asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the other EEC countries about assistance to glasshouse growers after June

asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the other EEC partners on the problems facing glasshouse growers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the progress of his negotiations with the EEC over national aids to the glasshouse sector of the horticultural industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with his opposite numbers in the EEC countries about Community arrangements for the glasshouse sector of the horticulture industry after June.

We are awaiting proposals, which are expected very shortly, from the EEC Commission.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great disappointment which all glasshouse growers will feel at that thoroughly inadequate reply? Is he further aware of the reply which I received from Mr. Lardinois in the European Parliament in which he expressed extreme sympathy with the British glasshouse growers and undertook to approach the Minister personally on this subject? May I ask whether such an approach has been made by Mr. Lardinois and, if so. what was the result?

The on. Gentleman has raised a number of points, but his Question relates to proposals which we know the Commission will bring forward from the end of June with regard to horticulture and especially glasshouse growers. The second point he raised related to a reply which I understand Mr. Lardinois gave him when he raised this matter with him. We have received no approach from Mr. Lardinois, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a decision which will be taken by the Government of this country on the basis of our own best interests.

When will the Minister show, by performance and not words, that he sincerely wishes to encourage the growth of home-grown food, and when will he recognise representations made by the glasshouse industry, in which I have an interest, and by the European Commission as my hon. Friend has intimated?

The Government have made it absolutely clear that they are committed to the continuance of a successful indigenous horticulture industry. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the aid which the Government moved quickly to grant last year in total compares favourably with the aid received by any other EEC country.

Will the Minister confirm that his deplorable decision not to extend the subsidy pending the EEC negotiations was motivated solely by energy-saving reasons rather than by any concern for British growers?

All Government decisions have to be taken on the basis of all factors affecting our national economy. This country has to adjust to the facts of life of high energy prices and very large oil imports.

It is all very well for the Minister to repeat that the Government are dedicated to the survival of a viable glasshouse industry, but what the industry wants is action and not simply words. Will he make sure that the proposals which the Commission plans to bring forward come forward as rapidly as possible? Will he support the proposals of COPA for a continuing fuel subsidy on a degressive basis?

It would be quite inconsistent for the Government to support the COPA proposal for a degressive oil subsidy, having refused to extend the subsidy beyond 31st December 1974. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we wish the Commission to come forward quickly with its proposals, which are intended to have effect from 1st July this year. The future of our horticulture industry and the policies we pursue will depend to some extent on these proposals and on whether we remain a member of the European Community.

Does not my hon. Friend accept that our producers are at a disadvantage compared with their continental counterparts? While he is waiting for a decision to be reached, might not some producers go out of business and never be able to come back again? In these circumstances, is there not a necessity for immediate action to be taken? We cannot wait for that action until these discussions are concluded.

I recognise my hon. Friend's deep concern for the glasshouse growers in his constituency. I cannot accept that the assistance which we have provided is less favourable than that provided in other Community countries.

Will the Minister consider setting up a British horticultural board with statutory powers to safeguard the interests of the producers of this country if that were their wish?

I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. There is still great scope for more co-operative marketing of horticultural produce in this country.

Is the Minister aware that the glasshouse sector of the horticulture industry is suffering from a major crisis mainly because of the Government's failure to act now? Has he noticed that, in referring to the British Government's refusal to continue the subsidy on oil, Mr. Lardinois in his reply said that he believed it was desirable that the British Government should make use of the authorisation? What will the Minister do about that? Does he realise that everyone is against the Government on this and that, if we are not careful, we shall suffer from a shortage of glasshouse produce later in the year?

I am not sure whether it is the Opposition's policy to take their lead on agriculture from Mr. Lardinois, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to take decisions on the basis of our assessment of the national interest.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about measures to assist horticulture.

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

Our policy continues to be to encourage growers, principally through capital grants and the help available from the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, to modernise and where appropriate expand their production.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the growers whom I have the honour to represent do not want to be featherbedded and that what they want is fair competition with other Europeans? Is the hon. Gentleman of the opinion that the new measures from the Community to come into effect at the end of June will provide our growers with fair competition, and will he explain why the fuel subsidy could not have been continued for the few months until the new measures become effective?

