asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in cost of food since June 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen since June 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much food prices have increased since June 1970.

Between 16th June 1970 and 12th December 1972, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 24·9 per cent.

Is the Minister aware that that is the most appalling answer on this subject ever given in the House of Commons, when set against the Government's policies which restrict wage increases? Is not the Minister aware that until the Government take measures to control food prices their efforts to control inflation will come to naught?

I recognise that there is a substantial and serious rise, and I have never sought to deny that. But these rises, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are due to conditions outside the control of the Government. They are due almost entirely to increases in world prices of meat and cereals. That is the reason for them.

Will the Minister say by what percentage the cost of living, as opposed to the cost of food, rose? Will he also say by what percentages in the same period earnings and retirement pensions rose?

The important comparison is between earnings on the one hand and other rises on the other. Earnings during the same period rose by 34 per cent. and pensions by 35 per cent. These figures, serious as they are, show that the buying capacity of all sections of the community is higher now than it was in 1970.

Is it not a strange fact that these figures are more than two months out of date? Is the reason, possibly, that the Minister is afraid to admit to the House that the figure is now well over 25 per cent? Is he proud of the fact that the greatest achievement of this Government is to force some sections of the community to eat horsemeat and grey squirrel, and will he say what other effects the Government's policy will have in the next few months?

I have never been afraid to address the House upon any matter—certainly not on this matter. There has been no change in the arrangements about publication of figures; they have been published in exactly the same way as previously. I agree that the next month is bound to see some additional further increase—we all know this, and I have never sought to conceal it from the House.

Will my right hon. Friend urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove purchase tax altogether on food products, since this would have the effect of bringing down the index of food prices by no fewer than two points?

My hon. Friend will recall that purchase tax and SET will disappear when VAT is introduced—in fact, the total incidence of taxation on food will be less after 1st April than it is now because the effect of the disappearance of SET will be to reduce the imposition of tax on food. Therefore, there will be the beneficial effect of some reduction in total taxation.

Is the Minister aware that the figures show that the biggest upset faced by old-age pensioners this winter is not the dispute involving the gas workers but old people's inability to buy food at prices they can afford? Is it not a strange state of affairs when the Minister urges housewives to boycott beef, chicken and fish and yet beef prices continue at the same level? What does he expect people to eat—frogs legs?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I have never advised the housewife to boycott any product. [Interruption.] No. I have advised her to judge for herself about which is the best buy. The figures show that the purchase of better food by pensioners has increased and that the situation is better than it was in 1970. The food survey shows that pensioners' purchases of high-protein food are well up on previous levels.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has been estimated that in 1962 it took a manual worker on the national average wage 49·1 minutes to earn enough to buy 1 lb of best sirloin steak and at the end of 1972 it took him 46·5 minutes?

I am grateful for those facts. Both my hon. Friend and the House will be glad to know that since those figures were produced the price of beef has dropped.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage rise he expects in the retail price of bacon, pork and sugar in June 1973, as compared with the present price, following the agreements reached in Brussels on 23rd January.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the price of bread and sugar is expected to increase in the next three months.

The removal of the subsidy on sugar, which has already been announced, will allow our price to rise but it should still be somewhat below the world level; the total effect will be to raise the retail price by about 1½p for a 2 1b. bag of granulated sugar by 1st July. The price of British bacon will rise nearer to that of Danish bacon as a result of the removal of the bacon stabiliser.

Is this not intolerable in a period of wage and price freeze? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question about bacon? Is he aware that these rises are of such a character that they are in danger of changing the pattern of consumption in this country and forcing lower income groups to the level and type of food consumption which exists in Italy where they seldom eat meat? Is this what Government policy is leading to?

No. The rise in home bacon prices will be substantially less than the rise in imported bacon prices. As with other commodities in short supply, we are subject to the demands of other countries. Danish bacon has risen sharply but British bacon will not rise to the same level. It will obviously rise, with the stabiliser removed.

Is not the rate of exchange absolutely crucial to the question of keeping the cost of food down? Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the greatest contribution that could be made by those concerned to restrict the rise in food prices would be to maintain confidence abroad, to maintain industrial production, and avoid strikes, so that confidence in the pound can be retained at the highest possible level?

There is a close relationship between all these things. There has been a shortage in supply because of crop failures. Changes in the relative value of money have undoubtedly had a tremendous effect, which we have felt in recent years.

