asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what answer he has had from the EEC Commission on ways of releasing beef for the benefit of consumers of the Community.

The EEC Commission has recently made arrangements to enable beef held in intervention to be sold for the benefit of consumers within the Community. These include the sale of frozen beef for processing and for general consumption. In addition, a scheme for subsidised sales to non-profit-making institutions is under detailed consideration.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the steps taken so far and those he intends to take in the future will mean that beef will be available in sufficient quantity and at reasonable price for the British housewife?

That is always our aim. My hon. Friend will appreciate that we have stated our desire to renegotiate the terms affecting the CAP.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sales by non-profit-making institutions, namely, the British farmer, are already taking place? What does he intend to do about the beef situation?

That is entirely another question separate from the EEC.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement in yesterday's Financial Times that world prices of meat arc well below Community levels but that the consumer here does not benefit because of the 11 per cent. import duty? Will he remove the duty?

No. I am well aware of the article, which I read carefully, but I cannot take action yet.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the 190,000.000 lbs of beef, now in cold storage in Common Market warehouses, it is proposed to make available to sausage factories; at what price; and what Her Majesty's Government's policy is towards this matter.

Less than 5 per cent. of this amount has been sold by tender specifically for the manufacturing of beef products, but frozen beef has now been made available for purchase at fixed prices according to quality and description, without restriction on end use

Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest. I am rather fond of beef. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the beef iceberg is further evidence, if any were needed, of the lunacy of the common agricultural policy? Is he willing to take an opportunity to ask the new President of France and the new Chancellor of Germany to exercise their undoubted economic talents and to reform the common agricultural policy and return, if possible, to the British system of guaranteed prices?

I think that my hon. Friend is aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has stated that we would like to reform the CAP. My right hon. Friend will very soon be making a major statement on this matter at the Council of Ministers. We shall spell out our proposals, and hon. Members will see that we want to make some positive and constructive changes.

Before the right hon. Gentleman becomes too excited about the prospects of returning to the old deficiency payments system and guaranteed prices, will he meet the dairy and beef farmers in my constituency? He will learn from them what a terrible disaster the old system was in the latter days of the last Labour Government, when they worked against the beef and dairy producers.

I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman must know that we provided a system which was admired by many countries throughout the world. The system worked. Conservative Members never altered it until they decided to go into the Community.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers in my constituency are urging me, as I have urged my right hon. Friend, to consider returning to deficiency payments. Is he aware that I have the full support of the National Farmers' Union in my constituency?

I am aware that many farmers want to return to the guarantee system. I am not saying that it would be essentially a deficiency payments system. That is one method. The previous system worked very well.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he was last in office he commanded some confidence among farmers generally? I readily accept that. However, does he recognise that farmers throughout the country consider that he is not prepared to support the advantages which are available under the EEC arrangements and that, equally, he is not prepared to put anything in their place? Does he appreciate that the farmers are losing the confidence in him which they once had, because they feel that he is falling between two stools?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has made a fair point. I have recognised that there is disquiet about our intermediate policy. The farmers feel that there is an absence of the support that they would have had in the Community. When I obtained an option on intervention they felt that I should quickly state the Government's position. That is why we are having close and intimate talks with the National Farmers' Union.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is now taking as the result of pioneering experiments conducted by his Department in deep water fishing.

My Department is continuing to inform the fishing and processing industries of the results of research into deep water species and blue whiting stocks as these become available. This information should enable the industry to determine the possibilities of exploiting these resources.

When is more information likely to be forthcoming so that decisions may be taken on the matter?

A good deal of information has already come out and should be in the Library, in the form of the various announcements from the Ministry. I think my hon. Friend will find them interesting. The trade is beginning to show interest in the matter, too, with the demonstrations at Torry and elsewhere.

As the Ministry has stated in its hand-outs that the possible catch of blue whiting has been known to be 50 tons per haul and that the spawning stock could sustain yields of 1 million tons per annum, will the Minister assure the House that every possible effort will be made to catch these fish, no matter how difficult that may be, because they seem to be a potential source of stocks that we dare not ignore?

Yes. The White Fish Authority is now employing a short charter to examine the prospects of blue whiting, and we are encouraging that development.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will name the countries, together with the quantities involved as a proportion of the United Kingdom domestic market, from which food has been imported during the past three months at a price lower than the prevailing EEC prices.

