asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present disparity between the present rate of the green pound and the true value of the pound sterling; what the disparity was when last devalued; and whether he will now consider devaluing the green pound again.

The difference between the representative rate and market rate for the £ sterling as calculated for the purposes of MCAs to be applied this week was almost 20 per cent. In February, when the last representative rate change was agreed, the gap was about 15 per cent. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Welsh) on 20th June.—[Vol. 893, col. 564.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a further realignment of the green pound is necessary in order to restore confidence? Does he accept that, if this is not done, it will be virtually impossible for the Government to achieve any of the objectives set out in its recent White Paper? When does he intend to raise the matter with his European colleagues?

I accept that certain sections of opinion in the agriculture industry in this country would like a further move in this direction. In my reply to the hon. Member for South Angus I said that the effect of the United Kingdom representative rate was one of the questions that I was considering in current discussions with the agricultural industry. Representations have been made to me and I have had informal talks with the European Commission. I shall take note of everything the hon. Member said.

In discussing the question of the green pound with the Commission, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that while a change might help the farmers it would have an adverse effect on the consumer? We are all agreed on the need to hold or reduce inflation. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that this would be a bad time to make such a change, because it would force up the price of food, particularly basic food, which we surely all want to avoid?

In matters of this kind I have to balance the views of producers and consumers. It is true that a reduction in the rate would affect consumers generally, and that even those buying feeding stuffs could suffer. This is another factor that I have to take into account.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no need to obtain further agreement from Brussels to retain the level? The decision is in the Government's own hands. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the British farmer is no longer content to see his wealth and investment being used for purposes which should be the responsibility of the Government? When will he deal with this matter? Will it, as it should, be before the end of the month?

I have considered the views of the producers and given a promise to the hon. Member who asked me to raise this matter in the Commission. I accept that it is my responsibility.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department has had with the EEC officials concerning a devaluation of the green pound.

My Department is in close touch with the Commission on all aspects of the common agricultural policy, but there have been no formal discussions on the green pound.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious implications of a partial devaluation of the green pound, particularly on wheat? Will he ensure that any agreed devaluation is to the full extent necessary to bring the green pound back in line with the £ sterling?

I cannot comment on that, because no agreement has been reached.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that farmers generally regard the totally illusory exchange rate use for converting Community prices to British equivalents as being at the heart of their total disregard of the Government's policy as set out in the White Paper? Having regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said on the stocktaking document, will he ensure that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House brings this matter forward for early debate, so that we can deal with it with the gravity that it deserves rather than in the cursory manner of Questions?

I do not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's remark that this is an important matter. As I said, we have had no formal discussions in the Community on this matter, but there have been informal discussions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that words, White Papers, discussions and consultations do not produce the extra food required by this country? Will he now start to take action and give the resources necessary to British agriculture, which can be done by helping with the green pound?

The hon. Gentleman is good at using words. I agree that all will depend on the resources that we put into the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of a continued fall of the £ sterling on the world markets, he will consider introducing a system whereby the green pound is automatically readjusted at regular intervals to ensure reasonable parity between prices received by United Kingdom farmers and continental farmers.

This is one of the questions raised by the Commission in its report on the stocktaking of the CAP which we are considering.

When the Minister holds formal talks on this subject, will he put forward a proposal on those lines? Is the 20 per cent. gap, which he revealed this afternoon, between the true rate and the green rate, not at an intolerable record level? Why should farmers alone of the community have to pay a special and extra penalty as a result of the Government's failure to maintain the value of the pound?

The hon. Gentleman asks for automatic adjustments. We must consider the needs not only of farmers but of consumers and livestock producers, because of the monetary compensatory amounts which are paid.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has put to the EEC Commission for the reorganisation of the common fishing policy.

We have gained the agreement of the Council of Ministers to a reappraisal of the common fisheries policy. At this stage it would be premature for me to say more.

Does the Minister realise that it would be most helpful if we could have some idea of the lines on which the Government hope that the policy will be reorganised? Does he accept that we ought to know when it will be reorganized, because there is considerable anxiety among inshore fishermen about what will happen after 1982, when the present arrangements end?