As I have explained, I cannot comment on the proposals from the Commission which are intended to have effect from Ist July without knowing what they are, just as the hon. Gentleman cannot comment on them without knowing what they are. I agree that we are against unfair competition in respect of glasshouse growers and other sections of agriculture, but our assistance compares favourably with that of other EEC countries. At the end of the day, as has always been the case, whether we are inside or outside the Community, the glasshouse growers will have to get their returns from the market place.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many growers in my constituency warmly welcomed the Government's introduction of the subsidy and are bitterly disappointed that it has not been continued? They would echo the comment of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) that they do not want to he subsidised or feather-bedded but want to be able to compete fairly with products from abroad that are subsidised. Does my hon. Friend believe that the glasshouse industry has a future, given the difficulties that it is facing and the bankruptcies that are likely to occur? Will he comment on the suggestion that is gaining currency in the EEC that grants should be paid to glasshouse growers so that they can close down production?

I understand the disappointment felt by my hon. Friend and his constituents at the Government's decision not to extend the subsidy. The subsidy was announced as being of a temporary nature and it is inevitable that there should be disappointment when it comes to an end. Certainly we see a future for the horticulture industry. My hon. Friend and his constituents will be encouraged by the present firming-up of tomato prices. If the present weather continues and the demand for salad continues to increase, prices will rise even further. We cannot comment on the Commission's proposals until they are made, but we understand that they might include the measure referred to by my hon. Friend.

When will the junior Minister grow up and learn that the horticulture industry comprises seven entirely separate sections? His replies to Questions Nos. 1 and 2 were given in two separate groups, but the answers we have received so far have all been in reply to Question No. 1. Will the hon. Gentleman please answer the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the other sectors of the horticulture industry? Will he please be a little more forthcoming and, instead of refusing invitations as he did in a letter to me this morning, go out and meet horticulturists and cease living in an ivory tower in Whitehall?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have noticed that nearly all the supplementary qustions related to the glasshouse industry. That is why my answers related to that section of the horticulture industry. The glasshouse sector and tomato-growing in particular constitute a small proportion of the total industry, and the industry as a whole will continue to benefit from the generous capital grants and from the improved advisory service which has been made available. As in the past, the industry will stand or fall on its own efforts.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he intends introducing in order to restore confidence in forestry.

None, although my right hon. Friends will naturally keep under review the workings of the new Dedication Scheme and other provisions introduced last year, as well as the effects of the taxation relief recently given in Section 9 of this year's Finance Act.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a 40 per cent. reduction in the acreage of new trees planted this winter compared with 12 months ago? How does he reconcile that with his pledge to expand home forestry, particularly in view of the implications of capital transfer tax?

I am not sure whether the 40 per cent. reduction refers to total planting or solely to the private sector. Figures for the year ending 31st March are not yet available, but my right hon. Friend introduced a specific concession for private forestry.

Is the Minister aware that on the west coast of Scotland ordinary working people will lose their jobs through the Government's inability to appreciate the importance of forestry?

I totally reject the suggestion that the Government did not appreciate the importance of forestry. We want to see a large planting programme and we want to reverse the sharp and continuing decline in planting by the Forestry Commission which occurred under the previous Conservative Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation; and whether he will make a statement.

Before I answer the Question, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on his appointment and promotion. I wish him well in his job.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that producers seemingly still do not like the idea of essentially co-operative efforts such as the Meat Marketing Board and the Fresh Vegetables Development Council? Against the background of his recent White Paper, will my right hon. Friend undertake to have a further look at ways of strengthening the work of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation and encourage producers on a voluntary basis to improve their production and especially their marketing?

Yes, I accept that. Already the council has acted. A new agricultural marketing policy committee was set up last April. There are 16 development officers who specialise in different matters and who cover the whole range of farming activities. The council has been strengthened and I am very proud that I set it up.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the falling numbers of stock shown in the latest returns published by his Department, what plans he has to halt this trend in the interests of the consumer.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him and other hon. Members on 20th March—[Vol. 888, c. 1845.]—and to last week's White Paper.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is presiding over a shrinking British agriculture industry? Does he realise that that is no good for the farmers, no good for the consumers and no good for the country? Will he bear in mind that the White Paper will be of no use unless it is backed up with firm, hard cash so as to get the increased production? Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves office, which obviously will not be very long now, will he reverse this downward trend? Is he aware that if he does not do so he will be known as the Minister who failed to safeguard the future of British agriculture for the consumer?