I regret that this detailed information is not readily available. For many products world prices have recently been higher than full Community prices. A number of foodstuffs for which there are support prices set under the CAP are available on import into the United Kingdom, from both Community and third country sources, at lower prices than those obtaining for comparable products in the original Community. This is because of the operation of transitional and monetary compensatory amounts.

I regret that the figures are not readily available. Is it not the case, from what the right hon. Gentleman said, that the existence of the Community and our participation in it has meant a stable supply of food for the British housewife at reasonably favourable prices compared to world prices?

I do not know whether that can be deduced from what I said. However, sugar is an example of a commodity the world price of which is currently above the EEC price. Milling wheat is another example. I have often argued, especially in relation to meat, that it is important for us to think of the consumer as well as the producer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that world wheat prices have fallen more than 30 per cent. since February, that most world grain prices are now lower than the EEC levels, and that the prices of other foods, including sugar, cocoa and coffee, are also falling? In these circumstances, is it not even more important that Britain should free itself from the CAP?

I gave all the facts I had, and I stand by them. My right hon. Friend must appreciate that those are the facts, and they cannot be altered.

The Minister referred to sugar. Does he agree that if he does not do something about the price of sugar the shortage is likely to increase and to be serious next year? There is an urgent need for action, so that farmers will plant up their full acreage next year.

I do not dissent from that. I am having talks about the matter. It is one which concerns the Community as well. There is a great problem which also concerns cane sugar and the question of fulfilling quotas.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to meet the Derbyshire branch of the National Farmers' Union.

I have no plans to do so at present.

That is probably just as well. When will the Government realise that livestock farmers in Derbyshire and elsewhere are losing money on pig and beef production, and that they have lost all confidence in the Government, because promises are no substitute for paying them a fair price for their food now? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not stop trying to rig the retail price index at the expense of the farmers?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the difficulties facing livestock farmers occurred under the previous Government. There were high feed costs then. I have tried to alleviate this by giving direct aid, and I stand by that. Only yesterday I announced in reply to a Written Question that the subsidy affecting pig producers will continue. I believe this will help to strengthen the market. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's doctrinaire view.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a visit to Derbyshire by him or my hon. Friend the Minister of State would be very beneficial, particularly for the Minister who went? Is he aware that I have asked my hon. Friend privately whether he will make a visit to Derbyshire, because it is a county with multifarious farming activities, ranging more widely, perhaps, than those in any other county? I am certain that a visit will do a world of good.

I note carefully and sympathetically what my hon. Friend has said.

Granted, the right hon. Gentleman has given direct aid in the form of a calf subsidy, but will he explain how that will help the farmer trying to fatten cattle?

The aid goes direct into that section of the industry, but I believe that it has an effect all round. I believe that our approach is right. Moreover, we must have talks with the industry—we are having talks now—about a long-term approach to the beef industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in integrating the hill farming policies of the United Kingdom with those of the EEC; and whether he is satisfied with the assistance available to British hill farmers.

Integration of our hill farming policies with those of the EEC would be through the Directive on Less Favoured Areas, which has not yet come into effect. The level of assistance that we are giving to our hill farmers at present appears to be adequate.

I know that the Minister is aware that there are two schools of thought in Britain and within the EEC on the future of hill land in Britain. Many believe—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Is the Minister aware that, given the right incentives, production from the hills could be doubled? Will he assure the House that he will do everything in his power to persuade his counterparts in Europe that he will fulfil this promise?

Yes, Sir. There are still a number of negotiations to carry out, and we shall carry them out with that end in view.

Does the Minister agree that the hill farming directive was passed by the Council of Ministers, that all it needs now is its implementation, and that if it is implemented properly in the United Kingdom it will be of great benefit to hill farmers and increase the production of not only hill farms but marginal land?

Certainly the directive has to be implemented. We have done all we can at this stage to ensure that it is implemented.

Will the Minister confirm that the hill areas in this country which receive assistance, and the grants, will remain roughly similar?

I do not want to disagree. "Roughly" is, I think, the word.

(Vale of Belvoir)

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make an official visit to the Vale of Belvoir, Leicestershire, in order to meet livestock farmers there.

I have no present intentions to make an official visit to the Vale of Belvoir. I have had full discussions with representatives of the farming community and am well aware of the present situation of livestock farmers.

