asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import duty is now imposed on mutton and lamb imports from Australia and New Zealand.

The present United Kingdom tariff on mutton and lamb, other than whole bone in mutton carcases, is £0·9335 per cwt. For whole mutton carcases, the tariff is £0·4667 per cwt.

Does my hon. Friend agree that from 1st January next we shall be progressively adopting a 20 per cent. tariff on sheep meat imports? As there is no Community policy on sheep meat, will my hon. Friend explain what possible justification there is for adopting this quite unnecessary tax on food?

This is a matter which will be discussed in due course.

What is the use of the Government's pretending that Government policy is not responsible for the rise in food prices when the Government themselves have imposed this and a whole series of other food taxes in the past year?

The tariff has nothing whatever to do with the price of lamb. New Zealand supplies have been heavily reduced, not only by drought but by retention for breeding.

This is really not good enough. With whom will this matter be discussed? Is it not the responsibility of the Government to decide this matter? Will they stop giving us this nonsense that it is everyone else's responsibility except theirs? Are they not saying, in fact, that they are quite willing to accept a food tax on the people of this country against a background of exploding prices?

The matter will be discussed in the Council of Ministers in due course. The hon. Gentleman talks about making excuses, but he has been so busy making excuses throughout his period in office that he does not know the difference between excuses and the facts of life.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy he now intends to make to the EEC.

I have made my general views known on a number of occasions. I now await the report which the Commission is to make to the Council of Ministers for consideration later this year.

Is the Minister aware that this still represents a very bad deal for the people of this country? Will not he press for major reforms in the CAP?

I have indicated on many occasions that I want to see amendments made to the CAP. This is entirely in line with Government policy. It is because of this and other representations that have been made that the Commission is having this major consideration. I am told that it will come back to Ministers on the Council, probably in the early autumn of this year.

Is it not the case that although the Leader of the Opposition said that the CAP was not negotiable, by being within the club my right hon. Friend has got M. Lardinois to agree that it should be reviewed?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that when in office the Leader of the Opposition made it very plain that in his view the CAP was not negotiable. In my view, its principles are not negotiable, but its operation and its various aspects are certainly open to discussion and amendment. This is what we shall be talking about.

Are the Government opposed to the continuation of export subsidies which not only distort world agricultural trade but are very expensive for the British taxpayer?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that these taxes—I imagine that these are the taxes about which he is thinking—are a part of the CAP. I shall certainly not criticise individual aspects here; I shall be criticising them in the Council of Ministers, which is where I ought to make my comments.

Will my right hon. Friend press for production grants, which stimulate agricultural expansion without inflating consumer prices?

Yes. My right hon. and learned Friend is right. This is a valuable aspect of the British system, which I hope we shall operate to a greater extent within the Community. This is one of the things for which I pressed very hard at the recent Luxembourg meetings. As a result of that pressure we have now got a commitment, for instance, in relation to the hill fanning subsidy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation to enable a farmer-member of an Agricultural Cooperative Society to make a substantially larger investment than the present upper limit of £1,000.

The Government have undertaken to introduce legislation as soon as time permits to raise the maximum shareholding in a co-operative society registered under the industrial and provident societies legislation. This will be a matter for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who is responsible for the Registry of Friendly Societies.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he indicate to what the limit will be raised?

That is a matter I would wish to leave to my right hon. Friend to inform the House about in due course.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what common agricultural prices in the EEC were not increased at the recent meeting of Agriculture Ministers.

As the hon. Member will have seen from the reply which I gave him on 9th May, no change was made in the common prices for seeds for sowing or for certain types of tobacco. The intervention price for butter was reduced. —[Vol. 856, c. 120–6.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that most of the prices of the foods that people eat in this country were increased across the board? Surely that means that, irrespective of the effects in the next year, by the end of the transitional period the British housewife will be paying higher prices for most commodities than would otherwise have been the case.

When I returned to the House I made clear, I think, precisely what the increases were, so that the hon. Member is right in saying that there were increases for many commodities. But the point I was trying to stress was that for particular commodities the increase was much less than had been called for by some Ministers. In particular, I attach great importance to keeping the increase on cereals as low as 1 per cent.