The hon. Gentleman is always moaning about the industry and spreading gloom. He knows full well that I acted quickly and that the February price determinations were accepted by the farming community as reasonable and satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the downward trend to which he has referred occurred under the administration of which he was a junior Minister. I am seeking to reverse that trend, and after long discussions the White Paper has been accepted and blessed by the farmers'unions in principle.

First, may I say how grateful I am for the kind remarks that the Minister made a few minutes ago. Is he aware that we wholeheartedly welcome the most important White Paper that was published last week? Does he understand that many of my hon. Friends and many people in the industry have reservations because we have heard similar expressions of desire by Labour Governments in the past which have not been backed by cash? Is he aware that I heard of one farmer saying that he regarded the White Paper as being rather similar to being invited out to dinner and then being given nothing to eat? Does he realise that the best thing he can do today for the industry, if he means what he says in the White Paper, is to give us a straight answer and to give us an absolute assurance that the cash will be found to implement the laudable targets that the Government have set themselves?

First, I must say that the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in his view of the history of agricultural support and the expansion programme. I can remember Tom Williams'expansion programme of 1947. The resources were given and the national plan was a reasonable and sensible plan. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the White Paper in principle. Of course it is to be backed up by resources. That is a matter which will be finally decided. We must remember that there is to be a referendum. Given that situation, we—in the Community—will determine the parts of aid which will be given from FEOGA funds and other national funds. We must await that determination. We are, however, determined to accomplish our objectives.

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about his recent meeting with other Ministers of Agriculture of the European Community.

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with Common Market Agriculture Ministers.

On 15th April the Council of Agricultural Ministers found a solution to the current problems of the Community wine market. It also approved my request for an urgent reappraisal of the common fisheries policy to be undertaken in preparation for possible changes in the law of the sea following the current United Nations Conference. I have arranged for a copy of my statement to the Council on this to be placed in the Library of the House.

Will the Minister confirm that when the pound is slipping, as it has been this week after the Budget, the monetary compensation arrangements built into the CAP, although they present problems, substantially protect the British housewife from the rise in food prices which she would otherwise be suffering?

Yes, I accept that. I recognise how important they are to the consumer and, indeed, to our livestock industry as regards feed costs. I am most grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Now that we have a temporary deficiency payments system for beef to support the British farmer, may I ask whether any proposals were made at the meeting for ending the present EEC ban on all beef imports which is holding up the price unreasonably against the consumer?

I have raised this matter personally and I was given concessions affecting two smaller African countries. This matter has been urgently studied by the Management Committee and there will be a report. When we are discussing the stocktaking document I shall raise the matter again. I am glad that my right hon. Friend approves of the beef régime which I obtained. I can assure him that we shall hang on to it.

Does the Minister agree that the agreement achieved at the conference on the wine surplus is an excellent example of how co-operation within the framework of the EEC can overcome difficulties such as surplus production of foodstuffs, and by so doing stabilise prices for the membership of the EEC?

I think that I broadly accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that the dispute between France and Italy, which emerged for reasons that all hon. Members will know, has been resolved. I hope that shows that we can do certain things of that nature ourselves.

Will my right hon. Friend tell me whether he has had any discussions with his colleagues in the EEC about the problems facing British cane sugar workers? Is he aware that the workers in my constituency, whose jobs are now threatened by a glut of cheap continental sugar, cannot understand the situation in which only a few months ago their jobs were threatened because of a gross shortage of sugar? What steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to bring about a satisfactory state of affairs for the cane sugar industry?

I thought that the fact that I was able to obtain subsidised sugar for the benefit of the British housewife, through an assurance from Commissioner Lardinois, was an important concession that could be praised. I also thought that the long-term agreement, which in many ways was better than the old Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, was a decision which was warmly praised by the workers in the industry. I met the workers last week and explained the situation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are delighted that he is one of the Ministers who have decided to recommend a "Yes" vote in the referendum? Will he point to what are the most important reasons which led him to come to that decision?

The most important reason was that I was able to achieve success. I achieved certain matters on which I fought the election. I believe that it is necessary to face facts, to be honest and to take certain action.

Does my right hon. Friend think that it is a sensible solution to turn wine, which has been produced for human consumption, into industrial alcohol? What is the cost to the British taxpayer of that solution to the wine lake problem?