I regret that answer. As the 50p pig subsidy has not stopped the level of sow slaughtering so far, what confidence has the right hon. Gentleman that keeping it going next month, at the present amount, will reduce that level of slaughtering?

I have said in reply to Questions, and have repeated it in speeches when pressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that if I felt that the subsidy should continue I should take action. That is what I have done. I am carefully watching the market.

Will my right hon. Friend accept some of the invitations to visit certain areas? If Conservative Members are to make political noises as friends of the farmers, will he go to those areas to tell the farmers that the Conservatives are making dupes of them? Conservative Members appear as their champions and then, when it comes to a vote in the House, instead of their having a majority of 19, we have a majority of 11. On the occasion to which I am referring they pulled 30 Members out of the Lobby. The farmers might be interested in that.

Many farm leaders have noted the Opposition's attitude, especially on a crucial debate. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many farmers very much regret that he will not visit fanners from widely varied constituencies or allow them to come here to meet him? Does he recall that I have been trying to persuade him to meet my farmers since 11th April, and that he gave as his reply to my request the fact that he did not think it would be helpful to meet farmers from any particular area? Will he accept that my farmers and many others take the opposite view, and feel that it would do him a great deal of good to meet ordinary working farmers and not only their national officials, good though they are?

I am continually in touch with the farming community and farming leaders. Moreover, I have told the hon. Lady that I shall be delighted to see her at my Ministry if she wishes, at any time, to discuss the problems of her constituents. [Interruption.] She is the representative of her constituents, and I am sure that she will be able to put their point of view adequately and eloquently.

The trouble in the debate was that the Minister gave no hope to the industry. Is he aware that we on the Conservative benches are interested in the consumer? Are not Labour Members aware that if there are shortages, prices go up? Does not the Minister agree that the fact that there were 15 per cent. fewer gilts in pig in the first quarter of this year compared with last year means shortages and higher prices? What will he do about it?

I am rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman, who was Chief Whip in the previous Government. He knows that his own leader said that he would reduce prices at a stroke, and look what happened.

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

Under the provisions of Section 6 of the European Communities Act 1972 the Intervention Board is charged with certain functions in respect of the United Kingdom's obligations under the EEC's common agricultural policy. The board will continue to fulfill these subject to any changes which may occur as a result of renegotiation.

Is it not becoming increasingly clear that the Intervention Board system in this country is inapplicable? Is the Minister aware that many farmers all over the country would much prefer to go back to the pre-1970 system of guarantees and support?

I am well aware of that. I have been made especially aware of it when I have met farmers and representatives of the industry. They much preferred the old system—the guarantee system—which I am proud to say was basically introduced by the first Labour Government after the war. It worked well. I think that intervention is not working well in Europe. The hon. Gentleman has a very important point.

When the Opposition spokesman speaks about an interest in Community prices, is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Conservative Party was in government it was responsible for entry to the Common Market and the change to the Intervention Board system, and that it is the Intervention Board that is taking food off the market in order to keep prices high? When 200 farmers v/ere here last week they showed that they do not want that.

My hon. Friend confirms that there is disquiet about a policy which bases its support for the market on intervention. I feel that intervention is not working even in Europe. For that reason I obtained an option when I went to Europe the first time.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to intervention, which is becoming well known to us all, will he tell us what the Intervention Board is having to do? Would it make him much happier if he renamed it the "Non-intervention Board"?

The right hon. Gentleman has made a strange intervention. He knows that the board exists and that it is concerned with refunds on imports of agricultural produce from member States. I am talking about our Intervention Board. It provides aid—private storage, and so on. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) was criticising the intervention system which operates basically in Europe. On either side of the House there is disquiet on this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with Ministers of the EEC.

The meeting of Agriculture Ministers of the EEC scheduled for 21st May has been postponed. I was at a previous one on 7th May.

Is the right hon. Gentleman making sure that his Department is keeping itself informed of the arrangements for fuel oil subsidies for horticulturists in other member countries of the Community? Will he bear in mind that before long some of the glasshouse growers will need to know what the situation will be after the end of this year so that they can plan their programme? When he meets his colleagues will he bear that matter in mind?

Yes, I shall bear that in mind. I introduced a subsidy which I believe was welcomed by the industry. I think that what we gave was much better than what was provided in any other European country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the present agricultural difficulties are completely due to the abandonment of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments by the previous Government? Has my right hon. Friend noted the speech of Sir John Stratton on Monday of this week, advocating a return to guaranteed prices as a long-term solution?