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he has deliberately on this occasion put up the prices of sugar and bacon by withdrawing subsidies. Has he chosen to do that or has he done so as a result of the CAP and our membership?

If we had fallen in strictly with the rules we should have removed them on 1st February. In fact, we have made arrangements to phase the change. That was felt to be the best thing to do in the interests of the consumer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will set up a committee of three housewives to investigate the reasons for the increase in fish prices since 1st January 1973.

No, Sir.

Does that answer mean that the hon. Lady does not need to take expert advice on this question? If that is so, will she tell the House the consideration the recent lower prices?

To set up such a committee would serve no useful purpose. Fish prices change essentially in response to fluctuations in supply, and supplies have on average been running at about 4 per cent. below the catches of a year ago because of reduced catching on our main fishing grounds.

If my hon. Friend should at any time consider setting up an investigation for the housewife, will she choose housewives who are the wives of North Sea fishermen and see what they have to say? Further, will she tell me why a 3½ per cent. increase was allowed in frozen in-store fish? Was that at the highest point of the crisis, or did it take into consideration the recent lower prices.

Having said that I did not feel a useful purpose would be served by setting up a group of three housewives I can hardly promise that they will be North Sea fishermen's wives. I am sure that if they were they would know that their husbands' catches have been affected by bad weather, to which inshore fishing is particularly vulnerable at this time of the year.

Is the hon. Lady aware that housewives do not believe that she is any longer on speaking terms with the right hon. Gentleman? Whilst she is engaged in allowing prices to rise——

Order. What has this to do with the committee of three housewives?

The Prime Minister appointed the hon. Lady to look after the interests of the housewife, a position in which she has lamentably failed. Is she having any difficulty with her right hon. Friend? If she is she ought to say so.

That does not arise out of the Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage rise in the retail price of mutton, lamb, bacon and beef since June 1970.

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

As the Government's White Paper of July 1971 told us that food prices would rise 2½ per cent. a year if we joined the EEC, and as all these prices are up by 30 per cent., 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. already, is it not clear that the White Paper was just a pack of lies?

No, I do not think that it was. Incidentally, the figures quoted in the White Paper were rather similar to those quoted by the previous Government in their White Paper on food price rises. The right hon. Gentleman will be able to see from the table that there have been great increases in meat prices. I have never sought to pretend that that was not so. They have not been in any way related to joining the Community.

Having regard to the alarming figures that we shall see in his Written Answer, and reverting to the earlier Question, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that now that we have discovered his and the Prime Minister's method of changing and fiddling the figures, even under his own method the figures show that we are now eating less beef, lamb and mutton in 1972 than we were at the end of rationing in 1954?

The answer is "No." I very much resent the charge about fiddling figures. There is no question of fiddling. These are official figures which the Labour Government used. We are merely taking the same figures and using them again. They are the only figures which show the total consumption.

They show a drop.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. The figures do not show a drop. They show a rise in the total consumption of beef, in the way that I have indicated and as he will see.

indicated dissent.

It is no use hon. Gentleman's shaking his head. These are the facts, and they are based on the official figures.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the food retail index figure will be affected by the most recent recommendation of the Commission that farmers should be paid £3·40 per 100 litres for not producing milk?

There has been no decision about not producing milk, and it would be too soon to start talking about the effects. The price of meat is certainly not affected by anything regarding Community regulations. It is due to world shortage and nothing else.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he now has for housewives who find most meat proteins beyond their purse.

I do not accept the assumption in the hon. Lady's Question, and I would advise housewives to continue to do what they always have done, namely, exercise their own judgment on the relative value of the different meats available.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean shopping around? Is he aware that the women of this country are fed up with his forays to Brussels and, when he returns, the stories that are put out on radio and television of his all-night sessions, battling about prices, when the result is that prices go up all the time? Prices of beef, pork, lamb, fish, eggs and cheese have all risen. What does he suggest housewives should buy to feed their families?

I remind the hon. Lady that, as I have already explained to the House, these rises—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Lady does not want to listen to a reply.

Come on. Tell them.

These rises are due to world conditions.

Tell them.

Order. The hon. Lady——

Disgraceful.

Order. The hon. Lady must contain herself——

They ought to resign.

or leave the Chamber.

Incompetent lot.