I do not think that one can disagree with distillation. That is a normal process in dealing with surpluses that occur for certain reasons. When good wine harvest occurs there is a surplus, and I would normally prefer to see that wine drunk. If my right hon. Friend wants to have a drink of wine with me afterwards, I shall be happy to join him.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the comment made last Saturday by the Vice-President of the NFU that two years in the EEC have proved beyond all doubt that the common agricultural policy can work in the best interests of both United Kingdom producers and consumers?

I read that report. I say to my hon. Friends who may be sceptics that I believe we have achieved all the basic principles on which we fought the election.

Will the Minister face the facts concerning the wine lake—namely, that if the Italians and the French over-produce wine, the British taxpayer will have to pay for the privilege of turning that surplus wine into industrial alcohol, which in turn will compete with industrial alcohol produced in this country? Why should the British pay?

I believe it is right that when there is a Community decision, we as members of the Community should make our contribution. I can think of many examples where we have benefited. The sugar subsidy agreed by Commissioner Lardinois will benefit our consumers and is paid for by German and French taxpayers. We must recognise that we are in a club. If one disagrees with what is being done, that is a different matter.

In regard to the sugar industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that he may have to look into the allegation that Tate and Lyle in Liverpool intends to become a packing and distribution agency and to pay much less regard to its refining responsibilities?

I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says. I am meeting some of the leaders of the industry tomorrow. I take note of what by hon. Friend said, but from what I know of the matter I cannot accept his criticism.

In view of the Minister's avowed intention to seek a guaranteed price for beef, which is extremely important to this country, what is the reaction of other Ministers in the Community to his suggestion that it should be a permanent feature? Secondly, has he raised the question of extending the system to sheep meat, which again is important for British farmers?

It has been argued by the French and Irish that there should be a sheep meat régime. I am sceptical about that proposal, and I should like to leave the situation as it is. In regard to the question of a guarantee or variable premium system, I believe that the system will be adopted even by other members of the Community. I believe that we should see how it works over a period of a year, at the end of which time the price mechanisms and structure can be examined by the Commission. I believe that we shall be able to convince the other Agriculture Ministers that it will be in their interests to practise what we are doing.

Is the Minister aware that we welcome the Government's belated interest in a common fisheries policy? What steps is he taking to make sure that the results of his discussions are known to Members of the House and to representatives of the industry? Will he accept that the new figures announced for herring quotas make it a matter of urgency for him to respond to Norway's initiative in negotiating for an exclusive 50-mile limit within the next six months?

It is not true that we are taking a belated interest in a common fisheries policy. I was critical of these matters on many occasions when Labour was in opposition and I asked for information on the subject. We must accept that when the Law of the Sea Conference has reported we may face a 200-mile economic zone. Inevitably, that will affect fishery limits. I do not accept that we should act immediately and unilaterally in respect of the 50-mile limit. Let us remember that Icelandic fishermen were condemned for doing just that.—[Interruption.] It is no good members of the Scottish National Party shouting at me. They know nothing about fishing. If they will look at the history of the matter and at the facts, they will see that I am right. I believe that we must act internationally. If somebody else acts unilaterally, we must of course be prepared to take action.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the common fisheries policy is in an almighty mess? Does he also agree that it was foisted upon us by the Conservative Government, who carried out no negotiations on this topic in the autumn of 1972? Is it not true that the Six then literally cooked up their fisheries policy in a few days before the treaty was signed? May we be assured that when my right hon. Friend returns after meeting his ministerial colleagues he will repeat the highly successful meeting which he had with the all-party fisheries committee in the House and that, indeed, we might have a seminar to give us some idea of what the common fisheries policy should be?

Of course I recognise the defects in this system, and my hon. Friend knows that I have said this publicly. This is why I believe that in the ongoing business of the Community we must seek to re-adapt it. This was what I said last week in the Council of Ministers at Luxembourg. I shall be only too pleased to arrange with my hon. Friend a further meeting of the all-party fisheries committee. We had a very good meeting on the last occasion.

Does the Minister accept that all responsible parliamentarians will agree that we should not take unilateral action, but does he at the same time agree that if the Law of the Sea Conference breaks up without agreement and other countries act unilaterally, we must move to protect British interests? Will he confirm that he made it clear to the EEC Ministers that there will be no question of full access to our beaches after 1982 by all other EEC fishing vessels?