As the House will know, I was probably the only Minister who declared an interest in FMC when I was, I think, a successful member of the board. I have noted what Sir John has said. I do not want to repeat replies that I have already given.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nostalgia for the deficiency payments system does not strike an echo with the farmers who have memories of that system? Does he agree that the way in which the system was operated by his right hon. and hon. Friends between 1965 and 1970 led to virtual stagnation throughout the agricultural industry?

I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman is being partisan. If he compares the price review awards during the years that he has mentioned with those that were granted during the previous Conservative administration he will find that the Labour Party has a good record. There is no question about that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was a major meeting of agricultural workers in this House the other night? When he eventually meets the EEC Ministers will he take steps to raise the problem of getting rid of the tied cottage in Britain, in Europe and throughout the world?

I note what my hon. Friend says. Indeed, I must take note of his words because of the position of our friends in the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. There is a Question on the Order Paper on this matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since he has taken away the floor in the market we and the agricultural industry are glad to know that he is thinking of bringing back some kind of guarantee? Has he worked out the cost? Does he realise that one of the problems of the guarantee system was the rising bill? That was one reason, when he was Minister of Agriculture before, for the system getting into difficulties. Has the right hon. Gentleman worked out the cost and who will pay?

We have specific proposals and we shall put them to the industry. I know the cost of the intervention policy which is pursued in the Community. 1 believe that good meat put into store is bad for the producer and for the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman should know that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will include specific reference to the ownership and size of farms and farm holdings in the long-term discussions he proposes to have on agriculture with representatives of the industry.

Yes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Agriculture is not the only cross that the farming community has to bear? Does he realise that the community looks with considerable apprehension at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plan to introduce a wealth tax of the kind that is advocated by his hon Friends below the Gangway? Does he realise that such a tax spells death for the family farmer? Will he give an undertaking that it is the intention that this tax shall be administered only in a way which will enable the continuance of the family farmer?

The wealth tax will be outlined in a Green Paper, which will be subject to discussion. We are well aware of the concern expressed by many farmers. There is no evidence to date that capital taxation has adversely affected the size of family farms.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I have gained the impression in the course of Question Time that no farmer will be liable to this kind of tax?

That deduction is easy to draw from the proceedings.

I feel that I should declare an indirect interest in a small unprofitable farm and a more direct interest in Cornish broccoli, early potatoes, beef, mutton and cheese. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that output per acre of small farms in this country is far greater than that of large farms? Is he aware that small farmers cannot survive unless there is a reasonable price level for their products?

That is a different question, which does not arise on the capital taxation of farms.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he proposes to encourage milk production so that there is enough to meet the requirements of cheese and butter.

We shall take whatever action may be considered necessary in the light of the Government's policy objective of maintaining maximum economic home production of milk, both for liquid consumption and for manufacture.

Why cannot the hon. Gentleman see that further subsidisation of liquid milk upsets the whole allocation of milk for manufacturing purposes, and that if he continues with this policy —as I am afraid will happen— there will be a shortage of cheese, and butter production will be cut by about half in this country? This really is nonsense.

Not quite so much nonsense as the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis. The extent of the subsidy of milk, which the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) supports, since he is all in favour of the consumer, will reflect only about 1 per cent. of the estimated increase in milk supplies. More cheese will be produced this year than last.

Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection about the fact that cheese is already in very short supply? One of the bigger grocers in my constituency informed me last weekend that cheese was no longer available to him from the creamery concerned because it had ceased producing cheese, owing to the shortage of milk.

I do not know about a particular plant in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but if he has a case to raise I hope that he will write to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. I repeat: the outlook is as I have described it.

I should declare an interest. I have a window box in the upstairs window of my bungalow. Is my hon. Friend aware that three months before the demise of the Conservative Government there was a grave possibility, for the first time in the history of Great Britain, of our having to import liquid milk for all purposes? As a result of the discussions which are now taking place between Ministers and the farmers, some confidence appears to have been restored among dairy farmers. The milk subsidy given to farmers as a propaganda stunt by the Conservative Government during the election was absorbed almost before it was given, by the increase in the cost of feeding stuffs.

Judging by the reaction of Opposition Members to what my hon. Friend has said, that appears to be the case. What they are saying, in effect, is that the award they gave at the end of February was too late. By their present complaining on the matter they are also suggesting that it was too little.

