asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the operations of the Intervention Board.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of what commodities have been bought by the Intervention Board since it was set up; and how these commodities have been disposed of.

The Intervention Board became operational on 1st February this year. The main activities of the board in these early stages have been concerned with its import-export licensing functions, with the subsidy for the denaturing of wheat and with the purchase of skimmed milk powder. At the end of March 5,874 tons of skimmed milk powder and 21 tons of butter had been offered to the board. The question of disposal, which is co-ordinated at Community level, does not yet arise in respect of these stocks.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in the light of what has happened over the sale of cheap butter to Russia, the British housewife now regards the Intervention Board as public enemy No. 1? May we know what further villainies are contemplated by this board at the expense of the British standard of living?

The Intervention Board is carrying out a different system of support-ting producers' prices.

Will the Minister give a clear assurance that this board will in no circumstances deliberately render food unfit for human consumption?

As I have told the right hon. Gentleman before, I cannot and will not give that assurance. It has been the custom in this country for wheat to be fed to animals and for other feedingstuffs to be rendered unfit for human consumption on many occasions, even in the days of the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the statement credited to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that meat is being bought up by the Intervention Board for the purpose of destroying it? Is this true, or not?

I read that statement and found it hard to believe my eyes. I can only repeat the reply that the right hon. Gentleman was given on television last Friday night, after 20 minutes' discussion —that he had been talking absolute and utter rubbish.

Will the Minister confirm that there are about 150,000 tons of butter in stock in Britain, and that about 10 per cent. will be taken by the Intervention Board on 1st May? Will not that mean that the butter producers will make £500,000 profit overnight? Is it not absolutely ridiculous to build a butter mountain in Britain in view of the European situation?

I cannot confirm that there are 150,000 tons of butter in cold stores, but that is a perfectly normal quantity to have at this time. I cannot say whether it will be taken into intervention.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give at least 12 months' notice of the date on which the cereals guarantees will end.

No, Sir. Any decision to abolish the guarantees for cereals is likely to be taken immediately after the annual review and thus well in advance of the succeeding crop year to which it would apply. The guarantees must be ended when producers' incomes from Community prices in the United Kingdom exceed those from the guarantees.

I think the Minister means when they exceed the "intervention prices". Will he give the assurance that as long as the producers' average returns are higher than the corresponding intervention prices the Government will not withdraw the deficiency payments on cereals? If he cannot give that assurance, will he at least assure us that if he is not required to remove them under Article 54 of the Treaty of Accession he will give 12 months' notice of any unilateral decision by the British Government to remove them?

As the hon. Member knows, the guarantees have to be phased out, and they will go as soon as the United Kingdom intervention price equals or exceeds the guarantees. Of course, the intervention prices here rise each year as the compensatory amounts are phased out.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Farmers Union on sugar production and prices; and if he will make a statement.

We are in constant touch with the NFU both during the annual review and at other times of the year in regard to sugar as well as other commodities.

Has the Minister seen the statement reported in the Farmer and Stockbreeder on 31st March on behalf of the NFU criticising the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and looking forward to higher profits for the growing of beet sugar? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, first, that he is not prepared to ditch the Commonwealth sugar producers or neglect our duty to those countries and, secondly, that he will not sacrifice the consumer further in the pursuit of higher farm profits? Will he sweeten the Tory pill of rising prices at least to that extent?

I am puzzled by the hon. Member's question. On the one hand he begins by talking of criticism of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement by producers and then he asks me to confirm that we shall be looking after Commonwealth sugar producers. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement will continue on the present basis until the end of 1974 under protocol 17 of the Treaty of Accession. Arrangements for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement thereafter will be based on protocol 22 of the treaty, which will be a matter for negotiation by the Commonwealth producers. This is a matter on which we had recent discussion with the Commonwealth producers.

As for the home producers, their position, based on the 900,000 tons a year which was the whole allocation under Quota A, is negotiated under the Treaty of Accession.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Kingdom consumption of sugar will increase beyond 1975 and that in these circumstances, assuming the same rate of sugar imports from the Commonwealth, British beet producers will be able to look forward to supplying at least the same but probably an increasing tonnage?

I certainly hope and expect to negotiate a position in which they will be supplying a greater tonnage than at present. I am sure that is the wish of the British producers. The position after 1974 has not yet been discussed, but the present Commonwealth quota has been about 1,700,000 tons. The Australian part of that quota, which represents about 300,000 tons, will not be continuing and therefore there should be room, without any increase in consumption, for a substantial increase in home production.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sugar situation in Europe is not very different from that relating to butter and that a few years ago 1 million tons of sugar were sold at world prices, subsidised by the taxpayers of Europe? Is the Minister now saying that British farmers should grow more sugar so that it can be exported at low prices, in the same way as butter has been exported to the Soviet Union?

I am not saying that. The present world price of sugar is high, and there is a world shortage. Since the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was signed there have been arrangements for the purchase of sugar by this country from overseas, as well as arrangements for home-produced sugar which in many cases have been at prices substantially above world prices in order to help the producers in this country. I would wish to continue that arrangement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC farm price review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the latest position with regard to increases of food prices proposed in the Council of Ministers of the EEC.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC farm prices for 1973.

The Council of the Agricultural Ministers of the Community continued its discussions on 9th and 10th April on the proposals for changes in farm prices and the related proposals for adjustments in monetary arrangements. It also gave further consideration to proposals for encouraging a switch from milk to beef production, and for aid to producers in hill and maintain areas. All these questions were examined in some detail, but no final decisions were reached. The council will meet again on 16th and 17th April.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his very tough stand in attempting to keep prices frozen as far as possible with no general broad increase? If my right hon. Friend succeeds in that endeavour he will have the support not only of the House but of the whole country. On a constitutional matter, now that the European Assembly has pronounced itself against the proposal of the Commission, what notice does the Council of Ministers take of the European Assembly's decision?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. On the constitutional point, I think the position is that the European Parliament has an advisory rôle in this respect, but certainly the Council of Ministers takes due note of what it says. This matter has figured in discussions in Luxembourg this week. I cannot at the moment forecast what the final outcome of the discussions will be, but they are continuing next week.