I agree entirely with the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I made my point of view quite clear in the Community the other day. I said that we must not be caught napping—nor, indeed, must Europe, because, of course, Europe is a great consumer of fish. Those countries which may want to act unilaterally should be reminded that their markets could be affected if they take such silly action.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes have occurred in the value of the "Representative Rate" since the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome.

The United Kingdom representative rate, expressed in units of account per pound, was: 2.1644 from 1st February 1973 to 6th October 1974 and 2.0053 from 7th October 1974 to 2nd March 1975 and is now 1.96178.

Does the Minister feel that it is wholly undesirable that British farmers should have to contend with the vagaries of the international exchange rate as well as with the Government and the weather? Will he seek to pursue a policy which ensures that future changes in the exchange rate are reflected in the value of the green pound?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, when MCAs came into operation they were based on the fact that some currencies depreciated while others took another course of direction. We made two decisions. I am aware of the difficulties, but I believe that MCAs have brought considerable benefits to our consumers, and especially to livestock producers in respect of feed costs.

Is the Minister aware at the severe damage, including loss of employment, inflicted on the meat-processing industry in Ulster by the arbitrary difference between the representative rate for the Republic and that for sterling? Does he realise that the attempt to put the matter right will impose a further burden on the British taxpayer?

I accept that there was a problem in Northern Ireland following the decision by the Eire Government. I carried out consultations with the Minister representing Northern Ireland and I also met the farmers in Northern Ireland on this matter. As a result we have recently announced payments to bacon curers in Northern Ireland as a means of maintaining throughput and also employment in the bacon-curing industry. I think that that is the right action to take.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents have been reported to him alleging cruelty to animals that have been exported for slaughter since the ban on live exports was lifted; and what action he has taken over such reports.

The only report we have received concerns the incident that was the subject of the television programme on 20th March and about which my right hon. Friend made a statement to the House on 11th April.—[Vol. 889, c. 1597.]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but will he agree that he owes it to the livestock producers and to the public in general to assure them that he is keeping a lookout for abuses? When abuses occur, will he bring into play the full force of the law and the penalties which are available to deal with such abuses?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I assure him that the Government will make every effort to see that abuses do not occur.

Does my hon. Friend recall that when the farmers were pleading for this export ban to be lifted they prayed in aid the future of that industry and the fact that exports were derisory? In view of the fact that the Government cannot control acts of cruelty in respect of animals exported to third countries, will my hon. Friend reconsider the decision to lift the ban?

I agree that it is possible to exaggerate the size of this trade. That incident, which was highlighted by the BBC film, represented a contravention of French law. A prosecution is to take place. We are not granting licences for the export of animals to third countries where we are not satisfied with their safety requirements.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken to control rabbits on commons and land owned by Government Departments.

As with all other properties, rabbit control on such land is a statutory responsibility of the occupier. Technical advice is available from my Department. which also undertakes control measures on a common if the responsible occupier cannot be identified and if neighbouring properties are at significant risk from rabbit infestation.

Is there much encouragement in that answer to the farmer who is conscientiously dealing with his own rabbits only to find that his land is invaded by rabbits coming from common land or land under Government control?

I recognise the force of the hon. Gentleman's point. If he has one incident in mind, I shall be grateful if he will draw it to our attention. We shall take action if the owner of the common land is not facing up to his responsibilities.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the continuing need for an increase in the beet acreage, he will make an immediate announcement about an increased price for beet for the current year.

This is a matter for the British Sugar Corporation and the National Farmers'Union but I understand that the NFU and the BSC have just reached agreement on a formula for increasing the price paid to growers for their sugar beet and that details will be sent to growers very shortly.

Is the Minister aware that the present weather is creating havoc with the sowing of beet? In view of the need for the maximum uptake of the increased quota which his right hon. Friend negotiated, and bearing in mind that the increase in the sugar beet price negotiated at the February EEC Council of Ministers'meeting is a minimum and that there is still a 14 per cent. disparity between the price available to continental beet growers and United Kingdom beet growers, will the Minister consider taking steps, if the new price is insufficient, to make up that short-fall?

I hope that the settlement by the BSC and the National Farmer's Union will reassure growers. The price for the 1975 returns is expected to be approximately double that paid in 1972.

Will the Minister say what the increase is likely to be? If the matter has already been agreed, why cannot he say what the increase will be? Will he bear in mind the immense urgency of this matter? Farmers are making plans for planting sugar beet for this season.