Is it true that the import levy—some might call it the penal taxation—on cheese has risen, this week, from £164 to £245·44? Will this not have a serious effect on prices, or will it merely mean that we shall not be able to import cheese from third countries from now on?

Speaking from recollection, I cannot accept the hon. Member's figures. As far as I recall the figure is substantially less than the one given by my hon. Friend. There is a later Question on the Order Paper about butter and cheese, and I shall seek to deal with the matter then.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make representations to the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation in respect of the rates of interest it is now charging in order to encourage new programmes of capital investment.

No, Sir. I believe that the confidence which the industry is displaying should give ample incentive for new investment.

Is my hon. Friend aware that already, under the Farm Capital Grants Scheme, the contribution has been reduced from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. and the number of items upon which grants can be claimed has been reduced? In addition, the AMC mortgage rate has gone up to 12 per cent., which must mean a withdrawal of capital in the industry and an increase in the cost of food. If the Government can make representations to building societies on interest rates can they not make equal representations to a body on which they have more influence?

The reason for the temporary bridging grant to the building societies has been explained and the same considerations do not apply here. I remind my hon. Friend that there was a record amount of lending by the AMC in the year up to 31st March, and there has been no sign of a fall off since 1st April, although the grant to which he referred was cut.

Does the Minister agree that the AMC is not paying a substantial part in the provision of agricultural credit? Are there any institutions of the EEC which enable credit to be given, especially for those who are starting up in farming and for farmers who are tenants and wish to purchase their farms? Has the Minister given further consideration to the establishment of a land bank?

All these matters will have to be discussed within the Council of Ministers. The point to which the hon. Member referred about grants for young men starting up in farming was one with which I dealt in the Adjournment debate initiated by a Labour Member before Easter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of fresh fruit since June 1970.

There is no retail price index for fresh fruit as such but the fruit sub-group of the Index of Retail Food Prices, which also includes canned and dried fruits, showed an increase of 39 per cent. between June 1970 and March 1973.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that other figures have shown that at least up to a few weeks ago there was a 100 per cent. increase in the price of fresh fruit? Does she also agree that it is hardly a compliment to her Ministry and her Government that they should be labelled as the ones responsible for introducing the 5p apple? Can she tell the House whether the fortunes of the British people under the yoke of this Government are that they must face an increase of 50 per cent. a year in the price of fresh fruit?

I hope that the hon. Member realises that the price of apples increased because of the extremely poor harvest last year. [Interruption.] We have become accustomed to believing that Governments and Oppositions can do most things, but they cannot direct whether there should be a good or bad apple crop. In fairness, the hon. Member should also realise that the figure he quotes includes the cost of dry fruit, which must take account of the Californian crop failure last year—[Interruption.]— which is also something that Oppositions can do nothing about. The price of dried fruit doubled in May of last year.

I hope that the Government will be able to do something about the price of oranges. Because Italy is the only producer within the EEC, the EEC insists that our prices should be affected by the high prices of the inefficient Italian orange industry, and therefore we may see not only the 5p apple but the l0p orange. What will the Minister do about that?

My right hon. Friend will be discussing the question of the CAP in due course. I trust that the prophetic comments about the apple are as inaccurate as those by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) last week about the bob banana.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us where the supplies of cheap, fresh fruit that were promised to us by the supporters of entry into the EEC have gone since we joined? They certainly have not materialised yet. Will she confirm that in order to keep prices up fruit trees are being grubbed out not only on the Continent but in this country?

They did not have a successful apple harvest on the Continent, either. [Interruption.] However, British horticulturists will continue to grow the sort of apples for which they are famous and which we grow in good quality and quantity in a normal crop year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many claims for food price increases are currently under examination by the Price Commission.

I understand that information on such applications, if and when granted, is being made available by the Price Commission.

Is the hon. Lady aware that I purchased three bananas at a cost of 16½p, which worked out at 1s. 3d. per banana in old money, and not the shilling that I suggested. I was being unduly modest in my estimate. Will she tell the House exactly what her job is, other than counting the number of price increases? Is she not aware that only yesterday the Price Commission said that the prices of marmalade, cooking fats, oil, jams and other things, including breakfast foods, were going up soon? What is she doing now except to say that there has been a bad harvest in China or Chile, or somewhere else?