Is the Minister aware that many of us in the House, and certainly people in the country, believe that the ability to control United Kingdom food prices is now more a matter for the Council of Ministers than for any United Kingdom Government? A frank statement to that effect from the Minister today would be gratifying.

The Council of Ministers has a duty within the Community to determine price levels, and that is what we are engaged on at the present time. Certainly, at the end of the transition period these decisions will be reflected in United Kingdom prices. At present this is not the position, because we have this staged arrangement over the five years, during which prices are gradually raised. Therefore, any arrangements arrived at this year in Brussels will have only a marginal effect on United Kingdom prices now.

Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the next time the disposal of surplus food stocks arises the British delegates will feel free to vote?

My hon. Friend does not appear fully to appreciate the position. The British delegates felt perfectly free to vote on the last occasion. They decided to abstain in the company of one other country, no country voting against. The British delegates decided to abstain for a number of reasons. These quantities had been produced before we became members, there was the question of deterioration of stocks, and the Commission has to judge what are the best steps to take when a surplus has been created. It was for the Commission to decide the correct way in which to deal with this.

Since the main purpose of the common agricultural policy is to produce higher incomes for farmers, which must inevitably mean higher prices for consumers, will the Minister in his study and review of the CAP from now on, and particularly at next week's meeting, press for a consumer price review so that the Common Market may at least begin to take some steps to stabilise food prices to the consumer.

The question of the consumer has been much in mind in all our discussions in Brussels. It was at the British instigation at the November meeting that a provision was inserted into the resolution approved by a joint meeting of the Finance and Agriculture Ministers earlier that the position of the consumer should be constantly borne in mind. At our meeting in Luxembourg this week and again at the meeting of OECD Agriculture Ministers in Paris yesterday I reiterated the strong view that we must take account of the position of the consumer in all the decisions that have to be taken, and this is very much in our minds.

If the Opposition want to fight in favour of holding down consumer food prices, would it not be better if they attended the European Parliament, where they would reinforce the Conservatives with their votes and counteract the votes by the Liberal representatives?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I know that Labour Members were very anxious to cash in on the actions of Conservative Members, and it it a pity that they did not go over and take part.

Will the Minister tell us what would be the effectiveness of adopting the course he has suggested, since the European Parliament is disregarded and since our representatives abstained? Will he tell us just what value we are getting out of the European Parliament? Does he agree that the present EEC policy has now slid into ridicule, down the slippery slopes of the monstrous mountain of butter, and that the £12 million that this will cost the British taxpayer could have provided every old-age pensioner with a quarter of a pound of free butter every week between now and the end of the year?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. If he and his colleagues took part it would help to make the European Parliament more effective. It is not a bit of good saying—[Interruption.] Opposition hon. Members do not seem very clear about the position. It was not in the European Parliament that any abstention took place. They should at least understand the way in which these things work. In the Parliament a clear decision was taken. The abstention took place in the Management Committee on Milk Products, acting for the Commission. That was a perfectly proper action to take, and I have given the reasons for it.

The way in which the Labour Party has acted has not helped the Government in seeking to influence the European Parliament in a way which would help consumers in terms of food prices in the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in the average price of beef, in pence per lb. in the period July 1972 to March 1973; and what was the comparable figure from July 1969 to March 1971.

From July 1972 to February 1973, the latest available date, the retail price of home-killed and imported beef increased by between 7p and 12p a lb. according to cut, and from July 1969 to March 1971, for home-killed beef only, by between 4p and 7p a lb., according to cut. Retail prices for imported beef are not available for July 1969.

Is the hon. Lady talking about new pence in both cases? Is she aware that according to the official figures the price of chuck steak went up 72·6p in the pound from the General Election to February of this year, and that the price of brisket, one of the cheapest cuts, went up in the same period by 96·7p in the pound? Is that what the Prime Minister promised when he said that he would reduce prices at a stroke? Has not a scandalous confidence trick been played on the gullible public? Does the hon. Lady realise that the answer to my questions will be forthcoming in today's elections?

I shall have to check the hon. Gentleman's figures, which go back to 1970. His Question relates to entirely different periods. I have noticed, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman has, the action that has been taken by housewives in America—a meat-importing country —and the action taken by housewives in Australia—a meat-exporting country. He must know that we cannot be insulated against world conditions which produce fluctuations at each end of the scale.

Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman that the cause of the increases arises from what he has advocated, namely, our entry into the Common Market? Does not my hon. Friend agree that if we were still in the world market for meat, as are Greece and Japan, we would find the retail price slightly lower?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend's comment is not accurate.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the tremendous slaughter of French cattle in 1970—which is allied to the present butter fiasco, because the slaughter of cattle was meant to diminish the butter surplus—is partly the cause of the present shortage of beef? Is she aware that the French were paying £100 a head extra for the slaughter of cattle? That resulted in the present shortage. Coupled with that, until quite recently we exported beef to France and other Common Market countries. Does not the hon. Lady agree that if that had not been done there would have been an easement of the position?

I am sure that would have had only a marginal effect. Clearly, the fact that we are expanding our beef production by 10 per cent. and at the same time expanding our dairy production by only 3 per cent. indicates that beef production can be increased without a corresponding increase of dairy production.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices in the first quarter of 1973.

Between 12th December 1972 and 20th February 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 3·8 per cent. The March results will be published on 21st April.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is a scathing indictment of the Government's freeze policy? Does he realise that we are talking about a period during which wages, pensions and allowances were not allowed to rise? Yet the Government sit idly back and allow food prices to rise, further depressing the living standards of the people. Can the right hon. Gentleman possibly defend such a Conservative Government?

I could defend a Conservative Government in the same way as, presumably, the hon. Member defended his own Government when they had a standstill and food prices were also allowed to rise. The position is comparable, but there is one important difference between then and now, namely, that world prices have risen and world shortages have occurred. This has led to prices rising here substantially. Since the hon. Member has brought in the question of earnings, let me remind him that earnings have risen substantially more than prices during the period since we have been in office.