An agreement was reached by the NFU and the BSC. The indications are that that will afford the assurance which is necessary to obtain the quota.

Will the Minister review the decision taken by the previous Government to close down the sugar beet factory in Cupar, Fife, an enterprise which was profitable and which provided much employment for the local community? Will he tell the House whether that was part of a deal with the EEC? If so, will he join with the Scottish National Party in urging that a White Paper should be produced specifically on Scottish issues for the EEC referendum?

With regard to the Irish situation, the Irish NFU said in a Press release—[HON. MEMBERS: "Wrong Question."] I do not know whether I should apologise to the hon. Lady for mistaking her accent. With regard to the Scottish situation, the position is that stated in the agreement between the BSC and the NFU.

asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet representatives of the CBI and the TUC in order to discuss the social contract.

As I have told the House, I met representatives of the TUC at Monday's informal meeting of the TUC-Labour Party Liaison Committee. Further meetings between the Government and the TUC, and also with representatives of the CBI, will be arranged as necessary.

Does the Prime Minister recognise, in view of the frightening unemployment figures announced today and the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, that he should arrange tripartite meetings with the representatives of the TUC and the CBI to tackle the problem of inflation, otherwise there will be even worse unemployment figures than those indicated by the Chancellor in his Budget speech?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the anxieties. The Chancellor and I regularly meet representatives of the CBI and the TUC at monthly NEDC meetings and on other occasions as may be necessary.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's economic policies have put 200,000 people out of work or on short-time working in the North-West Region alone? How many more hundreds of thousands of people are to be thrown on the slag heap of unemployment before the Government moderate and modify their policies of deliberately creating unemployment in a vain effort to contain inflation?

When the hon. Gentleman was elected last year there were over 2 million people unemployed as a result of the policies of the Conservative Government, of which he was a member, which their Front Bench defended and still defends, so far as I know. Concerning the increases since then, the country was warned before the February election to expect by last winter an even higher figure than that published today. That did not happen. However, we are doing everything within our power —and I should like the help of the Opposition sometimes—to solve these problems on a basis which is acceptable to all.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the leaders of the TUC, when he next meets them. whether they have any ideas about a policy for settled wage differentials? In view of the fact that at least a subsidiary factor of some of the industrial trouble over the years has been that of wage differentials, will he ask the leaders of the TUC for their ideas so that they may be given constructive consideration by the House?

Over many years, under successive Governments, successive types of wage handling have been among the biggest problems, leading to leap-frogging and feelings of unfairness. That is still one of the big problems. We discussed this informally on Monday. I think I made it clear to the House on Tuesday that the proceedings on Monday were not a formal negotiation between the Government and the TUC, although representatives of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the National Executive were present. These matters have been taken up. It is my impression that these and other questions will be further considered by the TUC during the next month or two, because if it has any new guidance to offer that will have to be considered before Congress later in the year.

The Prime Minister will be aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the Budget debate that there was a good deal of confusion about the social contract. In view of that and the serious nature of the situation that the Prime Minister has recognised, would it not be valuable in the interests of the whole country to agree to publish a White Paper on what has happened to the social contract, what is likely to happen and what the Government consider to be its future prospects?

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was here on Tuesday. He may not know—I am sure he will have learned since—that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spent three-quarters of an hour fully answering questions on that point. [Interruption.] At the risk of wearying the House, I could go over some of them. My right hon. Friend gave his reasons for the way in which both he and the Government have handled the matter in relation to commenting on particular wage settlements.

asked the Prime Minister if he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Employment.

No, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that all the Secretary of State's critics will wish him a quick and complete recovery from his operation? Nevertheless, in view of the extreme bias of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation and its ineffectiveness over salary and wage restraint, why does the Prime Minister expect his right hon. Friend to be any less of a failure in future?

I do not agree with any of the hon. Gentleman's comments, except his very kind and gracious opening reference to my right hon. Friend's forthcoming operation in hospital next week.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the retention in his present post of the Secretary of State for Employment is indispensable or that someone of like spirit, should he decide that the job has become too burdensome, is indispensable, as is a full understanding between himself and the trade union movement, to the economic survival of Britain?

Yes. I agree with what my hon. Friend said, except his suggestion of a possible replacement for my right hon. Friend. I am not looking for any replacement for my right hon. Friend.