I hope that the hon. Lady will do me the courtesy of listening to the answer. She has made many charges. As I said, these rises are due to world conditions, as she knows. The fact of Britain's joining the Community has not had an impact of any kind.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes in the common agricultural policy he will be proposing to the Council of Ministers of the EEC.

We accepted the CAP in our application for membership of the Community and we adopted it on 1st February subject to the transitional arrangements provided in the Treaty of Accession. We intend to play our full part in the future development of the CAP to meet the needs and circumstances of the enlarged Community.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the Common Market debates we were led to believe, rightly or wrongly, that once we were in the Community we would do our best to change a totally absurd policy—and everybody would agree with that? Will he consult the Leader of the House so that we can have a debate on the follies of the common agricultural policy and so that Parliament can instruct the Minister on what to say when he goes to Brussels to reform the CAP?

I will inform my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of my hon. Friend's desire for a debate, but I have made clear in public speeches outside the House our desire to see the CAP develop in a way which would be better, we believe, from the point of view of consumers and producers alike. We believe we can help to provide a system whereby the CAP in some degree changes its basis, but we accepted the CAP, we acknowledged that we were joining a club, and we have to abide by its rules. We do not wish to change the rules, but we want to see the Community develop in a way which will help all sections.

In the light of the Minister's reply, does he not believe it important that this country should advocate a system of subsidies within the Common Market to benefit the consumers and to protect farmers within the CAP generally?

I do not know about a system of subsidies but a system of production grants, such as we have had in this country in the past, might be adopted by the Common Market countries. There are proposals for consideration in Brussels next week which could lead in this direction. I think that people in the Community are already thinking on these lines. I have indicated in other speeches the way in which the Government believe they should move forward.

Is it possible to operate the CAP effectively while this country operates a floating currency rate?

We agreed, at the January meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers, the basis for the floating of the pound. The changed circumstances, with the change in the dollar, may call for some revision, but we allowed for changes by introducing what is called a monetary compensatory amount to impose on top of the existing system. I agree that so long as any currencies float it makes it more complicated to work out relationships.

Clearly we wish to change the rules of the CAP. Not only is it in our own vital national interest to change those rules; it is also a matter of the utmost importance for the whole international community. Will not the Minister reconsider the matter and urge his colleagues—if he cannot do so himself—to put this item on the agenda of the Council of Ministers and make sure that it forms part of the international discussions on trade which are to take place on a world-wide basis later this year?

I do not think it is a matter of changing the rules. It involves a change of direction, and I have indicated the sort of way we think things should develop. In regard to the wider issues, involving international discussions, these are very much in our minds and in the minds of our Common Market colleagues in seeking to obtain satisfactory results from the international discussions with third countries during the course of this year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he now has to implement the Report of the Food Standards Committee on the date stamping of foodstuffs, in the light of the comments he has received from interested parties and consumer organisations; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now in a position to make a statement on the Report of the Food Standards Committee on the date stamping of foodstuffs.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to implement the Report of the Food Standards Committee on the date stamping of foodstuffs.

The Government accept the recommendations of the Food Standards Committee that there should be regulations on open date marking to come into effect in 1975 but that in the meantime date marking should be developed as fully as possible. The coming year will see the start of, or experiments in, "sell by" date marking of almost all products whose freshness is of most concern to the housewife.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole House will welcome that statement? It is particularly satisfactory to those of us who have pressed this matter in the House that it is a Conservative Government who have announced their intention to make these excellent regulations. Will she say whether the regulations are likely to include the recommendations of the Food Standards Committee with regard to temperature control of perishable food during transport, storage and display?

We recognise that not only date stamping will help consumers to keep prepared food in the best condition. There are other items, such as better labelling and the encouragement of a monitoring process in all related activities, including the point raised by my hon. Friend. I have set up a small steering group under the chairmanship of Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin, founder of the Housewives Trust. She will be assisted by leading figures from food distribution, processing, consumer organisations and enforcement authorities to examine the whole subject.

Does the Minister not agree that instead of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) seeking to make party capital out of this issue, the congratulations for this advance towards date stamping should go to the Sunday Times, which conducted a brilliant campaign upon it and which was responsible for highlighting this issue, demonstrating, as it did in the case of the thalidomide children, what a valuable institution a campaigning newspaper is?

I should like also to thank the Food Standards Committee, because it has done a very good job in its task of encouraging the development of open date marking.