Price increases have to come within the criteria set within phase 2, and that is a matter for the Price Commission. The commodities to which the hon. Member referred and on which the Commission announced its approval yesterday have all been thoroughly scrutinised in order to ensure that they comply with the terms of the Price and Pay Code. I have taken note of the hon. Member's difficulties with bananas. He could certainly do with some help with his shopping. I purchased six bananas for 17p—and I do not have the time to shop around.

Is the hon. Lady aware that the effect of the savage increases in the prices of fresh fruit is compounded by the fact that under this Government for millions of working-class people the saucepan and the frying pan are becoming obsolete?

The question in hand relates to information and decisions taken by the Price Commission.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the percentage increase in the cost of food since 6th November 1972 to the latest convenient date.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much food prices have risen since 6th November 1972.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in food prices since 6th November 1972.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase there has been in retail food prices since 6th November 1972.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 10th May to the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing).—[Vol. 856, c. 734.]

We are used to the hon. Lady's attempts to whitewash this whole disgraceful business. In addition to the increases which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has mentioned—which were not included when she last gave a percentage figure—is she aware that when the increases are translated into cash it means that approximately l0p a 1b.—that is two bob a pound—must be put on streaky bacon? Is she further aware that bread prices have risen, and that the prices of ham as well as fruit and vegetables, have risen?

The hon. Lady has mentioned bread prices. To my knowledge the Price Commission has not announced such an increase. The hon. Lady has referred to another list of applications. It would be unwise to assume—

Allowed yesterday.

No, the ones to which the hon. Lady referred were referred to in a Question by the hon. Member for Fife, West, and are not included in the list which she purports to pretend is before the Commission.

They were allowed.

Will my hon. Friend say how the influence of seasonal factors on retail food prices this year compared with that of other years?

This year the seasonal fluctuation was 19·9 per cent. In the winter of 1968–69 it was 16·3 per cent. and in the winter of 1969–70 it was 15 per cent.

Is the hon. Lady, by her scant answers to these questions, trying to cover up the fact that during the freeze the increase has been double that which occurred in previous similar periods? That in itself is sufficiently scandalous, but— even worse—is she aware that the Government, by their policy of high food prices and low wages, are inflicting a double hardship on hundreds of thousands of workers earning less than £15 a week? They catch it both ways, with high food prices and low wages.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my reply was not intended to be scant. I merely did not wish to repeat the figure of 7·3 per cent. in the food index, which has not changed. Only 1·4 per cent. of that relates to manufactured food. The rest relates to seasonal factors similar to those which the Labour Government had to contend with at the same time of the year. That 1·4 per cent. increase is the lowest increase in that range of food for the last seven years.

Will my hon. Friend put these food price rise figures in their proper perspective by telling the House by how much the average weekly bill for food has increased in cash terms and by how much more the average earnings and take-home pay have increased over this period?

The figures I have quoted are that over the two-and-a-half years the average wage increase was 35 per cent., and pensions increased by 35 per cent. By October, pensions will have increased by 55 per cent. The proportion spent on food is a little less than one-quarter of an average family's income. Of that quarter, only about half relates to seasonal foods which neither the Labour Government nor this Government could control.

Is not the hon. Lady skating on thin ice during the freeze? Is she not aware that in the six months to March this year the price of seasonal foods, on her statistics, has risen by 23·8 per cent.? If she wants to get off the seasonal hook, will she look at the price of non-seasonal foods between October and March? On her figures, those prices have increased by more than the increases which occurred during the same six-monthly periods in 1968–69 and 1969–70 put together? Will she stop deceiving the House?

I strongly resent the suggestion that I am deceiving the House.

You are deceiving yourself!

My valid point is that in this period average wages have increased by 35 per cent., which keeps them well ahead of prices—

There are other things besides food—rents and fares.

The Prime Minister made it clear in a reply that he would consider threshold agreements in stage 3.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for price increases from firms he received during stage 1; how many he granted; and how many-price reductions he ordered.

During stage 1 my right hon. Friend received 1,288 individual applications for price consents. He gave consent for price increases involving 13 products or groups of products sold generally to consumers; 12 intermediate products not sold generally direct to consumers; 66 specialised commodities made by individual manufacturers.