With the present situation facing the country, does the Prime Minister agree that it would be far better to seek the co-operation of this side of the House rather than to attack us for something which is totally untrue, as he knows only too well? In view of the serious unemployment figures published today, will the Prime Minister give us his estimate of unemployment figures to the end of the year, bearing in mind that already the estimate made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago, like most of his estimates, is totally out of date?

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's offer of co-operation. I look forward to considering how that might be made a reality. However, he will understand that, in relation to my earlier reply, I cannot erase the history of either 1972 or 1973 or the events of January and February 1974. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about 1975?"] The number of man-days lost through disputes in 1975 is the lowest for seven years. I should certainly be prepared to discuss with my right hon. Friend the possibility of some agreement between us as soon the the right hon. Gentleman has persuaded the leader of his party, who we know cannot be here this afternoon—

Where is she?

The right hon. Lady is not earning her keep.

I have had a polite intimation from the right hon. Lady that she cannot be here. In fact, she has gone off to Turkey for the weekend with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nothing arises for me to deal with out of that situation. When she comes back, however, and we have a policy from the Opposition in due course, we can then discuss the right hon. Gentleman's offer.

asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange a meeting with the Scottish TUC before the referendum.

I have no plans to do so, Sir. I and a number of my senior colleagues had very full discussions with the STUC at the end of February.

Is the Prime Minister aware that, following those discussions, the Scottish TUC has officially rejected the Budget, rejected his policy on the social contract, rejected his European policy and appointed its first Communist general secretary? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the STUC's incredibly short-sighted opposition to the efficient, streamlined and competitive Scottish steel industry, coupled with the Government's interference in and delaying of the BSC's proposals, will mean goodbye to steelmaking at Hunterston in the foreseeable future?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman read that very well. In fact, I regret some of decisions last week at the STUC conference. I do not accept many of its criticisms. I do not think that anything that happened at the STUC conference should give any happiness to the Conservative Party. I had constructive discussions with the general council, as did my right hon. Friends. Many have expressed anxiety in the first flush of the Budget, which was approved by the House last week. I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman was on the STUC side in the vote. There have been criticisms of these matters. I do not agree with the STUC's views on Europe and so on, but in a democratic country it is free to say these things and the hon. Gentleman is free to read out his prepared statement of what he thinks about them.

As someone who was a guest of the STUC in Aberdeen last week, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that the vast majority of Scottish trade unionists still believe in the social contract and that the STUC more than welcomed the £300,000 allocated to the Scottish Development Agency? Is he also aware that, despite our present difficulties, the STUC still believes that a Labour Government and their policies, in the absence of any alternative policies from the Tories and the SNP, are the best policies for the people of Scotland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not only for what he said but for the full report he gave me yesterday on the conference, where he represented Scottish Labour Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend certainly gave me a somewhat different account of the temper of the debates there from the one given by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat).

Is the Prime Minister aware that at the start of Question Time I asked what I think, in the interests of the nation, was a perfectly serious question: namely, whether it would be a good idea to have a White Paper on what has happened to the social contract and what is likely to happen in future? Everything that the Prime Minister said in various different answers since then seems to underline the value that such a proposal would have. As he did not answer that question at the start, may I come hack to it now? Will he consider the possibility of publishing such a White Paper? Would it not be of great help to the nation and certainly to this House?

No, Sir. In my reply to the right hon. Gentleman I referred to the full answers given by my right hon. Friend, and that is a perfectly usual and legitimate parliamentary practice. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have remembered what my right hon. Friend said—that is, if he was here. My right hon. Friend explained very fully to the House why it was not appropriate to publish regular reports case by case. He gave very good reasons why, because of the complication of some settlements, it is not possible to measure them in percentages, for example.

May I revert to the question about Scotland and the referendum? Will the Prime Minister tell us which Minister will be responsible for putting forward the Government's view on the advantages of Scottish membership of the EEC since his Secretary of State has joined an alliance with the SNP to oppose the Government's policy?

In the first place I repudiate the hon. Member's concluding words. A number of Ministers have been and will be speaking on this matter. I spoke in Aberdeen, in the very same city to which reference has been made, commending the Government's proposals at a meeting there. Others of my right hon. Friends will be going there and stating the Government's point of view. I do not think that the hon. Member will be disappointed. My one fear is that there will be such a cacophony of speeches on all sides that the country may get bored.

It was your idea to do it.