish to follow the unfortunate precedents set by his predecessors as far as Prime Ministerial meetings are concerned, may I ask him to say whether he expects intergovernmental talks at Ministerial level to take place in the near future to settle this outstanding and unfortunate dispute?

I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend any indication about that. We must wait and see how these official discussions proceed.

Bearing in mind that many millions of people are deeply interested in what interpretation may be attached to his use of the word "progress", could not the House of Commons be made privy to what has occurred in the Goodman talks and be told whether the Foreign Secretary is going to Rhodesia at an early date, which has been widely speculated?

I think we are most likely to achieve the objectives we have if these discussions are carried on privately to see whether we can make progress. The Foreign Secretary has always told the House that if the position is reached when a full statement can be made, he will make one. As for his own visit, that must await a situation in which progress is made.

Why should anyone in the country or anywhere else expect that the Prime Minister will stand by his declared principles on the question of Rhodesia when he has shown himself such an easy push-over on the question of the Common Market? Does he now stand by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer about 48 hours ago that the vote on 28th October would be an issue of confidence, or does he stand by his statement in July that—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Question is about Rhodesia."] Does the Prime Minister stand by the statement he made in July that those with whom he was negotiating on the question of the Common Market believed that he would use his majority to try to carry the matter through? Why has he run away so easily?

On Questions concerning Europe, I think that the hon. Gentleman had better consult his leader. On questions of Parliamentary procedure on which he has need of knowledge, he had better consult his own Chief Whip. I have answered the question about Rhodesia.

On the question of Rhodesia, does the right hon. Gentleman still stand by the five principles, which he supported from this Opposition Front Bench when they were enunciated. although he did not follow the principles through with the means to the principles in the matter of sanctions? Will he make clear now that there will he no settlement—that he will put his hand to no settlement—which does not fully honour the five principles, including unimpeded progress to majority rule, and this to be in a reasonable period of time, not spread over a large period of years?

As regards the five principles, the answer is "Yes". Our position remains the same. As regards the period of time, the right hon. Gentleman must wait and see what it is possible to negotiate, if it is possible to reach a conclusion. As far as I recall, the right hon. Gentleman never gave any indication of time for the provisional settlements which he himself negotiated.