Is the Minister aware that most people believe not merely that many prices were increased during stage 1 but that those increases were allowed to remain? In view of her answer, does she not think that her Department was less than vigilant? Has it not acted in the face of public belief and experience?

My Department followed up and investigated thoroughly every matter laid before it. Every price increase which was unjustified was properly reduced, and there was therefore no need to make an order.

Is the Minister aware that the whole House welcomed her appointment and waited with bated breath when the Press referred to her as "Prices Peg". Is she further aware that in the six months of the freeze food prices rose nine times as fast as they did in the corresponding six months the year before? In view of that fact, does not she think that she ought to be renamed by the Press, or resign?

I have often had reason to regret my name, and perhaps this is another reason. The hon. Gentleman referred to the increases and I have rehearsed the arguments very often. They are all on the fresh and imported food side; and on the imported side there are matters over which we do not have control. On the fresh food side, for the very same reasons, the Labour Government could not control the prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of food price increases are excluded from the effects of the Counter-Inflation Act because they are classified as imported.

It is not possible to estimate in advance what percentage of the food price increases during stage 2 of the counter-inflation programme will be on imported products.

Since the hon. Lady keeps giving answers in this House and in correspondence to the effect that the Government cannot control fresh food and cannot control seasonal food, and since it is well known that a large percentage of food is imported and they cannot have any control over that food either, why do the Government continue the pretence of seeking to control food prices?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We import about half of our total food requirements. It has been made clear throughout the counter-inflation programme that prices of imported goods from overseas suppliers could not be controlled, but the margins of the United Kingdom distributors which affect prices in the shops are controlled.

Is the hon. Lady aware that in the city of Manchester prices of fresh foods in shops where ordinary working people go to buy their provisions are in many cases higher than in the most expensive shopping areas in London? For example, is she aware that tomatoes are selling at 4p each, or 9½d. in old money, whereas wages are far below the London level? In face of this situation, should not something be done about wages to make sure that my constituents can buy fresh food?

I cannot entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's comments about the differences in prices between Manchester and other parts of the country. I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in an answer on 1st May that he is willing to consider threshold agreements with the CBI and TUC in phase 3.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest position regarding determination of the EEC negotiating position in the current International Sugar Agreement talks.

At the first session of these talks, the Community has proposed the extension of the present agreement, in the light of the situation on the world market and the uncertainty as to the future sugar policy of a number of countries, including that of the Community itself. This negotiating position will be reviewed in time for the second session, which begins in September.

Will the right hon. Gentleman press the EEC for a definitive assurance that there will be continuing access for at least 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar? Will he ask the EEC to go beyond aura à coeur and fully endorse the Lancaster House agreement?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman has put two separate points. The forthcoming sugar agreement is a matter that is being considered separately from the ISA. That is a matter which will be discussed under Protocol 22. The arrangement for 1·4 million tons is one to which this country is firmly committed by the undertakings given here. I have no reason to believe that we will not honour it. The International Sugar Agreement is a wider aspect, and the important thing is to see that the Community adopts a positive attitude. That is the influence which we are seeking to exert.

As, previously, the EEC has refused to co-operate with the International Sugar Agreement, is not it absolutely vital that at an early stage, and before the resumption in October, the EEC makes a declaration that with Britain in the Community it will cooperate with the International Sugar Agreement? Further, the EEC should outline its attitude towards cane sugar production and the refining of cane sugar. So far, it has been highly unco-operative.

I remind my right hon. Friend that the undertaking given at the UNCTAD conference at Santiago was not a binding commitment but a clear indication. We are using our influence within the Community to ensure that we get a positive attitude when the next session meets.

Is that good enough? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is enough to say that he is using his influence when we passed an Act in this House on the assurance which we received aura à coeur and everything else. We still have not obtained agreement on that assurance. There is a dangerous situation facing the producer countries. The right hon. Gentleman must do better than this.

The hon. Gentleman is confusing two issues. There are two quite clear and separate issues. One is the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I have no reason to believe that the Community will not honour the undertaking that was given in this House when the time comes. This is a matter for negotiation by the Commonwealth countries for operation after 1974. It was because I wished to ensure that this went smoothly that I called a meeting of the Commonwealth countries at Lancaster House two months ago. I consider that a useful meeting took place. The issue of the International Sugar Agreement is a wider issue altogether. At present no quotas are operating because of the high price of sugar. No one can say that the issue is urgent in the context of the immediate future. I agree that we must get a satisfactory outcome and I want to see the Community playing a full part. The argument that the Community has put forward so far is that we should continue with the present arrangement for another two years. This affects not only the Community but certain other countries whose arrangements go on after 1974.