I appreciate the hon. Member's anxiety, and as I have toured a number of fishing ports, I am well aware of the concern there. Our fishing industry is the largest in the Community and we have stressed this to our partners. We shall have to consider this matter in the light of possible changes in the international fisheries régime. With regard to the hon. Member's second point, there is provision for a review to take place by 1982. My right hon. Friend has made clear in Brussels and elsewhere that we want changes before then and would expect a review much earlier.

Does the Minister not accept that the EEC policy was chipped, chiselled and planned for six Continental countries before the accession of ourselves and Ireland? Is he aware that the House is united on this matter—hon. Members from all the fishing ports are in agreement—and wants him to fight consistently and fiercely at the earliest possible moment for changes to be made?

I think that my hon. Friend will be aware of the visits that my right hon. Friend and I have made to the fishing areas. We have made clear time and time again that we have not waited for 1982. Already my right hon. Friend has succeeded in obtaining Community agreement on a package of measures including export refunds, storage aids and minimum entry prices. These steps will help the competitive position of our market, but we recognise that other measures will have to be taken into account most urgently.

Did the Minister note, as a result of his visit to the Northumberland fishing ports, that only a six-mile limit was granted to the area in the previous negotiations? It is important to retain a reserved area for fishermen in this country, and there should not be discrimination against areas like North Northumberland, as happened under the previous policy.

An aim of the Government is to protect the interests of inshore fishermen in all these discussions. Our visits have been most helpful in allowing us to realise even more the situation which must be taken into account in Brussels.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what number the national dairy herd has declined since February 1974; what the decline in milk production in gallonage terms has been over the same period; and if he will take steps designed to arrest this decline and facilitate the expansion of the British dairy herd as outlined in a recent Government White Paper on the expansion of British agriculture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps designed to arrest the present decline in the national dairy herd in order to fulfil his aims set out in a recent White Paper on the expansion of agriculture; and when he intends to take this action.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the Government's decision regarding new milk prices for the remainder of 1975.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the further fall in confidence of farmers in the future of the dairy industry, whether he will now make a statement on the state of the industry.

Figures for the United Kingdom dairy herd are available on a December or June basis only. Between December 1973 and December 1974, the latest date for which figures are available, the herd declined by 154,000. Sales of milk through the milk marketing boards were 82 million gallons less in the 12 months ending 31st December 1974 than in the 12 months ending 31st December 1973.

The Government are considering with the interests concerned what measures might be right and practicable to take in furtherance of the aims set out in the Government's White Paper.

Do these figures not reveal that the Ministry has presided over nearly 18 months of continual, persistent and unremitting decline in the dairy herd, a decline in the return on every cow, a serious fall in the number of inseminations, and a serious decline in moral in the industry generally? If that is true, will he tell the people that if they want the production of milk and other dairy products to continue they will have to pay a great deal more for them than the idiotically unrealistic price of 6p a pint that they are being asked today? If he will not tell them that, will he say what the Prime Minister meant when he said that help would be available to the industry?

The hon. Member's initial remarks completely ignore the hammering which the dairy industry took in the autumn of 1973, and take no account of the fact that the Government have increased the guaranteed price by no less than 32 per cent. Of course, this decline must be reversed if we are to secure the increase in production which we wish.

Is the Minister aware that the dairy herd has not improved whilst the beef and veal herds have improved by 25 per cent. since April last year? Is not the disastrous effect of this going to be that within 12 months from now we shall have to import liquid milk from the Continent?

My hon. Friend's latter point is a little alarmist. He will recognise that the improvement in the beef market which was secured as a result of my right hon. Friend's intervention, has been very much in the industry's interests.

Is the Minister aware that many people share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), that by their own admission the Government have not done enough to help the dairy herd in the last two years? If action is not taken quickly, milk supplies to families and, most particularly, to children during this coming winter will be jeopardised. Imports will have to be increased, putting a greater pressure on the already beleaguered pound.

I accept that the Government have a responsibility to reverse the current decline in the level of milk production, and we are having discussions with the unions to that effect.

I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement that talks are taking place with the industry. Will he ensure that these are conducted with great urgency? If the present decline in the dairy herd continues it will threaten doorstep deliveries and totally sabotage the aims of extra output which we so urgently need, as set out in the White Paper.