Will my hon. Friend keep a sane head on her shoulders on this matter? There is a need for date stamping in certain directions, but will she bear in mind that some long-life foods would be handicapped by date stamping?

We recognised—and the Food Standards Committee made this clear—that there would be complex areas which would produce difficulties for some foods. It is because of the complex nature of the subject that the committee recommended that the regulations should not come into force until 1975. In the early period we are concentrating on short-life foods, because we feel that these are of most concern to the housewives. There are certainly difficulties in the marking of long-life foods. The steering group will have all these factors in mind.

Hon. Members on this side of the House very much welcome this step, but may I ask the Minister whether the other half of the problem—unit pricing—is also to be dealt with by the Government? Is she aware that we feel that this matter is of such importance that it should have been dealt with by way of a statement, so that we could have had a full discussion on it?

If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question dealing with unit pricing I will be happy to deal with it. It is entirely outside the scope of the present Question. On 1st February, in answer to a Question, I announced that I would be ready, in the light of the observations received, to make some statement within a fortnight. In the interim period three Questions were set down on the Order Paper and it seemed proper to answer those.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much animal feedingstuffs raw materials have increased in price between June 1972 and the latest date.

Between June 1972 and the end of January last cereal prices rose by about 40 per cent., while prices of animal and vegetable proteins more than doubled.

Does that not demonstrate yet again one of the problems attached to stabilising food prices? Can my hon. Friend say what effect this situation is having upon farmers' profit margins?

It is a fact that various foodstuffs, none of them grown in this country, have risen by immense figures. Cotton cake has risen from £46 to £105 and groundnut cake from £55 to £131. This will undoubtedly have a considerable effect on farmers' profits. That matter is taken into account in the annual Price Review.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these prices are rising scandalously and that poor harvests in other countries cannot be blamed entirely? Does he accept that the small to medium-sized poultry farmer, and even the pigeon fancier, is being hit hard in obtaining supplies of food for his birds? In these days of instant Government can the Minister say why it should take the Parliamentary Secretary five weeks to answer two letters of protest over food prices which I have sent to her?

Nine weeks.

The last question has nothing whatever to do with the Question on the Order Paper. The poor world crops of groundnut and soya have everything to do with the rise in prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to improve safety for those who are engaged in agriculture or on the land.

Our contacts with manufacturers, our advisory activities and our enforcement of the regulations have all underlined the importance we attach to preventing accidents. This, together with first-class co-operation by all concerned, has certainly helped to reduce non-fatal accidents, while fatal accidents last year were the lowest on record.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the fatal accident rate for work on the land has actually doubled in the last 10 years? In view of this disturbing revelation, will he undertake to hold an inquiry?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I cannot accept what he has said. The fatal accident figure for England and Wales in 1963 was 118 and in 1972 107.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us who were concerned with the Committee stage of the then Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill last year were absolutely horrified to learn of the accident rate in farming? Is he further aware that some of us believe that what the industry needs is the discipline that comes from a closed shop trade union organisation? Does he realise that while some of the regulations he has mentioned, such as those dealing with tractor cabs, are magnificent, the decision—and some of my colleagues and I must take some of the blame for this—to make these regulations wait for seven years is virtually condemning to death many people in the farming industry?

The greatest number of fatal accidents is still due to overturning tractors. It is highly satisfactory that the regulations are at last beginning to bite. The time factor was something which both Governments examined. This was the conclusion they both felt themselves bound to reach.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the consumption in ounces per head per week in the United Kingdom of carcase meat and beef, respectively, in the second quarter of 1954 and the third quarter of 1972.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the consumption of carcase meat in the United Kingdom in the second quarter of 1954 and the third quarter of 1972 in ounces per head per week.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the consumption of beef in ounces per head in the United Kingdom in the second quarter of 1954 and the third quarter of 1972.

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

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest food survey figures show a very disturbing trend? Is he aware that in the second quarter of 1954—the last quarter of food rationing—the consumption of carcase meat per head was 17·33 ounces per week and that in the third quarter of 1972 it was only 13.8 ounces per week? Bearing in mind his previous answer, does he agree that it seems that we are now having rationing not physically but by price?