As we are a signatory to the International Sugar Agreement and the Common Market is not a signatory, if the Common Market decides that it will not become a signatory to the International Sugar Agreement have we the sovereignty left in this Parliament to be a signatory to the International Sugar Agreement on our own without the Common Market?

We must first seek to ensure that the Community belongs to the International Sugar Agreement. On the specific point which my hon. Friend raised, it is an important understanding that as a member of the Community we shall be able to play our part in the International Sugar Agreement but there will not be a position outside the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Queensland authorities on the future import of Queensland sugar into the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Australian cane-sugar quota will be cut off completely after 1974.

The effect on Australia's trade of our accession to the Community has been discussed with the Australian Government on a number of occasions. Reference has been made in these discussions to Protocol 16 of the Treaty of Accession, which provides for the possibility of remedial measures by the Community if particular problems arise. So far as sugar is concerned, we have made it clear that we would support a proposal from Australia under Protocol 16 for the phasing out of their present exports to this country after 1974 rather than their abrupt termination.

My right hon. Friend will realise that my Question was about the Queensland authorities, and whether he had had any discussions with them. Will he say whether he has had such discussions? Will he say whether we are willing to give a firm undertaking that these supplies will not be discontinued abruptly and that they will be phased out over a period of years?

Our discussions take place with the Australian federal authorities rather than with the Queensland authorities. I think that that is the normal way for us to conduct any discussion. We are in close touch with Australia and it is for Australia to make the first move. It would be improper for me to comment further about Australia's attitude.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread feeling in Queensland that farmers there have been badly let down? Is he aware that some distinguished representatives of Queensland will be in this country in the near future? Will he undertake to discuss these matters with them?

We must conduct our negotiations officially with the Australian authorities as a whole. I shall be happy to talk with the Queensland authorities, but these discussions must take place on the normal basis of discussions between countries. It would be difficult for us to go beyond the normal channels.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider the removal of the import duty now imposed on butter, cheese and lamb imported from the Commonwealth.

No, Sir. Butter and cheese imports from all Commonwealth countries other than New Zealand are subject to import levies abated during the transitional period by compensatory amounts. There are lower levies on New Zealand butter and cheese.

What is preventing the Government from removing these heavy food taxes, which are unnecessarily keeping up the price of food?

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the adoption of the common agricultural policy imposed certain obligation on the United Kingdom. He is always trying to distort the position to make it appear far worse than it is. To put it in its right perspective, although the Canadian figure is very high, the imports from there were negligible before the import duty was imposed. The important import of Commonwealth butter and cheese is from New Zealand, for which there are special arrangements.

indicated dissent.

It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. There are special arrangements with New Zealand, and if he does not know it he should ask the New Zealanders.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that now that we have progressively increased the levy from £92 a ton to £245 a ton on Canadian butter it is impossible for Canada, which provided us with comparatively cheap cheese, to gain access to this country? No Canadian Cheddar cheese is able to come here.

I have discussed this matter with the Canadian Minister concerned. I remind my hon. Friend again that the bulk of Cheddar cheese that comes from overseas comes from New Zealand, and the levy on New Zealand cheese is £84·50. That is the contrast.

Is not the fact that whether we like it or not, we are completely enslaved by the common agricultural policy and that any questions we address to the right hon. Gentleman are a waste of time?

The hon. Gentleman must judge for himself whether his questions are a waste of time for him or anyone else. We are abiding by the common agricultural policy, exactly as the Labour Government said they would abide by it, but within that arrangement we have negotiated substantial assistance. I mentioned the contrast in the price of cheese from New Zealand, which was negotiated. The arrangements that we negotiated in Luxembourg last month are another indication of the way in which we are seeking to safeguard the position of the British consumer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that the pig code of recommendations is not altered so as to permit the routine docking of pigs' tails.