I agree that we have to reverse this decline if we are to achieve the targets set in the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".

Does the Minister not agree that the only way to expand production from the land is to give a realistic price for the end product? Is he aware that the cost of production has increased during the last six months? Has he any plans to introduce a special price review this autumn?

The problem is that the consumer and the producer may sometimes disagree about what is a realistic price. I accept that if we are to get the expansion and investment that we need the industry must get a satisfactory income with which to finance it.

Will the Minister stop living in the past and tell us that he will now look to his responsibilities? Is he aware that there is deep concern over the danger of fodder shortages in many parts of the country next winter? Has he seen statements in the Press that there is a danger of liquid milk rationing next winter, and does he accept the need for higher prices for milk for producers in the very near future, so that they will be able to maintain supplies over next winter?

It is a little alarmist for the hon. Member to talk about rationing at this stage, but certainly we accept that we must reverse the current trend. That is what the negotiations with the farming unions are all about. It is not the question of the Government's having been in office for 18 months. We gave the industry the biggest increase ever last October. We are talking here about a follow-up to "Food from Our Own Resources" and it would be wrong to preempt the discussions which are taking place.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to initiate his programme of expansion of British agriculture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of the 26 per cent. fall in farming incomes in 1974, he will expedite the implementation of the Government White Paper on the expansion of British agriculture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the details of how he proposes to implement the Government's long-term proposals for agriculture.

The White Paper set out guidelines for agriculture and the development of our agricultural policies over a period of years. Nevertheless, as foreshadowed in the White Paper, discussions are in progress with the interests concerned about whether there are specific measures which it would be right and practicable to take in furtherance of our aims.

The Government's White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources" said that

"the potential from greater use of home produced grass was still very great"

and went on to refer to an intensified programme of work by the advisory services. Does that programme refer specifically to the irrigation and conservation techniques? What progress is being made?

The hon. Member is quite right to ask me this question and to seek an indication of my thoughts upon it. Among the issues being discussed are the effectiveness of capital and production grants, including possible ways of providing incentives for the better use and conservation of grass. Other matters include such things as the green pound. I accept what the hon. Member said about grass conservation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of registered milk producers in Wales has declined from 27,500 in 1955 to 11,300 at present and that this is doing tremendous injury to the rural communities of Wales? Is he also aware that in the year which ended 30th April this year no less than £266 million worth of butter was imported into Britain? Can we not, in an expansion programme, produce this for ourselves?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said in reply to a series of questions, we want to reverse the decline in the dairy herd. I am having, and have had, talks on this matter. I accept that the situation is serious and that it must be put right.

In any discussions which take place, particularly with the Treasury, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of pointing out that the White Paper was drawn up after wide consultations, that it has been universally welcomed by consumers and producers as a sound base for both expanding our agricultural economy and of saving money, and that the Treasury action to help implement these policies will he warmly welcomed?

Naturally—[Interruption.] That is not in my brief! The White Paper recognises the producers' need for assurances about their future levels of return. I think I have said in the House on previous occasions that they must, however, get their principal incentive for expansion from the Market.

Is the Minister aware that in 1974 farming income fell by 26 per cent. and that the farmers now feel threatened by the Community Land Act, the capital transfer tax, the proposed wealth tax and the possible re-rating of agricultural land? Is he also aware that only an immediate injection of capital will give back to the farmer the confidence that he needs? Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will give that immediate injection of capital?

I do not want to repeat the history of the Conservative Party in this area. It encouraged people to get out of milk production and to go into livestock production. Conservative Members made a mess of it, and they know it. When I took up my present position my job was to try to bring back confidence. Indeed, in the beef sector we have done so. I want to reverse the present contraction in the dairy industry.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny the rumour that the European Commission wishes to use price lowering as a means of reducing milk production throughout the EEC? What will my right hon. Friend do to prevent that happening, so that our dairy farmers are not forced to produce even less?

I give the assurance to my hon. Friend that I shall resist it strongly.