Contrary to what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) has said, there was never any likelihood of importing liquid milk. Does the Minister of State recall saying, not long ago, that if we did run short of cheese we could easily import it? Does not that fly right in the face of what the Minister of Agriculture himself says about wanting to grow as much agricultural produce in this country as possible?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got his quote from but it is wrong. I pointed out that in previous years we had had to import cheese and other milk products, and that the same would apply this year. I have already given the House the prediction. If there is a shortage of milk it is not caused by the consumer subsidy, which affects about 1 per cent. of the increased uptake. If anything is going wrong it is because, as the Opposition now accept, the Conservative Government gave an insufficient award in February. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will define what he considers to be unrealistic levels of market prices of beef given current costs of production.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate, on the last convenient date, as to the loss sustained per animal, in the context of beef fattening, by a farmer marketing.

The economics of beef production vary widely according to the methods employed. Precise assessments of profitability depend on individual circumstances.

I hope that the House will excuse me if I do not declare at length my direct or indirect interest in the production of beef. Is not the present price level below that at which it is economic for farmers to produce? Is it not time the Minister faced up to the situation and stopped playing politics with the nation's beef supplies?

I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman. We are doing nothing of the kind. We gave a major injection to the beef industry following my right hon. Friend's discussions in Brussels in early March. It was a much-needed injection. Secondly, we have demonstrated our intention to act where necessary by doing what we did for pig production this week. We shall act if we need to.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the state of beef producers has never been worse than it is today? If he is not aware of it, will he and the Minister of Agriculture take an armoured car and come to Leicestershire with an escort and find out from the producers there what they think of the Government and their policies?

As it happens, I visited Leicestershire a week ago and met a large number of farmers connected with the beef industry.

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government will act if necessary. Is he aware that the size of the herd is falling considerably? Is that not against the national interest? Will he define the circumstances in which the need will arise? When will he act?

According to the March livestock inquiry, the national breeding herd expanded by almost 4 per cent. in the previous 12 months, while the beef herd rose by 21 per cent. Admittedly, the dairy herd declined by 1.2 per cent. If the situation deteriorates we shall act. This week we have demonstrated our willingness to act.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the principal bacon curing factory in Kent is closing down; and if he will take steps so that Kent butchers can continue to get their products cured.

I have heard that a bacon factory in Kent has closed down. However, alternative bacon curing facilities are available.

That is an extraordinary answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one pig producer had to take some pigs about 50 miles in order to have them cured? This is against the interests of the pig, the pig producer and the consumer.

We recognise that the local circumstances created transport difficulties for farmers, but there was little that the Government could do in the immediate situation. Action had been taken very quickly. We are sorry about the effect on pig producers. We are pleased that, partly by the assistance of others in the area, an alternative factory was found.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what duties on beef imports from outside the EEC at present prevail.

Imports of beef from developing Commonwealth countries are not subject to duty. Other Commonwealth imports are subject to duties at 8 per cent., while imports from third countries are subject to rates of up to 11 per cent. These charges are to an extent offset by monetary compensatory amounts in many cases.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the present state of affairs may be satisfactory from the point of view of consumers but is disastrous to home beef producers, and that, in consequence, home beef prices are bound to rise dramatically next year?

Yes—if some of the worst predictions of certain hon. Members opposite are fulfilled, but I do not see much sign of that at the moment. I think the point of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was the effect of imports upon beef prices, but I do not see the relationship between that and the question of increasing beef production in this country.

Why does my hon. Friend not remove these duties and allow us to get back to the sensible agricultural policy we had before we entered the Common Market?

My hon. Friend knows the answer to the first part of his supplementary question. In reply to the second part, I agree that from all sections of industry there has been increasing demand for a return to the deficiency payments system.

In that case, will the hon. Gentleman join us in the European Parliament in trying to get annulled the order whereby if one imports meat from third countries one has to import an equivalent amount of European meat from cold stores? Will Labour Members join us in getting that restriction lifted?

The British Government have an effective voice, in the shape of my right hon. Friend, in discussions in the Council of Ministers, where it is proper that he should make the case for Britain.

(Export for Slaughter)

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in considering the findings of the O'Brien Committee; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his consultations with interested parties regarding the export of live animals for slaughter following the report of the O'Brien Committee.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has so far made in his consultations with interested organisations and with Ministers of EEC countries on the report of the committee on the export of animals for slaughter; and by what date he hopes to have completed these consultations.