Is it not a fact that the last Labour Government introduced a tax on food—SET—and also increased purchase tax? Can my right hon. Friend say what effect the abolition of these two taxes has had on food prices?

The removal of these taxes, which were imposed or increased by the then Labour Government, will take £120 million from the housewives' shopping bill for food. All food is now free of tax as a result of the actions of this Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the effect upon old-age pensioners of these rises in food prices? Will he persuade members of the Government to stop boasting about the miserable £1 which they will attach to old-age pensions in the autumn, because that increase will rapidly be overtaken? Is he further aware that old people are very much affected by increases in the cost of food?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am as concerned as he is about the condition of old-age pensioners. I recognise the problems affecting them. The Government have increased pensions more rapidly and by greater amounts than any previous Government. At present, the pension purchases substantially more than it did when we came into office. We have already announced a further increase for October. These are the facts, as shown by the official statistics. Having said that, I do not deny for a moment that there are great problems for pensioners, which we have done our best to mitigate.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the price per pound of beef at the latest available date compared with the same day 12 months ago.

As there are a number of figures in the reply, I will, with permission circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While I await the figures being published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I suppose that I can take it for granted that the price of beef has risen considerably. Does the Minister realise that the Government have taken beef off the tables of millions of people in Britain?

Between February 1972 and February 1973 the retail price of home-killed and imported beef increased by between 11p and 19p according to cut. That was up until February 1973. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed a great easing in beef prices over the last month. He can, in fact, buy topside at 54p a pound from one major butchery chain.

When the hon. Lady was appointed to her post there were clarion calls that she would be the watchdog on prices. All the women thought that this time the Government might be speaking the truth. But the hon. Lady has done nothing. Will she explain what she has been trying to do, give us the reason for her failure and then resign?

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that I have not been appointed watchdog of the interests of the American housewives, who find their beef prices rising, or of the Australian housewives, who are boycotting beef on 17th April.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of fresh food, and in fresh fruit and vegetables, respectively, since the beginning of the freeze.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much fresh food prices have risen since the freeze began on 6th November.

There is no retail price index for fresh foods as such. However, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the percentage increase in the main sub-groups of the food index between 14th November 1972 and 20th February 1973, the latest date for which information is available.

Will the Minister confirm that there has been a fantastic increase in the price of fresh foods? How can he reconcile that increase with the freeze of workers' wages? Will he tell me what advice I can give to my constituents when they ask, "What can we do when we see tomatoes at 50p a pound?"

The hon. Gentleman should give them the advice he gave them in 1968 and 1969, when the price of seasonal foods rose at a similar rate. I suggest that he should also remind his constituents that the rise in the annual rate is nothing like so large as he and his hon. Friends pretend.

If the price of food continues to rise for reasons beyond the Government's control, will the Minister approach the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a bridging grant to housewives to meet the cost?

We have explained to the House again and again the position in regard to food. I have also reminded the House again and again that earnings have continued to rise substantially more than prices throughout our period in office. That remains the position and, therefore, there is no justification for the hon. Gentleman's comment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will suspend forthwith all import levies on cereals imported into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC.

No, Sir, because as a member of the European Economic Community we must abide by the obligations which we have accepted.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any proposed action can have a marked effect on prices and the cost of living? Is he telling the House that as a consequence of our entry into the Common Market we have given up any power and that as a consequence, irrespective of the circumstances, prices must be let rip?

No. The hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that prices are being pushed up. The transitional arrangements for cereals mean that the prices of our imports will be those of 1971–72, or the world price, if the latter is higher.

May I revert to the right hon. Gentleman's discussion in the Council of Ministers? Leaving aside the farcical proceedings at the European Parliament, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is now prepared to use the veto to prevent further increases in prices? Will the Minister of State ask his right hon. Friend now, so that he can give an answer from the Dispatch Box?

I do not think that that question bears any relation to the original Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what comparison he has made between the relative benefit to farmers of the 20 per cent. capital grant scheme Available in the United Kingdom and the cheap credit schemes available for capital investment in other countries of the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

No precise comparison can be made because of the wide variety of terms and conditions for investment assistance in other countries, but on a broad view our grants compare fairly with what is given by other member States.

Will my hon. Friend say whether, in addition to our own schemes, our farmers will be eligible for any form of assistance from the Common Market under FEOGA?

As I have said, this is a slightly imprecise comparison to make. I should find it easier to write to my hon. Friend and explain the position to him.

To what extent are higher interest rates in Great Britain, which stem direct from the Government's financial policy in recent years, likely to hinder the progress of British farming in improving productivity in the way that it has been improving since the war?

We have no indication at the moment. That is a highly speculative question. I have no reason to suppose that the investment that has taken place will slow down.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his negotiations with the EEC following the meeting in London of trade ministers from Commonwealth sugar-producing countries.

There has not yet been any discussion within the Community on the specific issues arising out of the recent conference of Commonwealth sugar-exporting countries. Negotiations for the period after 1974 will be a matter for the Commonwealth countries themselves, and they have now set up a standing committee in London to co-ordinate their aproach to the Community.

In view of the Government's unhappy experience with the EEC agricultural policy to date, is this not the time to make it absolutely plain and beyond all doubt that the guarantee of the British Government to ensure the access of Commonwealth sugar to the EEC, at least at the present level, is absolute, that we shall never surrender to the French sugar beet lobby, and that if need be, when the time comes, we are prepared to exercise a veto?

The matter was completely covered by the discussions which we had at Lancaster House the week before last and by the communique issued afterwards. The Commonwealth countries concerned are in full accord with the United Kingdom Government's view. There is no need for me to add anything to that. The provisions of protocol 22, Article 3, set out precisely the arrangements to be entered into by the Commonwealth countries concerned. We have been having discussions with them, but it is for them to make the initial move. We, as members of the Community, will be playing an important part in the resolution of the problems on the lines—I trust—which the hon. Member has indicated.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is one little link missing in all of this? Cannot the Common Market adhere to the Lancaster House agreement and say outright, "We accept it", and not "have it at heart", or whatever the translation is? Let it sign it and say that it accepts it whole-heartedly.