I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that we propose no such change in the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Pigs, which recommends that docking should not be carried out unless prescribed by a veterinary surgeon.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which is contrary to current rumours.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further discussions he has had with the EEC about subsidising the sales of butter in Great Britain.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made on 7th May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, when he announced the Government's decision to introduce the two subsidies on butter sales which are allowed by EEC regulations.—[Vol. 856. c. 56–68.]

Arising out of that reply and with reference to the l0p a 1b. per month obtainable on a voucher, what arrangements are the Government making to police voucher issues so that they are not traded in for cash or otherwise flogged to see that there is no cheating over this subsidy?

My hon. Friend has raised an important point which, among other matters, is being considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services who will be responsible for administering the scheme. I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to his attention.

Why are the Govern-prepared to subsidise butter for old-age pensioners at a cost to the British taxpayer of £9 million, but not prepared to subsidise milk for school children from 7 to 11 who surely need it just as much?

I have tried to explain to the hon. Gentleman before why we agreed to these two subsidies on butter. The one to which he refers is not a £9 million cost but a £3 million cost for social butter. It is the general butter subsidy which costs £18 million, of which £9 million is borne by the Exchequer. The whole cost of social butter is being borne by the Communities on a totally different basis, and although we have repeatedly said that we do not think this is the way in which one should normally make arrangements for those in need on social security benefits, nevertheless, if a thing is offered by the Community and the Community is paying the full cost, it would be wrong for us not to receive it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what continuing arrangements exist for the identification and monitoring of diseases of hardwoods.

The identification and monitoring of diseases of hardwood trees are carried out by the Forestry Commission through its research and advisory services, and its contacts with universities and other research organisations.

In addition to Dutch elm disease there have been reports of some new diseases among oak and chestnut. Has my hon. Friend seen those reports, is his Department looking into them, and what action does it consider to be necessary?

My hon. Friend is no doubt referring to the possibility of oak wilt and chestnut blight. I can assure him that there are important controls to prevent these, but we are examining plant health controls to see whether they need strengthening in the light of the coming into this country, so sadly, of the elm disease.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to meet Mr. Ian Smith.

asked the Prime Minister when he intends to meet Mr. Ian Smith.

I have at present no plans to meet Mr. Smith.

Is it not evident that the successful appeal of Peter Niesewand was the result of the magnificent spotlight turned on his case by the British Press, radio and television? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this trial means that Peter Niesewand has now been taken from any further close-range reporting of the Rhodesian scene? Will he tell the Smith regime that interference with the Press and the continued detention of African leaders is not conducive to further negotiations with that regime?

We are very glad that Mr. Niesewand has been released but, as I told the House when this matter was first raised here, we have constantly made representations to Mr. Smith about other detainees and their release, but, unfortunately, so far these representations have not been effective.

Will my right hon. Friend say something in this connection about the murder of two Canadian girl tourists by Zambian troops firing across the Rhodesian border, bearing in mind that Her Majesty's Government are responsible for what happens there? It may be a fiction, but that is the position. Would my right hon. Friend not also agree that this tragedy, like so many others in central Africa, is the direct result of power in the hands of totally unpredictable people? Will he ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes the strongest possible protest to the Zambian Government?

We were naturally distressed to hear about this loss of life, but as a Government we have no direct information about this matter. I understand that the Canadian and American missions in Lusaka are in touch with the Zambian authorities and the Zambian Government have undertaken to investigate the incident.

Does the Prime Minister agree that what Mr. Smith appears to fear very much is the disapproval of the British Government and people? If, as Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman were to protest over the continued detention of hundreds of people who have had no access to the courts at all with the same passion as he and the media protested—and rightly protested—against the imprisonment of Mr. Peter Nieswand, might he not have brought about the same results for all those other people who have been detained for so long by a man who is in the classic tradition of the self-righteous tyrant.

The hon. Gentleman must accept the facts—which are that the present Government, like their predecessors, have constantly made representations to Mr. Smith about the release of detainees. I recently reminded the House that there was an arrangement in the agreement signed in Salisbury by the Foreign Secretary with Mr. Smith for a commission to examine the whole question of those detained. We have recently again asked Mr. Smith to give us the number of detainees, but we have not been given this information.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that his time might be better spent talking with the leaders of other African countries with whom this country has a greater community of interest?