We have invited interested parties to let us have comments on the committee's recommendations by 24th May and we shall study these carefully. Arrangements are in hand for discussions in the European Community. We shall reach conclusions as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend has already given an assurance that we shall not resume export licensing for animals for slaughter at least until the O'Brien Report has been debated.

The right hon. Gentleman has been sitting on the report ever since he came into office, like a politically-motived broody hen. Is it not a fact that the committee found that the House was fundamentally misguided, and that hon. Members on the Government side were clearly politically motivated in banning the export of live animals last autumn on humanitarian grounds? In view of the damage that this is doing to the confidence of livestock producers, and its long-term detriment to the housewife, will the House be given the opportunity to reverse the decision as soon as possible?

The House will be allowed to debate the issue as soon as possible, but I can hold out no hope for an early debate. I cannot accept that we have sat on the report. As soon as the report was available we started consultations, which are now about to end. We shall study them and produce our conclusions as quickly as possible and then we shall have a debate.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he is not able to do that fairly soon the farming community will feel that he is deliberately delaying something which could help in the present difficult situation, and that those who are concerned with animal welfare will feel that he does not want to take the opportunity to do what the O'Brien Committee laid the ground for, namely, to build up a system of animal welfare safeguards across Europe?

The House of Commons decided that there should be restraint on the export of live animals to the Continent. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that there are strong feelings on both sides on this issue. We think it is worth while taking a little time to get the matter right in the end.

Bearing in mind the fact that the difference in profit between the export of live animals and carcases is only marginal, and perhaps based on the deplorable conditions of European slaughterhouses, would it not be better to abolish this monstrous trade instead of subsidising it by appointing a gang of inspectors who may be as easily hoodwinked as the O'Brien Committee?

I note my hon. Friend's comment, but having embarked on the road of consultation I think we had better see where that leads us before going elsewhere.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the animals involved are mature and specially bred for the European market, and that as that market is not now available the prices of these animals on the home market is disastrously low and is responsible for the tremendous fall in prices in the past few months?

The hon. Gentleman may take it that we are aware of the general effect of the situation by now.

Will the hon. Gentleman not admit that it is better for the House to reach a decision from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance as the House did in relation to the ban on the export of live animals for slaughter? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the NFU is overwhelmingly in favour of the restrictions being lifted immediately? Does he not agree that overweight bullocks and barren cows have fetched extremely good prices in Europe and that it would help the beef and livestock sector very much if the ban could be lifted?

I am all in favour of a decision being based upon knowledge rather than ignorance. I have never thought that the House of Commons was an ignorant body.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now operate the Common Market mechanisms for price support in the livestock sector or otherwise introduce alternative mechanisms such as price guarantees or subsidies related to a feed formula.

I have already given substantial help to beef and pig producers, and I have now announced further help for pig producers in my reply to a Written Question to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain).— [Vol. 874, c. 199-200.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has now come for him to tell the British housewife the truth, and that unless she pays economic prices for food today her children and grandchildren may not have any food in five or 10 years' time?

I think that the Government are right to have direct subsidies on certain foods. This has been accepted. We have fulfilled an election pledge. At the same time, I believe that to stimulate our own home agriculture is important.

To what extent is withdrawal of the lime and fertilisers subsidies having an effect on the cost of feeding livestock? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with five of my Liberal colleagues I went to meet the Commissioner for Agriculture in Brussels yesterday and we were told that there had been no consultations with the EEC about this withdrawal—let alone its being caused by EEC regulations? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the lime and fertilisers subsidies should be restored to the full amounts?

The hon. Gentleman knows that these two subsidies were abolished by the previous administration. I am now under pressure to restore them. I know that many of my hon. Friends in touch with the farming industry would like to have the lime subsidy restored. I am considering the matter.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider including representatives from the Co-operative Movement and the Shop Stewards Committee of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders on the proposed Royal Commission on the Press so that alternative methods of ownership can be investigated.

I have taken note of my hon.) Friend's suggestion. The membership of the Royal Commission has not yet been settled but I hope to make an announcement as early as possible after Parliament resumes.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that at present the Press is owned by a tightly-knit group of politically motivated men and that both journalists and printers have the right to participate in ownership and control of newspapers in cases where capitalist owners have failed to keep them going? Should not the Royal Commission take this matter into account?