I could perhaps help the House if I gave the total figures, which will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT, which are that carcase meat as a whole—this does not include poultry meat—for the second quarter of 1954 was 23.88 ounces and for the third quarter of 1972 was 27·28 ounces, showing an increase of 14 per cent. If poultry was added one would have an increase of 27 per cent. in total meat consumption over that period.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the British housewife could buy beef at an average price of 39p per lb more of it would be eaten? That is precisely the average price of beef available to the Japanese housewife, who is now obtaining beef from Australia as a result of Australia diverting its supplies from this country.

I was not aware of the price in Japan. No doubt there are many factors which lead to the formation of prices in different countries. What I have made clear is that this country is a substantial net importer, and imports large quantities from other countries. The facts which I have given indicate the precise consumption figures.

Is it in order for the Minister not to give figures in answer to my Question and then subsequently to give them in answer to a supplementary question—particularly when they are rigged figures? Is that in order?

Certainly it is. No question of order arises. The Chair has no control over the contents of an answer, subject to certain reservations.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is moving into very dodgy territory. I recognise his problem. The Prime Minister, having made a foolish statement, now wants his other Departments to bear him out. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the food survey figures in answer to Question No. 1. Why on Question No. 1? Why does he now change his methodology and use a new type of figuring? Is this change of figuring to protect the absurdities of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and get him out of a mess?

I do not think that I referred to the food survey figures in Question No. 1. So far as I recall there certainly was no reference to that in what I read out. What I gave was the figure as I have it. I have given the figure in regard to the figures taken from the Ministry's tables on food supplies moving into consumption in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] These are official figures. I assume that hon. Members are not challenging their authenticity. They are trying to draw figures from the food survey which do not give total consumption. The figures for the food survey do not take any account of food consumed in schools, hotels, works canteens and restaurants. Food is consumed in large quantities in such places, and there has been a substantial increase in eating in these different sectors. That is the change.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent the distribution and sale of potatoes affected by potato blight.

Blighted potatoes would not meet the quality standards laid down by the Potato Marketing Board, and so could not be offered for sale by farmers or merchants. This year's crop is, in fact, almost entirely free from blight.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is suspicion that there may be a link between the consumption of blighted potatoes and incidence of spina bifida? Will he reassure us today that we will not be able to obtain blighted potatoes in shops?

I am aware of the suggestion that there is a link with the disease mentioned. I am also aware that an article in the Lancet on 3rd February by Edinburgh University geneticists said quite emphatically that there was no link with blighted potatoes. Certainly it is most unlikely that they will be obtainable this year in the shops—first because the crop is almost entirely free from blight and secondly because the standards of the Potato Marketing Board have been substantially raised this season.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now introduce legislation for penalties for those found guilty of polluting the North Sea.

As my right hon. Friend and I have said in answer to previous Questions by the hon. Member, the legislation will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time permits.

As this is the first anniversary of seven Questions put at consecutive intervals, and on each occasion "as soon as parliamentary time permits" has been the answer, when will parliamentary time permit?

I should have thought that would depend upon how swiftly parliamentary business proceeds.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not only the first anniversary of one of seven Questions; it is the first anniversary of the Oslo Convention to prevent dumping of wastes at sea? Does my hon. Friend accept the advice of the Royal Commission on the Environment that the implementation of the convention should be brought into effect without delay and as a matter of priority?

Yes. Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) know precisely what are my hopes about this. They are well aware that the arrangements for the business of this House are not for me. I will, of course, again draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what has been said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now intends to publish his White Paper on Forestry.

Consultations are still in progress, and it is too early to say when there will be an announcement or the form which it will take.

Will the Minister try to speed up this series of consultations, because the lack of clarity about the future is causing a great deal of concern in upland areas?

First, I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench.

Does my hon. Friend agree that trees should be planted in really worthwhile soil and not just anywhere, as some people want to do, merely to raise the labour force in an area? That is an absolute waste.

I could not agree more. I am a strong advocate of good land use—the right land being used for trees, the right land being used for farming, and benefit to each.

Before making up his mind on the future of forestry, will the Minister study what the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has said on this very subject?

The hon. Gentleman will wish to know that I made a point of getting a copy on the evening that the report was published.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the leaders of the large metropolitan authorities.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the official talks he has held with representatives of municipalities regarding the effects of rating revaluation.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement, following his meeting on rates with representatives of Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and Bristol city councils.