In view of the bitterly grave situation of the milk supply and the answers given by the Parliamentary Secretary to an earlier question, will the Minister say categorically that there is no danger at all of milk rationing within the next 12 months or so?

In my view talk of milk rationing is panic mongering.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that British egg producers can now trade in the European Community on free and fair terms of competition.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the working of existing arrangements in preventing further importation of eggs at prices which are unfairly competitive.

Taking account of the situation in our egg market my right hon. Friend approached the European Commission last Friday requesting action under Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession in the interests of producers here. In response the Commission has authorised the suspension until the end of October of the payment of monetary compensatory amounts on eggs and the doubling of the subsidy paid on exports to selected markets outside the Community.

We welcome this recognition by the Commission of the need for special measures to deal with the situation in the United Kingdom egg market. The suspension of monetary compensatory amounts removes a subsidy that has been increasing on French eggs sent to this market. The increase in export restitutions means that the financial incentive to Continental traders to export to the most important third country markets will be three times that payable on exports to the United Kingdom. These measures, together with the French Government's continuing programme for slaughtering laying hens, should relieve the pressures on our market. We shall now have to see whether the measures announced prove sufficient. But we shall continue to watch the situation closely and to maintain continuous contact with the Commission.

Is the Minister blissfully unaware of the fact that this situation has not developed over the past few weeks but has been building up over the past 12 months? Is he also aware that there are still accession compensatory subsidies to be paid, and still no restrictions on imports? He seems very pleased with the temporary improvement that he has got, but is that all that the Minister asked for in Brussels?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the efforts that my right hon. Friend has made in Brussels over recent months in considering the problems facing the industry. Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession refers to difficulties which are serious and liable to persist. I am very grateful that the Community has now taken effective and quick action in this respect. I do not think that we should underestimate the value of this concession in terms of the discouragement of imports.

Is the Minister aware that while Brussels fiddles about with this problem, egg producers are facing continuing and heavy losses? Will he give an undertaking that unless the French Government rapidly carry out their pledge to slaughter 2 million laying hens, he will advise his right hon. Friend to put an immediate ban on further French egg imports until that programme has been completed?

I assure my hon. Friend that on the French culling scheme, the slaughter of up to 2 million hens is now in operation. I understand that already I million birds have been destroyed. This should help to firm the Community market. The measures I have just announced should help to improve the competitiveness of our own industry.

Will the Minister explain in simple terms why this and other Governments are so slow to take action against dumping not only eggs but many other products which affect my constituency?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that sometimes these matters are difficult to establish. We have certainly impressed upon the Commission the difficulties facing our own industry. I want to underline the fact that monetary compensatory amounts have been paid to importers, thus reducing the cost of imported supplies. From now on an average of 1·495p per dozen will be the amount which importers will bear.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC stocktaking document on the common agricultural policy, indicating which proposals outlined in that document he accepts, which proposals he rejects and what representation he has made to the EEC Commission concerning this document.

I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made following the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 28th-29th April. The Council has not discussed the stocktaking report since then, although consideration has continued at official level.—[Vol. 891, c. 732.]

I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I should like to follow up the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). Is the Minister aware that the Commission's proposals, in their present form, are totally unacceptable to the British dairy industry and will treat the British dairy farmer very severely? This situation is based upon the inadequate structure of the agriculture industry on the Continent. Will the Minister go further than merely resisting these proposals in their present form? Will he give the House an assurance that, if necessary, he will use the veto?

It would be wrong to make such an announcement at this stage. The stocktaking document is very valuable. The Scrutiny Committee, to which I gave evidence, has examined the position. In my view there are some good policies indicated in the document, which we should welcome. I shall not repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes). However, I shall, of course, resist measures that will harm our dairy industry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the present position of soft fruit growers, especially raspberry producers, who fear the effects of possible dumping by Eastern European Communist countries into the Common Market? Will he especially look at the position of single fruit growers, with a view to helping them?

That is not in the stocktaking document.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous amount of opposition building up on the Opposition benches to the common agricultural policy and, indeed, to membership of the Community? Will he change his mind yet again and defend the sovereignty of the British Parliament?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is too late. We are in the Community and we must make it work in out own interests.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the factory capacity for butter production in Great Britain; what was the actual production of butter in 1974; and if he will take steps designed to increase the supply of milk to increase that available to the butter industry.