I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that this matter was fully dealt with at the time of the Treaty of Accession. There is no point in reopening it now. The important thing is that the Commonwealth countries shall work together in this matter. That was the whole purpose of my discussions with them the week before last. They are fully in agreement with our views about this question and I do not see any need to take further action, other than to keep in the closest touch with the Commonwealth countries concerned.

Will the British Government be represented, as the British Government, in the negotiations on the International Sugar Agreement which are to begin very shortly and about which we have been given no information in this House?

The International Sugar Agreement is an entirely different matter. We were talking about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The British Government will be playing their part as members of the Community, which is the correct way for us to handle what is an international arrangement affecting us and the other members of the Community. We will be fully involved.

Does my right hon. Friend hope to see the nine members of the Community become signatories to the International Sugar Agreement, since this is of vital importance? When the Australian quota for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement ends in 1974, does my right hon. Friend envisage that it will be gradually phased out, as would be desirable, rather than being suddenly cut off, with the risk of creating disruption in world prices?

The position about the International Sugar Agreement was spelt out in the UNCTAD discussions in Santiago last year. My noble Friend Lady Tweedsmuir, representing the British Government, supported and welcomed the statement made then. I believe that the position is well understood. The Australian quota has been discussed in the past. Our understanding with the Australian Government about this was made known by my right hon. and learned Friend at the time, and I have nothing to add.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has said about the International Sugar Agreement is not good enough? Will he think about this again? Does he not agree that the International Sugar Agreement is of immense relevance to the future prosperity of Commonwealth sugar growers? If we are not able to continue as a member of that agreement and if the Community, which has swallowed up the independent British commercial existence, is not a member either, how can we make any representations to defend Commonwealth sugar producers from within that International Sugar Agreement, as we should? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter and make a full and proper statement on it before the Easter Recess?

The right hon. Gentleman is distorting the position. The position of Commonwealth sugar producers is covered by protocol 22. The right hon. Gentleman is now talking about the International Sugar Agreement and the arrangements that will be made for membership. I have said that as members of the Community we shall be playing a full part in seeking to ensure membership of the International Sugar Agreement. This is how we shall play our part in these matters. We are involved with European sugar production as members of the Community and it is right that we should exercise our influence in that way.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the rate of expansion of the national beef herd in recent years; and what is its rate of growth at the latest available date.

In the five years up to and including 1971 the beef breeding herd expanded at an annual average of between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. In the year ending December last an increase of 10 per cent. was recorded, and the number of beef heifers in calf for the first time increased by 60 per cent.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend upon those remarkable figures? Will he confirm that it is fair to say that if this level of expansion had been reached by the previous Government more home beef would have been available for slaughter now, with the result that beef prices would be lower?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

That is all very well, but is my hon. Friend aware that it is not very satisfactory to know that the extra beef that is being produced is being sent abroad for slaughter, on the hoof, in conditions which are intolerable to the people of this country? Does he not agree that it would be better to retain these animals here instead of having to replace them by imports?

The amount going out is so minimal that it would make no difference and would put us in the greatest difficulty in getting supplies elsewhere, because others would have taken our place.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will establish an inquiry into increases in the price of meals in works canteens since 1st April 1973.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend sees no justification for such an inquiry.

Earlier, the Minister of Agriculture told us that there was no tax on food. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the alarming increases which have taken place in the price of canteen dinners throughout the country despite the claimed reductions in the price of old potatoes, carrots, onions and cabbages? Will she say what she intends to do about this? If she will do nothing herself, will she ask employers to accept the burden of this new tax as it affects workers' dinners?

As the hon. Member knows, VAT is chargeable on food served for consumption on the premises.

It is a tax on food.

Such food was already subject to selective employment tax. During the prices standstill restaurants and canteens are allowed to increase prices to recover the additional cost of raw materials. My prices unit has been investigating a number of complaints about canteens received before 1st April. We have not found that the managers of canteens have been in breach of the terms of the standstill. It is a bit too soon to assess the complaints that have arisen since 1st April.

As most works canteens are subsidised by the employers, will my hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in the terms of phase 2 to prevent union negotiators from negotiating more favourable subsidies for their members?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is possible.

What the Minister has demonstrated is that the freeze applies successfully to wages and everything else except workers' costs. Does she not agree that since the freeze of workers' wages started the annual rate of increase in the cost of food has been about 23·4 per cent.—double that of 12 months ago? Can she tell us of any period in recorded history when food prices were rising so alarmingly?

The Question referred to VAT on food served for consumption in works canteens. VAT was imposed from 1st April, and as from 1st April wages may be increased within the limits laid down in the stage 2 arrangements.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Hounslow.

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

When the Prime Minister decides to visit Hounslow, where London Airport is situated, will he make a point of not going to that hotel which used his likeness without authority for the purpose of a cheap advertising gimmick, unless and until he receives a wholehearted apology from the smart-alec advertisers who were guilty of this intrusion?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern. I have received unqualified apologies from the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of Times Newspapers, the advertising agents, and their clients. I have accepted these, and I do not propose to take the matter further.

When is the Prime Minister likely to redeem his promise to visit Burnley and North-East Lancashire—

Order. The Question refers to a visit to Hounslow.

I am unlikely to go via Hounslow.

asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer ministerial responsibility for the education of handicapped children to himself.

I have no plans to transfer to myself responsibilities at present allocated to any of my right hon. or hon. Friends.

Is the Prime Minister aware that he is being strongly attacked for dishonesty, this time from within his own party, on the question of handicapped children? Does he agree with the charge now being made by Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism that he has acted dishonestly over his pledge to institute an inquiry—

Order. That kind of word is not desirable.

I am referring to a report from Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism which says that the Prime Minister is acting dishonestly over his pledge to institute an inquiry into the education of 95,000 mentally and physically handicapped children. Is the Prime Minister aware that Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism has called these children "the outsiders" and attacked the Government for their appalling lack of concern? Will he say what the Government have done to improve the educational opportunities for autistic and dyslexic children, and children who are both deaf and blind?