I met leaders of six major cities on Friday 9th February, and representa- tives of the local authority associations on Tuesday 13th February. We discussed the problems confronting some local authorities in fixing their rates for next year and I undertook to give careful and urgent consideration to the points they put to me.

I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Does he agree that whenever the present revaluation took place cities like Birmingham would have suffered and been put at a disadvantage with respect to other authorities? Does he think that, as a matter of urgency, cities like Birmingham should get immediate help with the problems with which they are faced and be given parity with other authorities regarding Government help?

The representatives of the local authorities who came to see me each left a memorandum setting out the statistics that they had compiled to illustrate the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I have today received a further memorandum from the leader of the Birmingham City Council—Councillor Yapp—giving supplementary figures for which we asked. All these are now being studied. A theme running through all the remarks of the representatives of the local authorities was that although revaluation, taking the country as a whole, leads to no greater expenditure, there are differences between areas and, within areas, between domestic and commercial properties, and, in domestic houses, between individuals. This aspect is being further examined.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether any representatives of the Labour-controlled borough of Waltham Forest were at these meetings? If so, was he able to state his amazement that they are able to spend £15,000 on aerials for colour television sets in council houses but cannot find £6,000 for a playing field to be made from a piece of waste land for 400 children in my constituency?

My hon. Friend has made the point that he wanted to make. We did not discuss individual items of this kind. The local authorities, of their own will, illustrated expenditure which was the result of Government policies and expenditure which was of their own choosing.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is genuine appreciation that he saw the representatives of local authorities and heard their cases? Is he further aware that many other authorities not directly represented—for instance, the borough of Walsall—are severely affected and are expecting a 30 per cent. increase in rates as a result of revaluation, and that these charges will bear very much on the lowly-paid in the community? Will he consider imposing a freeze on rate increases for at least 12 months?

At the second meeting all the local authority associations were represented. These covered the whole country and each type of local authority, so the right hon. Gentleman may be assured that his authority was represented. A number of proposals were put forward. The local authorities have not put forward the idea of a freeze in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but various other proposals which were put forward are being examined.

Apart from asking for extra grants to meet the special problems affecting the Midlands area, did my right hon. Friend form the view that local authorities themselves were going to try to bring in economies which were within their power, in order that they could make a real contribution to the inflationary problem that the country is facing?

Some of the figures provided by the local authorities, and particularly by the cities, showed the extent to which some of them had deliberately cut down on their expenditure in order to avoid an increase in rates. I say that in all fairness to them. There were others who so far have not been prepared to do that. We are obviously presented with a mixed picture.

Will the Prime Minister be mindful that by their very nature local authority services are labour-intensive? That being so, is he aware that unless the Government come forward urgently with sizeable rate aid the choice in many areas will be between massive rate increases and cutting essential services? It will lead to further unemployment in areas such as Manchester, where unemployment is already a great problem.

The Government are providing the greatest measure of support grant ever this year, as well, of course, as the increased element for the domestic ratepayer. It has also been our purpose to deal with the various problems of the local authorities, particularly those emanating from inflation and from the programmes which the Government have inaugurated.

asked the Prime Minister if, during his recent visit to the United States, he invited President Nixon to visit Great Britain.

asked the Prime Minister if, at his official meetings with President Nixon, he discussed the operation of phase 2 of the American control of prices and incomes and its relevance to the similar phase in this country.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his recent discussions with the President of the United States of America.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Nixon.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with President Nixon.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his talks with President Nixon.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his visit to meet President Nixon.

As regards an invitation to President Nixon to visit this country, the President knows that he is always welcome here, but he announced before our talks began that he did not plan to visit Europe in the first half of 1973.

Since the Prime Minister spoke with such admiration of President Nixon's handling of the trade unions in the United States, would it not have been of value to have further discussions with him immediately about what the right hon. Gentleman should do in the present circumstances, instead of truculently complaining that he cannot get British trade union leaders to sell their members down the river—[Interruption.]—through the gas strike?

When asked about this matter I told the House that the America trade union movement was co-operating fully with the President, even though it had very deep political differences with him. I was perfectly entitled, yesterday, to ask the TUC for its co-operation in helping the nation to beat the problem of inflation.

Does the fact that my right hon. Friend now regards international monetary reform as a top priority mean that he attaches less or no importance to European economic and monetary reform?