I do not agree 100 per cent. with what was contained 'in the beginning of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I cannot think that there was anything in it that cannot be dealt with by the Royal Commission.

Will the Prime 1 Minister now indicate whether the Government intend to take any initiative or action on the position of Beaverbrook I Newspapers in Scotland?

The hon. 'Gentleman, who has expressed great concern about this matter, will know that it I was not possible to avert the closure, for reasons which were explained to the House when this matter was discussed in the debate on the Press last week. The hon. Gentleman will also know that there has been a feasibility study on proposals for having a continuing newspaper in r Scotland, and I gather that those concerned are still examining the implications. As my right hon. Friend said in I the debate on the Press, we are prepared to discuss with those concerned any help which we can give.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has now made any arrangements to meet the new President of France.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet arranged an official meeting with the President of France.

As I told the House on 9th May, I look forward to maintaining close contact with the new President of France, but there are no immediate plans for a meeting.

What approach has been made to the French President on the subject of nuclear testing in the Pacific?

The new French President has not yet assumed office nor, indeed, has he appointed his Government. We shall, of course, hope to have very close relationships with him and his Government after he has assumed office and his Government have been appointed. As far as I know there is no declared decision on what the new Government will be. I cannot at the moment say what it would be right to say to a President not yet in office and a Government not yet formed on a matter about which there has been no French announcement.

The Government have made it plain that they do not regard economic and monetary union as feasible, certainly not until the 1980s, but will the Prime Minister make it clear to the French President that the Government do not regard it as desirable?

Since the summit conference chaired by the previous President of France there has been a considerable cooling off on this matter on the part of most European nations, mainly on grounds of feasibility. There are some who do not think it is desirable.

asked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to pay an official visit to Luxembourg.

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

In this age of registration may I ask my right hon. Friend, if he cannot get to Luxembourg, to send for a copy of the Luxembourg register to establish, each month, whether any money is drawn by Tories and Liberals who are members of the European Assembly by way of payments made at the end of each plenary session? Perhaps he will establish from President Berkhouwer, who instituted the inquiry, how many people were involved, the allegations that arise therefrom—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Will he, finally—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, why is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) allowed to ask questions which are longer than those which other hon. Members are allowed to ask?

This is a matter for me. Interruptions from the other side of the House merely prolong the question. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has said "finally" and I hope that he means it.

Finally, may I ask my right hon. Friend not to give me the type of answer I have been receiving on this matter from the Minister of State, to the effect that there has not been any scandal, when the pro-Market "Top People's" paper has been reporting the facts at some length?

I have not seen any suggestion that Opposition Members have been involved in the problems to which the President of the Assembly drew attention. Indeed, I seem to recollect the President's saying that he was not referring to anyone from the United Kingdom. Attendance allowances are paid in accordance with the rules of the Assembly. They are paid out of Community funds. If my hon. Friend, or any other hon. Member, has any idea that money which ultimately, in part, comes from this country is being abused I hope that they will let me or my right hon. Friend have the evidence. Certainly, if my hon. Friend has any idea that any hon. Members of this House are doing this I am sure he will bring such evidence as he may have to the appropriate authority in the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that the time has now come in the lifetime of this Parliament when he should use the moral authority which attaches to his high office to bring to an end the endless muck-raking which has become a symptom of this Parliament?

I tried to do so in the speech I made in Glasgow a week last Sunday—a speech which was the subject of many Questions this Tuesday. I would not say that I was 100 per cent, successful.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in that speech he tried to associate the affair of which he disapproves, quite rightly, with one side of the House? Is he aware that we welcome the fact that he has now repudiated muck-raking from his own side?

The question was put to me and I asked for evidence. The same would apply to any hon. Member of the House on any issue where there is a suspicion that people have behaved improperly, whether in local or national government. They should give their evidence to the appropriate authorities— the authorities of this House, the Government, the Leader of the Opposition, or the police, wherever there has been an allegation of corruption.

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

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

Will the Prime Minister answer a question which is being asked in Derbyshire—by those dependent upon Rolls-Royce—as well as in the rest of the country wherever people are concerned about defence and engineering export orders? Who gave the Government the mandate to order the cancellation of commercial contracts between private companies and overseas customers? Does streaking into Downing Street with a minority vote empower the Prime Minister to put at risk vast sections of British industry and export orders? When will he stop taking his orders from Mr. Hugh Scanlon and have the guts to stand up for British interests?