The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate what PEST has said. What I said in my original letter was that if the Labour Government had not instituted inquiries into these matters by the time we came to office we would do so. That was in 1968. After that, the Labour Party instituted the Vernon inquiry into the visually handicapped and the Quirk inquiry into the speech therapy services, and the advisory committee on handicapped children generally was reconstituted. We agreed with all that. The Secretary of State's general advisory committee now deals with the whole question of handicapped children. No one underestimates the problems that still remain to be dealt with, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not help his case by his approach.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State for Social Services has made remarkable advances in the treatment of the mentally handicapped, for which all those who are involved in this matter are indeed grateful?

Yes, Sir, that is certainly the case. But I think we would all agree that there are still many problems, and that several thousands of children are waiting to receive special educational facilities. Our task must now be to meet this need as quickly as possible.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Labour Government's inquiries to which he referred were small, specific inquiries into a very small number in each case, and that in his letter to Mr. Stanley Segal—it is my recollection that it was written in 1970 and not 1968, but we can check that—the Prime Minister promised a general inquiry into the whole question of handicapped children? The right hon. Gentleman has not kept that promise. When will he keep it?

In fact, I wrote the letter on 22nd July 1968 and the Labour Government's actions were taken after that. As I said, there is the standing advisory committee to deal with the whole subject. I said in my letter:

"Whether a Plowden type inquiry, that is to say, a remit to the Central Advisory Council on Education, is the most suitable form or not is a matter which would need careful consideration when we see the conditions on our return to power."

The particular inquiries have been carried out. I believe that those who are concerned with these matters take the view, on the whole, that there can be no overall general approach to the particular problems of disabled children and their education. The special detailed inquiries dealt with particular aspects, and the general standing advisory committee deals with general aspects.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Brussels.

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

Will the Prime Minister not reconsider that decision? Is he aware that the Commission in Brussels has already stated in print to the Council of Ministers that it will propose an 8 percent. increase in beef prices for the years 1974 and 1975? Even if the Prime Minister's Government did not have the courage to veto the present price increases, will he assure the House that his Government will veto those proposals? In view of the way in which the Prime Minister has misled the British housewife, is he really surprised that our housewives simply do not love him any more?

The Commission and the Council of Ministers of Agriculture are dealing with the present year's increases. That is what is being discussed in Brussels at the moment. I know nothing of proposals beyond those which have been put forward by the Commission at the moment.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the present representatives of this Government in Brussels have done a great deal to ease the terms of the common agricultural policy? Is he not aware also that when the Leader of the Opposition was negotiating to go into the Common Market he said that that policy was one which had to be accepted and that it was not negotiable?

My hon. Friend is quite correct. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just returned from the most recent round of discussions about the pricing policy for the CAP. One of the items which the Commission has put forward deals with proposals to reduce the intervention prices for butter and therefore to prevent a similar situation arising to the one which it has just disposed of.

Whether or not the Prime Minister goes to Brussels, will he at least make sure that his Government do not agree to any general price increases this year under the CAP and that in future British representatives on management committees know how to vote and know how to use their vote in the interests of the British people?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made our position clear in the present discussions. As for the right hon. Gentleman's last point, we had absolutely nothing to do with the accumulation of the butter. That occurred before we became a member of the EEC. Therefore, it was right that we should not take part in the voting in the committee. But as regards future prices, my right hon. Friend has been dealing with exactly that problem.

Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman goes to Brussels, if we have no responsibility and if the reason for our abstention was that the butter was accumulated before 1st January, will the Prime Minister explain why we have to pay for it?

We shall have to pay only a very small part, precisely because of the good terms negotiated by this Government in Brussels.

If the right hon. Gentleman considers £12 million such a small amount, does he realise that he withdrew all school milk for a much smaller figure?

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday, it is not yet possible to calculate the precise amount. But as we are limited to just over 8 per cent., it is a small proportion of the total amount.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic matters at Nottingham University on 27th March.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Federation of Conservative Students' Conference in Nottingham on 27th March on the environment and growth.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech made at Nottingham University on 27th March about economic growth.

I did so on 29th March, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister recall that during that speech he spoke of "sound and steady growth" when in reality there has been real and crippling growth in food prices, rents, mortgages and rates? Does he recall that he also said:

"Britain is littered with factories and plant"—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to make a quotation in a supplementary question.

The right hon. Gentleman was speaking of the appalling conditions of 19th century factories in which British workers had to work. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that much of what has been done in the past 50 years to improve conditions of work for ordinary people in factories and plants has been due to the British trade union movement?

Most of it has been done by Government legislation, obviously in conjunction with the TUC. I am the first to acknowledge that. Some of it was prepared when I was at the Ministry of Labour, and it was done in the closest collaboration with the TUC.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) referred to that part of my right hon. Friend's speech which concerned industrial relations. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have spoken about what is properly referred to as "worker participation". Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal could be done towards increasing industrial democracy if the trade unions themselves were willing to open up their councils and meetings to company managers and executives, so that this might be a two-way effort?

I hope that there will be developments in the direction of greater participation by union representatives in all these discussions. If the discussions are carried on together, it becomes a two-way matter, and that is probably the best way of doing it.

When the Prime Minister visited Nottingham why were so many false trails laid and why was the right hon. Gentleman so shy about meeting the people of Nottingham?

I do not quite understand the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I was here in the House until quite late that evening. I went straight to Nottingham and made my speech, which was a party occasion.

asked the Prime Minister if, in the light of his answer to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West on Tuesday 27th March 1973, he will now seek to arrange to apply his guidance notes now applicable to Ministers in Her Majesty's Government to all persons engaged in public life, including Members of Parliament and, in particular, members of planning authorities.

These matters are kept under review but I have nothing to add at present to what the House has previously been told by my right hon. Friends the Lord President and the Minister for Local Government and Development. Any proposals which the Government may make for changes in the rules for particular classes of people in public life will take account of the different circumstances in each case.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but will he accept that, especially in recent months, we have witnessed growing concern about the opportunities for graft and corruption among people in all aspects of public life, including even Members of Parliament—I do not exonerate us—but specifically in planning authorities, where local authority members are major shareholders in or directors of land and housing development companies? Will the Prime Minister re-examine this matter, so that we may rid from the public mind any suspicion about graft and corruption in public life?