Production of butter in the United Kingdom in 1974 was 52,000 tons. My Department does not collect details of the capacity of butter factories. As regards milk supplies, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the Questions put to me by the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) and others.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that unless action is taken now to increase the supply of milk, more factories producing butter are bound to be closed? Will he now answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen)? Does he agree that the only way to reverse the current trend is to put up the price of milk?

We certainly want to increase milk production, as has been reiterated. But it is not just the decline in milk production which has affected butter production. Increased supplies of milk have been going into liquid consumption and cheese manufacture.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the stocktaking document, referred to by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), is designed to reduce the supply of milk? Will he persuade his right hon. Friend to have words with the Leader of the House so that we can debate the stocktaking document before the House rises for the Summer Recess, and give a definite instruction to the Minister to veto this ridiculous proposition?

I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House are making rather much of this point. Inherent in the idea of the Common Market is that production should be developed where there is a comparative advantage. We have climatic advantages in grass and dairy production and a more efficient industry. Therefore, it is consistent that we should expect to get a higher share of the production of milk and dairy produce in the context of the total Community.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, due to the decline in the dairy herd over which the Government have presided this year, on the latest estimates butter production in this country will cease at the end of this month and will not be resumed until March next year?

Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be vying with each other in irresponsibility. Of course there has been a decline in the dairy herd, which we are determined to reverse. But it is nonsense to talk about rationing, and no butter production whatsoever.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's estimate of total plantings of sugar beet for the 1975–76 harvest.

480,300 acres.

What does the Minister estimate will be the effect of a good sugar beet crop on the price of a 2 lb. packet of sugar in the autumn?

The hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that after what happened in the sugar market last year, when, at the beginning, we were paying a CSA price of £60 a ton and in November the world price reached over £600 a ton, it would be rash for anyone to predict the effect of this year's crop on this year's sugar price.

Will my hon. Friend tell the House what plans the British Sugar Corporation has for expansion in beet production? Will he indicate what effect it is likely to have on the cane sugar workers in Merseyside and elsewhere? Will he ensure that the workers in those areas are given any extra beet production for refining to maintain their jobs? Is he aware that this is a most important matter for workers in areas like Merseyside, Glasgow and London?

My hon. Friend has raised a number of important points. The Government welcome the British Sugar Corporation's expansion programme. Equally, we attach the highest importance to the interests of workers in the refining industry. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend had numerous discussions with representatives of those workers and that we continue to have their confidence.

What percentage increase yield does the hon. Gentleman expect to get from the 1975–76 sugar crop, and what contingency plans have been made for any shortage?

The basic problem in agricultural marketing is that we cannot predict what the crop will be next autumn, but it is unfortunate that plantings have been somewhat less this year as a result of the difficult soil conditions.

Owing to the disastrous and inevitable effect on the sugar beet crop of a late frost and the drought conditions which now exist, what forecast estimates has the Ministry made of the amount of sugar beet imports which will have to be made from European countries into Great Britain this winter to maintain our supplies?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about conditions to date having been adverse for the current sugar crop. The imports which we make in the coming year will, by and large, come from those developing countries from which, traditionaly, we have imported sugar.

In view of the projected increase in sugar beet production envisaged by the BSC, will the Government give a categoric assurance that the commitment that we gave to the cane sugar growers in the Caribbean and African countries still stands, and that consequently those countries can be assured of a continuing market in this country?

Absolutely. That is not only a British, but a Community commitment, by which we shall stand.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the Government of the Netherlands with respect to the artificially low cost of natural gas used in that country for horticultural production and the effect that the use of that gas has on the terms of trade in horticultural produce between Great Britain and the Netherlands.

I have no evidence that the prices charged for natural gas in the Netherlands are artificially low in relation to the cost of distributing the onshore supply available in that country. Gas costs in the Netherlands are only one of many factors influencing the volume and price of Dutch horticultural exports to the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister aware that there are many people engaged in the glasshouse crop production who disagree with the answer which the Minister has just given and who are greatly concerned about the failure of the Government to make representations to stop what they consider to be unfair competition?