We keep in the very closest touch with the leaders of other African countries. Many members of the present Government have visited many parts of Africa and talked to their leaders. I have talked to them when they have been in London or at conferences in other parts of the world, and contact is very close.

Does the Prime Minister recognise that we all deplore these quite unjustified shootings and welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said, namely, that the Zambian Government are to institute full inquiries into this matter. Until those inquiries are complete, it would be wrong for anyone to start attributing blame for these shootings.

We shall continue to press as the right hon. Gentleman asks, and to make representations. Again, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said many times, both in this House and in public, we believe that it is essential that there should be discussions between Mr. Smith and representatives of other races in Rhodesia in a further attempt to get a settlement. I am certain that if those discussions take place the question of the detainees is bound to be raised.

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Foreign Secretary in London on 2nd May to WEU committee members on monetary reform represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

When the Foreign Secretary said in that speech that international monetary reform was the world's first need, did not it show that the Government have already sold out this country's defences by virtually abandoning capital controls in the face of the multinational companies and international currency speculators? Is not that utterly irresponsible, when the liquid assets of the multi-national companies today are more than twice the total of the entire world currency reserves?

Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman's facts are wrong. We have not abandoned exchange control. We have undertaken our obligations to the Community, like the other members of it. But exchange control remains.

I strongly support the important initiatives which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken in this matter, but does he not agree that there is a growing view that the Committee of 20 is making very slow progress? Would not it be possible for a European committee to be set up to look into our domestic EEC problems?

I know that the feeling exists that the work of the Committee of 20, so far, has been slow. It is not for me to make any judgment about it. When a committee of this kind meets it has to do a great deal of groundwork before beginning to come to firm conclusions. We hope that at the next meeting of the Ministers concerned it will be possible to see greater progress. It is right that the Community should have a common position on monetary reform. It is in process of forming that.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to discuss French nuclear tests with President Pompidou.

asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to discuss the EEC Common Agricultural Policy with President Pompidou.

asked the Prime Minister if he will itemise the subjects for discussion between President Pompidou and himself.

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

asked the Prime Minister if, when he meets President Pompidou, he will discuss the matter of Anglo-French consultation on the siting of airports, in view of the agreement within the EEC on the importance of regional policy, and the effect which new airports in the two countries will have on such policy.

asked the Prime Minister what subjects he hopes to discuss in his forthcoming meeting with President Pompidou.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on Tuesday 15th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) and others.—[Vol. 856, c. 1235–8.]

When the Prime Minister was asked on Tuesday whether his refusal to discuss the matter of the nuclear tests with M. Pompidou was tied in at all with the report by Chapman Pincher that there were likely to be British nuclear tests in the near future, the right hon. Gentleman said that there were no immediate proposals to do so. Will he say how immediate is "immediate", in his vocabulary? Does it mean next month, in six months, or some time after the French tests? If the Prime Minister is willing to meet the protests of our kith and kin in Australia and New Zealand to the extent of changing proposed legislation on another matter, why is he not willing to do so on this important matter, where they protest against the contamination of their atmosphere?

I said that this Government, like others, are under an obligation to keep our nuclear weapons up to date. We shall ensure that that is done. I repeat that we have no immediate plans to carry out tests. If we have to carry out tests for the purpose that I have described, they will be carried out underground. This has been accepted under the partial test ban treaty that was negotiated by the Conservative Government in 1963. As for the Australian and New Zealand Governments, they have now instituted a case in the International Court.

In view of our direct responsibility for the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, and the Condominium of the New Hebrides which we have with the French, and our associations with Fiji, New Zealand, and Australia, will not my right hon. Friend think again about publicly coming out and condemning these tests?

Because of our responsibilities to the dependencies we have always monitored the tests from Pitcairn Island. We have not found evidence that any have been damaging to those for whom we are responsible.

Bearing in mind that recent public opinion polls have revealed that the major concern of ordinary British people is with the ever-increasing cost of living, which is causing grave frustration and annoyance, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the common agricultural policy has added to this? Can he say what reforms he will put to President Pompidou in an endeavour to reduce our ever-increasing cost of living?

It was an important development when the Ministers of Agriculture agreed to the Commission's proposal that there should now be a complete review of the common agricultural policy. In working towards that, the British Minister—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—played an influential part. I believe that we should now allow this review to take place.