I have been considering this question very carefully. It is not a matter of reconsidering it. It is kept continuously under review. I have answered a Question and set out clearly the position with regard to Ministers. As for hon. Members, this is a matter which has been engaging the attention of both sides of the House, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been involved in the discussions. On the much wider questions which the hon. Gentleman raises, he knows that at the moment inquiries are being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions into some allegations which have naturally caused anxiety in the country. I think that it would be appropriate to await the outcome of those inquiries before taking further action. I told the House in the original circumstances that I did not exclude the possibility of a further inquiry should the need be shown after the DPP's inquiries have been made.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that there is a good deal of disquiet in Scotland about recent appointments to property development and land speculation companies of people who were previously engaged by the Highlands and Islands Development Board? Will he consider the application to such people of the rules that apply to senior civil servants taking jobs within two years of retirement from the service?

This matter is under consideration. I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the relationship of public and independent bodies, such as the nationalised industries and the Highlands and Islands Development Board, is different from that of the Civil Service to the Government or of Ministers or, indeed, of this House. However, it is a matter to which I am giving consideration.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since I so rarely trespass upon the Prime Minister's attention, I wonder whether you could prevail upon him to answer Question No. 12 today?

The answer is "No." It is not a matter for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but I wonder whether you could guide the House by indicating what could be done to ensure that the Prime Minister comes adequately briefed to answer Questions on the Common Market? I have—

Order. The content of answers is not a matter for me. Whatever complaint the hon. Gentleman may have, whether it is justified or not, is nothing to do with me.

While congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, on the fact that the content of answers is not a matter for you, may I, by Private Notice, put a question to the Leader of the House— namely, whether he will state the business for next week?

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 16TH APRIL—The House will be asked to deal with the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill.

TUESDAY, 17TH APRIL—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill.

Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders on Recreation and Youth Service, Oaths and Declarations and Superannuation.

WEDNESDAY, 18TH APRIL—Consideration of the First Report from the Select Committee on European Community Secondary Legislation.

Remaining stages of the Overseas Pensions Bill [Lords].

Motions on the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Orders, the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order and the Horticulture (Increase in Aggregate Amount of Grants) Order.

THURSDAY, 19TH APRIL—It will be proposed that the House meets at 11 a.m., takes Questions until 12 noon, and adjourns at 5 p.m. until Monday, 30th April.

I do not think I heard the right hon. Gentleman give us the date for the motion for the Easter Adjournment which in the past we have usually been given. He knows our anxiety because of certain recent events. When does he expect or hope to have the debate on the Adjournment motion?

Secondly, may I ask whether he recalls what he said a week ago about Motion No. 243, in the names of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and others?

[That this House rejects the proposals contained in a draft directive of the Commission of the European Communities(No. C 119/1 dated 16th November 1972 in the Official Journal of the EC) namely, the Raising of the Age for a Driving Licence from 17 years to 18 years and other related matters.]

Last week he said that he hoped to have the debate in the week before Easter. I agree that there was no firm commitment. Will he tell us what are the prospects of its being debated, whether it can be squeezed in next week, or whether he expects to have the debate soon after Easter?

Thirdly, may I ask when there will be a debate on the recent Select Committee report on steel?

Finally, in view of the references by the Prime Minister this afternoon to the responsibility of the Leader of the House concerning discussions of Members' interests and related questions, may I ask how he sees them going and when he expects to be able to make a statement? Is he aware, for example, of proposals which have been worked out on this side of the House as regards both Members' interests and related questions and the proposal which has been widely canvassed that any such register should apply to those who report our proceedings?

On the last point, I am not aware of the views of the Opposition at the moment, but I am expecting to have further consultations in due course.

Regarding a debate on steel following the Select Committee's report, I think that it would be better to await the Government's reply before having a debate on that matter.

On the problem of Motion No. 243 and the time to debate it, it is true that it will be some months at least before any decision is taken on the issue. Since last Thursday it has become clear, because of the time to be taken on Northern Ireland affairs, that a choice would have to be made among those issues which the House was hoping to discuss. It seemed to me that the Select Committee's Report had the strongest claim.

It is not usual to announce on the business for the coming week on what day we shall have the Adjournment motion debate. However, it is not my intention that it should be on the last day.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further regarding Motion No. 243 as he seems to have changed his position on it? Last week we all understood, when he said he hoped that it would be before Easter, that he would try to fit it in, although he made the point, perfectly fairly, that we had not adequate translations. That seemed to be the reason for leaving it until next week. Now he is saying that because of Northern Ireland and other matters, which presumably he knew about last Thursday, it may be deferred for some months. Does he recognise that we are not pressing him to have a debate before Easter, but that we shall certainly press him if he has totally changed his mind compared with what he said last week?

This issue will need to be debated. My right hon. Friend hopes to make his comments on these proposals very soon. I think that it would be helpful to the House to hear his comments before having the debate.

On 20th March, in response to a Question by myself about when we could expect the review of the law on picketing to be announced, the Under-Secretary of State said that his right hon. Friend

"very much hopes to make a statement in the next two weeks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 228.]

Rather over three weeks have now expired. If we do not get a statement next week it will be at least six weeks, which is three times the figure that I was given. May I ask the Leader of the House to give me some indication when this fond hope will be realised?

I will convey my hon. Friend's remarks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I know that he is hoping to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

May I press the Leader of the House yet again about an early debate on the Robens Report. It is now nine months since that committee reported on the important question of industrial health and safety, since when the Government have been silent. May we have some indication of an early debate on that matter?

My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement within the next few weeks outlining the Government's intentions. I think that it would be better to have that statement before having a debate. I understand that the House will want to debate the matter in this Session.

May I call my right hon. Friend's attention to Motion No. 13 which calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to ensure that the present export of animals for slaughter is replaced by a carcase-only trade?