The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the Commission, in its latest proposals to the Council of Ministers, envisaged that the price of natural gas—it was thinking especially about the Netherlands—should be brought more into line with the price of oil.

Does the Minister regard it as satisfactory to pay glasshouse crop producers to dismantle the glass which was frequently erected with Government grants? Is it not an absolute disgrace at a time like this, when we need to produce at home rather than to import, that we should be prepared to accept an outrageous policy of this description because we failed to give the support which we should have given to our home industry?

No. That would not be satisfactory. As my right hon. Friend did not find the Commission's proposals acceptable, he opposed them in the Council of Ministers. Those proposals have been taken back, and are being reconsidered.

I cannot accept that we have in any way neglected the industry. The support which we gave it at the right time, when it needed it, last year, was welcomed by horticultural interests.

Will the Minister confirm that our glasshouse producers are suffering from unfair competition at present, as a result of his Department's refusal to take the appropriate action?

Frankly, I think that the Opposition are about six weeks out of date. They have not noticed that the prices of tomatoes and lettuces are up more than 40 per cent., compared with last year. The industry is doing well now.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the fishing quotas agreed at the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Fisheries Commission, indicating whether he is satisfied with the outcome; and if he intends to ratify the agreement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on conservation of fish stocks.

The stocks of greatest importance to our industry are heavily fished by several countries. The Government believe that effective conservation must depend upon measures agreed internationally between them. The means for achieving agreement is the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, of which all North European fishing nations are members. At its recent meeting, the Commission agreed on a number of important steps, including quota reductions for plaice and herring in the North Sea, and for herring to the West of Scotland. This will involve sacrifices for our industry which, as the Government are well aware, already faces considerable difficulties. Nevertheless, I believe that the measures agreed—which also involve sacrifices for the other States concerned—are essential to secure the industry's future.

It was not easy to hear what the Minister said. Will he ensure that other countries as well as ourselves observe these agreements? Is he aware that officials of his Department are very good at seeing that the agreements are observed in this country? Will he please ensure that they are observed elsewhere so that we are all on an equal footing?

This matter was discussed when I visited Fleetwood recently. There is a common feeling amongst fishermen of all countries that the fishermen of other countries do not observe their quotas. However, this is a matter for national Governments. My Department is very much in touch with the situation locally around our coasts, and with other members of the Commission.

The Minister said that the fishing industry will have to make sacrifices. Is he aware that the Scottish fishermen have already suffered a reduction of 25 per cent. in the value of their landings for the first five months of this year? Will he tell us when the Government will take action on this matter, instead of the endless discussions, promises, and debates?

There are two points here. The first is the quota, which is a matter of reduction for all members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The question of catching more fish is bound up with the question of limits. Those matters are now being considered in the discussions in the Law of the Sea Conference and on the common fisheries policy.

Is the Minister aware of the anxiety not only of the Opposition and of hon. Members representing constituencies north of the Tweed, but also of hon. Members representing constituencies in England? Why is it that we have come off so badly in the quota system? Are the quotas determined on a percentage of last year's catch, or of catches in former years? Britain is the major fishing nation—Scotland is the major herring fishing nation—of Western Europe, yet we have come off badly in the matter of quotas. I understand that less than 40,000 tons of herring is allotted to us. Why is that?

The quotas are based on scientific evidence as well as on the catches over the previous 10 years. The quota reduction for us in some cases is much less than those of other countries. The management of quotas is being discussed with the industry at present.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to South-East Cornwall.

I have at present no plans to make an official visit, although, as the hon. Member knows, I am able to keep in close touch with Cornish problems.

I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not to renew his family association with Liskeard at this stage. Is he aware that the rural areas, such as South-East Cornwall, are dependent upon a large number of small industrial and commercial units? Is he further aware that those small commercial organisations are now facing extreme financial pressures? Does he believe that the fabric of regional development policies is sufficiently flexible in their application to take account of the requirements of small firms in rural areas?