The hon. Gentleman asked me by whose authority this was done. These matters were in issue during the election. I spoke about them. We received that authority. As for the point about Rolls-Royce workers in Derby, or elsewhere, the hon. Gentleman may have noticed what I said the other day about the number of workers involved. I think that the work involved represents about 01 per cent. of the turnover of Rolls-Royce. There is no reason to think that future orders have been imperilled here, except in the case of Chile and South Africa, on which I very clearly answered a question put to me the other day. Turning to Mr. Scanlon —one day we shall get through Questions without hon. Gentlemen revealing their bogy man obsession on this matter—I referred to the fact that we were already dealing with the question of Chilean engines before any statement was made by Mr. Scanlon or anyone else in the trade union movement.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) has not asked Rolls-Royce workers in Derby whether they support their colleagues in East Kilbride, who refused to do work which would have meant supplying these weapons to a Government of murderers? Does he also accept that in Derby, as elsewhere, we know a moral issue when we see it, and know those without moral principles when we see them?

That is my impression of the workers at Derby, from meetings I have held with my hon. Friend and his colleagues who represent Derby.

That is not what they told me.

You have not spoken to them.

As I tried to make clear last week—I certainly have more respect for the hon. Member than I have for the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) who put a similar question—we must not, I hope, get the impression from the Opposition that they hate Hugh Scanlon more than they hate the murderous Chilean regime.

Leaving Mr. Scanlon out of the question—and I do not believe that he is particularly relevant—has the Prime Minister any real grounds for differentiating between the Allende régime in Chile and the present one?

There are 15,000 of them.

I welcome the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman put his question. It is an improvement on last time. I think that the answer to it is in the form of the many thousands of people who have been murdered by the present régime.

The Prime Minister has not answered my question. Has he any grounds at all for excusing the Allende r régime of the crimes of which he now accuses the present r régime?

I thought I had answered that question. In case I was not clear, the answer is that the differentiation is twofold. First, there is the large number of people who have been murdered and terrorised by this Chilean junta. Second, President Allende was elected, but this r régime was not.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, whatever may be the consequences, in terms of job losses, of the cancellation of the contracts with Chile and South Africa, they are as nothing compared with the job losses which would have occurred if the previous Government had not made a complete U-turn and decided to nationalise a private industry to preserve jobs?

Yes. I feel that my right hon. Friend's question, which was more to the point than some of the other supplementaries, seems to be as far from Derbyshire and the Derby workers as the question put by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost).

Will the right hon. Gentleman now clarify for the House the issue of principle on which the Government have reached their decision? Will he explain the difference between halting the servicing of existing aircraft engines supplied by Rolls-Royce and the supply of spares, yet continuing to build frigates and submarines for the regime about which he has used such unparliamentary language? Is the issue of principle the fact that other countries can service Rolls-Royce engines and supply spares but only we can build frigates and submarines?

I shall explain to the right hon. Gentleman the point about the decision on the frigates, which was announced by my right hon. Friend. The work on those has been substantially completed. Three of the frigates have, I think, been handed over to the Chilean authorities. It would raise very many deep questions of international law if we were to send boarding parties to take them over. Many of them are already on exercises. As for the submarines, I thought that the last word on those was pronounced by an AUEW member last week, quoted in "Sayings of the Week" in the Observer, who said:

"If it is alleged that submarines can be used against Chilean workers, they must have sanguinary big drains in Chile."

May we take it that the Government's policy is that the Government are perfectly prepared to supply weapons which cannot be used for internal repression against the workers—for example, frigates, submarines and other forms of arms?

The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not studied this situation. To keep in order, if the right hon. Gentleman will talk to the workers in Derby he will get the answer. I was referring to work which has been done —past contracts. We announced at the beginning of April that no more arms contracts will be signed with Chile. That makes utter nonsense of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. There will be no more arms sales to Chile. We have explained the position with regard to the ships and the submarines, work on which is now largely completed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the recent exchange the Leader of the Opposition accused my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of using unparliamentary language, as will appear in the record tomorrow. I believe that it is in your discretion to decide what is and what is not unparliamentary language. Can it be that the Leader of the Opposition, like the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), is so anxious to get his hands on blood money that he seeks to use that ploy to question my right hon. Friend?

I do not detect a point of order.