[That this House, realising the suffering that can be inflicted upon cattle, sheep and other animals exported alive for slaughter overseas, and in view of the fact that experience has shown the impossibility of enforcing the safeguards implicit in the Balfour Assurances, even in countries that have undertaken to observe them, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation to ensure that the present export of such live animals is replaced by a carcase-only trade, thus ensuring that they will be slaughtered under the humane conditions prevailing in British abattoirs, and that benefits accrue to the British economy from the processing of the animal by-products.]

May I remind my right hon. Friend that no fewer than 163 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have signed that motion and that in all 270 right hon. and hon. Members of this honourable House have signed that and comparable motions? May I ask whether he will give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced and that, if not, time will be found for a debate in the near future?

I cannot give any indication that time can be found either for legislation or for a debate on this subject. I recognise its importance. I believe that the export of meat in carcase form is greatly to be desired, and I think that this will better be accomplished by voluntary means than by taking legislative action.

Does the Leader of the House recall that a few weeks ago the Minister for Housing and Construction gave the House a full statement upon what I call the logistics of the new parliamentary building? Have the Government crystallised their minds on that point? May we expect an early debate? I had expected that we would have one before Easter.

I, too, had hoped that we would have an early debate on this matter, but not all the material could be made available to the House in time for a debate next week. I will keep in mind the desirability of the House reaching an early decision, but to enable it to do so I think that it is important for the House to have all the evidence available to it.

Will the leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to be kind enough next week to let the House know—he has already let me know and has probably told some other Members, too—how long it will be before he is able to announce a decision on the Kielder Reservoir project? The Secretary of State for the Environment told me that the decision would be announced within a very short time, and though he would not set a time he said that it might be as quick as a month. Since the whole of the North of England is urgently awaiting this decision, it would be helpful—and, if he takes the right decision, would enable many people to have a happy Easter—if he would make the statement next week so that we shall all know where we are.

I came fully prepared to answer a question which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) might raise on the Booz-Allen Report but not a question about the Kielder Reservoir. I will convey my hon. Friend's views to the Secretary of State for the Environment and will see whether he can make a statement next week.

May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Motion No. 252 on the rating system. This system is placing an enormous burden on all sections of the community, particularly in rural areas where properties are being revalued on the basis of prices which can he got for them in the commuter market and from the point of view of people having two homes. Could he arrange for a debate on the whole rating system?

[That this House, conscious of the need for a complete reorganisation of the rating system, regrets that Her Majesty's Government persists in its policy of ratingrevaluation; recognises that such a revaluation will inevitably increase the burden on domestic ratepayers, who at the same time are faced with rate demands based upon a fictitious ' notional rent' arrived at on the basis of an individual person's judgment and which can bear no relation to the value of the property; rejects the concept that domestic ratepayers shall be called upon to pay such rates without being informed of the individual factors upon which the rateable value of the properties are fixed; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to arrange for each domestic ratepayer to be provided with a breakdown of all factors included in the ' notional rent' and on which the rates of the domestic property is based.]

There have been several opportunities recently to debate this matter, and I cannot promise further time. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 28th March.

Could my right hon. Friend give any idea when the House will debate the code for the guidance of the Pay Board and the Price Commission? I understand that the matter is subject to the affirmative procedure, and since these two bodies are now in business, is it not a matter of some urgency that we should debate the guidance which they have been given to assist them in their endeavours?

My hon. Friend is correct. They are subject to the affirmative resolution and have to be brought before the House within a certain period—and they will be brought before the House. But the answer is, not next week.

The question that was raised earlier relating to the export of live animals, on which many people feel deeply, also raises a more general question. I refer to the absolute necessity to have an early debate on agriculture. It is now a month since the annual price review, and we are seeing the process of the unscrambling of present agricultural procedures late at night when the Government are laying order after order. When will the Government give time for the House to discuss the whole subject of agriculture?

I certainly would welcome a debate on agricultural policy, but the Opposition seem to have shown a great reluctance to have a debate on this subject in their own time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Paymaster-General that he should ask me to let him have a copy of my scheme for the introduction of a public lending right, which is long overdue? My scheme is practicable and it could be introduced without undue delay.

If the hon. Member has not already given the Paymaster-General a copy of his scheme and if the hon. Member will let me have a copy of it, I will see that the Paymaster-General receives it.

May I take up again the question of Motion No. 243 on the raising of the age for a driving licence? Does my right hon. Friend recall that last week in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition he said that the matter was being delayed because of translation and documentary difficulties? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have with me the original French draft directive, that it has been more than adequately translated into English by the Department of the Environment and that the running off of enough copies could be done within 24 hours? May we have an assurance that we shall debate this important matter the week after we return from the Easter Recess?

There is, of course, now an unholy alliance between my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the Opposition in seeking to have this debate. [Interruption.] No, I have not an unholy alliance with anybody on this subject. The translation has been prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Translation Section and it is available in the Vote Office, so there is now no problem about it from that point of view.

Is that not an extraordinary way of putting the matter? Whether it is an holy alliance, a concept of Europe, or whatever it may be, these are matters which affect the laws of this country and it is right that the House should have them. There is no alliance, the right hon. Gentleman has seen the motion on the Order Paper, and it is widely desired that the motion should be debated. Last week we all thought, because of the warm way in which the Leader of the House spoke about his hopes, that we would be debating the matter within a short time of the translation of the documents. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his words?

I do not think I need reconsider the words I have used. I cannot find time at the moment for a debate on the subject. We can reconsider the matter after the recess.

Will the leader of the House try to find time to discuss Motion No. 266 regarding the conduct of the National Coal Board and its commercial relations with outside bodies, since the board has announced that it intends to conduct a private inquiry—which, in the eyes of the public is tantamount to a whitewash operation allowing the board to examine its own navel at its leisure.

[That this House would welcome any investigation which the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries may care to make into the commercial dealings of the National Coal Board with outside bodies.]

We must leave it to the Select Committee to decide whether it wishes to investigate the matters raised in the hon. Member's motion. There have already been several inquiries, and my hon. Friend announced on 26th February that the board has decided to conduct a general reveiew by independent experts of purchasing procedures.