No, Sir, not at all. I said yesterday in a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce that it was essential for the Community urgently to formulate its own position so that we could help to put drive into the general movement to get international monetary reform. I think the events of the last 10 days have indicated more clearly than ever how essential it is to achieve monetary reform, because every individual country, even those as powerful as the United States or Germany, is at the mercy of vast movements of liquid money right across the world at any time, without any relationship to the economic position of those countries.

Will the Prime Minister say whether he discussed with the President the possibility of a tripartite collaboration between the United States, Britain and France in connection with the development of Concorde?

We did not discuss that in any detail. It is obviously a matter for the companies concerned. It has sometimes been mentioned, but not, I think, seriously studied—and not so much about the present Concorde as about any future "stretched" version of the aircraft.

Following the Prime Minister's speech yesterday to the American Chamber of Commerce and his answer just now, will he say a little more about what progress he thinks could be made within the Community towards achieving greater flexibility of monetary rates?

There were discussions between the Finance Ministers of the Community yesterday on the events of the last 10 days, the lessons to be learned from them, and how the Community can develop its own policy. In the course of an answer like this I would not expect to go into detail about possible arrangements. It is essential, however, that the Community should formulate its position for the Committee of Twenty, so that we can make more rapid progress.

Did the Prime Minister discuss the possibility of dollar and sterling devaluation, and did he recall his statement of November 1967 that devaluation was a confession of failure and of defeat? When will the Prime Minister have the decency to admit that the responsibility for two confessions of failure and two defeats in the last two years rests on him and on him alone?

Obviously the question of sterling devaluation was not discussed, because sterling is floating—[Interruption.]—and the dollar was a matter which was obviously discussed between President Nixon, Mr. Shultz and myself, but those discussions were confidential.

When President Nixon comes to this country will my right hon. Friend send Concorde to bring him over, in order to make it clear that the Government will not lose their nerve over Concorde as the Labour Government lost it over the TSR2?

I think that the President realises that already.

Reverting to the question of the monetary situation, does the Prime Minister agree that one of the reasons why sterling has not been subjected to all the pressures put upon other currencies during the last crisis is that sterling has been floating? If that is the case, will the Prime Minister say why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, apparently echoing the Prime Minister's view, is so determined to re-fix sterling and make it more vulnerable?

The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that there are many aspects to the he problem, and that different solutions are possible. If we are to make progress towards an integrated economic community, which is what the right hon. Gentleman wants, it is desirable that we should have an integrated currency system in which the parities are fixed but which can also be changed when required.

Did my right hon. Friend have a chance to discuss with the President the changed and changing relationship between the United States, Europe and China? Did my right hon. Friend express to the President the view which is held by many people in this country that China represents a great and expanding potential market for European exports, particularly aero-space exports?

Yes, we discussed that matter and we fully recognised the potentialities to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, as does President Nixon. We have diplomatic and trade relations and it is open to us to exploit the situation as far as we can. It must be recognised, however, that because of the system of financing her trade upon which the Government in Peking at the moment insists it is not likely that the growth of trade will be as fast as some of our trade with countries where we can help with export credit guarantees, and so on.

Now that the Prime Minister has been converted to the policy of full-hearted floating, will he give an undertaking that he will not return to the undertakings he gave at the summit, or on the question of fixed parities?

I fully adhere to the undertaking I gave that the best system for an integrated community is one of fixed and adjustable parities. I fully adhere to that, and I believe that we must solve the problems which arise from it. [Interruption.] If we are to have an integrated Community we must have fixed parities, and should the strain become too great we must be able to move that parity and achieve the result we want. That, I believe, is a desirable system for the Community.

asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Department of the Environment, Department of Employment, and Department of Social Services and Home Department about the rules governing the housing, wages, social and political rights of immigrant workers in the Common Market countries.

Yes, Sir.

Has the Prime Minister seen the statement made last month by Bishop Cleary, Auxiliary Bishop of Birmingham, saying that immigrants in the Common Market countries are poorly housed, badly paid, have no political and social rights, and are treated as short-term fodder for the economies of those countries? Will the right hon. Gentleman take urgent steps to see that this is not the lot of British workers who may move into the other member countries? Will the Prime Minister invite those countries to get together in order to see that such workers are treated in a less haphazard and makeshift manner?

I have not seen the statement to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I understand that these matters have been discussed under the auspices of the Council of Europe and that our representatives have played a full part in the discussions.