My right hon. Friend will have read the Hudson Institute Report suggesting that the growth rate of the French over the next decade will be far greater than that of the British. Surely, yesterday's export figures prove that this may not be the case. Can my right hon. Friend say what percentage of those figures represented exports to EEC countries?

I never have accepted entirely the figures put forward in the Hudson Report, and I do not accept that the French GNP necessarily will be twice that of Britain in 1980. As for the figures for the distribution of the increase in exports, speaking from memory, exports to the Community over the past four months, since we became a member, have increased by 28 per cent. or 29 per cent. over a year before, compared with our average increase of 23 per cent.

In the forthcoming talks, will the Prime Minister press for wholehearted and genuine support by the French to Anglo-French aircraft projects like the Jaguar rather than pushing their own products, especially with Arab States, as they seem to be doing at present?

I have no reason to complain about the joint partnership carrying out the Jaguar project. It is quite natural that French manufacturers, like our own, press their own aircraft products as hard as possible in all the world's export markets. We do the same, and I should be disappointed if our manufacturers did not.

If the Prime Minister is so sure that his evidence is that there will be no damage, why not make an offer to President Pompidou to have the tests off Broadstairs?

I do not think that the facilities are available.

Does not this difficulty arise from the absence of a full exchange of information and co-operation in the Western Alliance? Therefore, whether it is within the context of the Community or that of the new Atlantic arrangements which have been adumbrated, is not the whole future of the nuclear defence of Western Europe a proper matter to be discussed with President Pompidou?

I have never said that it was not a proper matter for us to discuss. I said that President Pompidou had indicated that he did not think the time was ripe to discuss it.

Will the Prime Minister make it clear to President Pompidou that in no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government agree to the proposals which are being discussed in Brussels now on the initiative of Mr. Borschette, the Commissioner for Competition, which would have the effect of removing from large parts of Britain facilities for regional development created and carried out by successive Governments? Press reports this morning of what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appears to have said are very disturbing. Will the Prime Minister make it clear to President Pompidou that we shall have none of it?

I saw the report about what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy was supposed to have said on this matter. There is no truth in it whatever. On the right hon. Gentleman's question about the peripheral areas, these matters are still under discussion and we do not visualise that Community rules will lessen the incentives that we can offer under the Industry Act.

Mr. Borschette's proposals would greatly reduce the facilities both for intermediate areas and for some development areas, including the disappearance from the development area schedule of assistance for substantial parts of the country. With regard to what the Chancellor of the Duchy is supposed to have said—he may have been misreported—will the Prime Minister arrange for the Chancellor of the Duchy or, under the rules that we follow, someone other than the right hon. Gentleman, to report to us on what he said and how far he went on this occasion?

I understand that there is to be a statement next Wednesday.

On a slightly less important, but none the less quite important matter, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of making it clear to President Pompidou that we know our onions and intend to stick to them?

I will endeavour to carry out my hon. Friend's request, though I may not put it quite in that way.

Reverting to the proposed French nuclear tests, is the Prime Minister aware that those for whom we are responsible, who may contract leukaemia as a result of the fall-out from these tests, will not find the fact that Her Majesty's Government had monitored them a cause for cure, admiration or gratitude?

I should think that the right hon. Gentleman would have thought it right that we should find out what the facts are.

But the right hon. Gentleman said that he knew them.

If we monitor the tests with the best scientific equipment that we have and find that there is nothing deleterious in them for those territories for which we are concerned, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should set out deliberately to misrepresent the position.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman, when speaking about these tests previously, indicated to the House of Commons that he had the information that they would not cause any danger? How is it that he is now telling us that we will know the results only when they have been monitored?

I have always clearly stated—I believe it was the situation under the Labour Government—that when there were tests in other parts of the world we monitored them, and those have been our conclusions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the inability or refusal of the European Powers and our partners and allies to furnish the numbers of men necessary for our defence in Western Europe, the nuclear armoury becomes all the more important?

I accept that nuclear weapons are important and that the American nuclear deterrent is vital to the defence of Europe. At the same time, we have been working in the Euro-group to endeavour to persuade our partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to make a more substantial contribution to remaining forces and weapons.