Although I, too, run the risk of being alleged to be party to an unholy alliance, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend agrees that when the Conservative Party were in opposition we often had debates on agriculture because we regard it as an important subject and industry? If the Opposition will not allow one of their Supply Days to be used for the purpose, could we not have a de bate on this subject in Government time? Will my right hon. Friend say whether the House will have an opportunity to debate the future of farm prices before the new prices come into effect on 1st May?

There was an opportunity only a week before last to debate agriculture. In reply to my hon. Friend's point about what the Conservatives did in opposition, I must tell him that we had debates on agricultural subjects because we, as the then Opposition, made time for them. I should welcome it if the Opposition did the same for us now.

Is it not a fact that it is the Government's duty to provide time for the House to debate the Government's agricultural policy?

The Government's policy on agriculture is well know, and if hon. Gentlemen do not like it they should table a motion and debate it. We would welcome it.

When will the House have an opportunity to debate the Franks Committee Report? The right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance some time ago that he would look at what the Prime Minister said on this matter in answer to a question which I tabled some months ago when he indicated that a debate would take place in this House before the Government came to a decision on the matter. Will he give an assurance that such a debate will take place before the Government announce their policy?

Yes, Sir. We recognise the desire for a debate, and I hope that it will not be too long delayed.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by the good sense of hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government's intention to deny tax relief to contributors to the new State Reserve Pension Scheme, alone among all pensions, has been turned down upstairs? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement next week on whether the Government will accept that position, or will they try to dragoon their members into the lobbies and restore the disgraceful proposal which they originally put forward?

I will convey those views to my right hon. Friend.

Reverting to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago about the steel industry and steel prices, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that any decision or understanding on the part of the Government about raising steel prices will be announced in a statement to the House, so that questions on the matter may be put to the Government?

Secondly, on the question of a debate about agriculture, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that the circumstances of the House of Commons today are different from those of any time in its modern history, in the sense that decisions about food prices in Britain are made elsewhere and that time has to be provided by the Opposition, apparently, to deal with this subject? That is why we had a debate on this subject on Tuesday, 3rd April. No doubt we could have had a debate on agriculture generally if we had not had to deal with the immediate subject. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman also take into account that he has not sought to accommodate the House yet, even in accepting and approving the unanimous recommendations of a Select Committee as to how the House of Commons might be given proper opportunities to discuss these matters? Will the right hon. Gentleman cease making taunts to the Opposition about providing time, as we have been trying to remedy the situation created by the Government?

I do not accept that, because the hon. Gentleman knows only too well that we could have made much more progress over dealing with European legislation if he had not baulked the setting up of a committee last year.

Steel prices are matters for the British Steel Corporation which, I understand, will be making an announcement shortly.

Regarding a debate on agriculture and food prices, I do not believe that one can separate the one from the other. That was why we had the debate last week.

On the question of steel prices, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that, on a matter of such importance affecting the whole British economy and the whole counter-inflation question— as steel prices might affect it—no statement is to be made to the House on this subject and that no Minister will be able to be questioned on it?

On the question of the European Communities Act, will the right hon. Gentle- man further take into account that if the amendments tabled by the Opposition had been accepted, these increases in food prices could have been carried through only on an affirmative resolution? We would have protected the House of Commons. That is why we have to have debates by these other methods.

Neither of those two points is connected in any way with the business of the House—

rose—

Order. This is becoming an argument.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not perfectly within the normal arrangements and custom of this House that hon. Members of the Opposition should be allowed to put questions about statements to be made in the House during the following week? My question was to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would arrange for a statement to be made next week about steel prices. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Speaker, you have just ruled that that was an improper question. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it was the kind of question which has been constantly put by the Opposition.

Order. I did nothing of the sort. I was concerned about what was following on. I have allowed three questions from the Opposition Front Bench today.

I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about the Monoplies Commission's Report on the supply of chlordiazepoxide and diazepam.

This report, which is being published today, deals with the supply of certain patented tranquillisers sold mainly under the brand names Librium and Valium. They are prescribed principally for the relief of neuroses and emotional problems and are taken regularly or intermittently by more than 1 million people. The current annual cost to the National Health Service is approximately £8 million. They are manufactured by Roche Products Ltd., a United Kingdom company linked with the Swiss company, F. Hoffman-La Roche and Co AG, and its associates, by which the active ingredients, chlordiazepoxide, and diazepam, are supplied.

On 14th September 1971 the Monopolies Commission was asked to investigate the supply of these goods, and I received its report on 27th February 1973. The Government accept this report, and I shall later describe the steps we are taking to implement its recommendations.

The Commission concluded that, as Roche Products is responsible for the supply of about 99 percent. of the reference goods, monopoly conditions prevail; and that the determination of the level of prices results from and is designed to preserve these conditions and operates, and may be expected to operate, against the public interest. The Commission conducted an exhaustive investigation of the prices which have been charged for the goods in the light of all the relevant factors. These included the cost of production, promotional expenditure and, in particular, the transfer price of the active ingredients from associates abroad and the contributions towards group research and overheads made by the United Kingdom company. It reached the clear conclusion that United Kingdom prices for some years have been manifestly too high and that the Roche group has accordingly obtained from the sale of the drugs in this country profits far in excess of what is justifiable.

The Commission's main recommendations are that the price of Librium should be reduced to not more than 40 percent. of the 1970 price and the price of Valium to not more than 25 percent. of the 1970 price with corresponding reductions for certain other less widely used drugs covered by the reference. The price on average of the various forms of Valium is now about one-half of the 1970 price. The Commission also considers that there should be negotiations with the Roche group for the repayment of large sums to the Department of Health and Social Security by way of remedy for the excessive prices already charged.

I must also inform the House that, as the report indicates, the task of the Monopolies Commission was complicated by the refusal of the Roche group to supply certain information about its costs and sales.

The House will wish to know what action the Government are taking. In view of the serious situation disclosed by the Monopolies Commission, I have today made an order under the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965 reducing the prices of Librium, Valium and the other Roche products concerned to the levels recommended by the Monopolies Commission. This is being laid before both Houses today and will come into force on 23rd April. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will also be entering into negotiations with the company about past transactions.