The hon. Gentleman has not put this at all unfairly. There is a serious problem in this and other rural and mixed areas. There are many difficulties. As Cornwall has special status under the regional policy, the Development Commission has been holding discussions with the chairman of the South-West Economic Planning Board and some of the county and district councils to see whether special Development Commission assistance is needed. Industry Act assistance is available to all eligible firms irrespective of size. The Development Commission has assisted small enterprises. The small firms' information service is devoted to helping smaller businesses to find solutions to those problems.

As the Prime Minister is not going to Cornwall, will he come to Merseyside and explain to the people there how the measures announced by the Chancellor are likely to reduce unemployment levels? Will he explain to my constituents in Kirkby how those measures will reduce juvenile unemployment in that town?

I did not say that I was not going to Cornwall; I said that I was not planning to pay an official visit to South-East Cornwall. I am going to Cornwall, but it will not be an official visit.

I visit Merseyside regularly. I am well aware of the serious problems of Kirkby, which I represented for many years until my hon. Friend took it over. As that area has almost the largest number of children under the age of 15 in the country there is always a problem of juvenile employment there.

I do not believe that what my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday will be adverse to Kirkby or anywhere else in the country, because an attack on inflation is the best and surest way of ensuring a quick return to full employment.

asked the Prime Minister when he will next attend a meeting of EEC Heads of Government.

The week after next, Sir.

In view of this week's comment by the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr. Tindemans, which defines the British attitude towards European union to be very positive, will my right hon. Friend make clear in his discussions with EEC Heads of Government that he will not accept any programme for integration which leads inexorably to economic and monetary union?

Yes, Sir. We made that clear to Mr. Tindemans and at the summit conference in Paris. In addition, after the discussions which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I had with Mr. Tindemans when he came to No. 10 the other evening, I made a statement, part of which has been issued. If I were to publish that statement in the Official Report or in some other appropriate way, my hon. Friend would be reassured on these matters.

Is it not time that the Prime Minister and his colleagues dropped their timid reservations about direct elections to the European Parliament and entered into wider discussions with EEC Heads of Government about this important move in Europe?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that following the referendum, as I announced the following Monday, we proposed that my hon. Friends should take their places in the European Assembly. It is premature for any of us to consider the question of a change in the form of elections. It raises many questions. I know that views have been expressed, but I am not sure whether it is even the policy of the official Opposition to support direct elections. We all need much more time to think about this question.

When my right hon. Friend meets European Heads of Government will he draw on their experience of incomes policies and acknowledge that while there is almost universal support for incomes policies, those policies which require the force of law to turn bosses into pay police are the surest formula yet devised for industrial chaos and disaster?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend's account of what was said by my right hon. Friend on Tuesday. As I have said in the House on many occasions at Question Time, I believe that criminal sanctions against workers would be an extremely ineffective and dangerous way to deal with these problems. We certainly have been considering—as has the whole House—the experience of other countries, and looking at the different methods they have used. I am sure that the whole House would like to see us getting down, after all these years, to something like the rate of inflation of some of our European partners.

Is the Prime Minister aware that one of the questions that most concern the European Heads of Government is whether the British Government have the will and determination to beat inflation? Will he, therefore, assure the House that whatever form of wage restraint he adopts, whether cash limits or compulsion, if he is faced with an excessive claim by the powerful unions in the nationalised industries, his Government will stick to the new limits and not be blown off course?

My right hon. Friend has made clear in relation to incomes—he did not refer to wages only, as did the right hon. Lady—what will be our policy, and we shall stick to it. He made clear, although it caused a lot of silly tittering from Opposition Members, that, in relation to the public sector, the Government have a very large range of weapons capable of use to ensure that any temptation to excessive incomes settlements does not lead to subsidies, borrowing or loading the charges on the public. The right hon. Lady will no doubt study what my right hon. Friend said about the private sector and will in due course say whether she agrees with his statement.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite President Ford to visit the United Kingdom.

As my hon. Friend knows, I met President Ford in Washington early in May and had another talk with him in Brussels at the end of that month. Yesterday I met Vice-President Rockefeller at Downing Street for an hour.

When my right hon. Friend next meets President Ford, will he express to him the concern of many people in this country about the statement which President Ford made at his Press conference last week, which seemed to imply that the United States no longer rules out the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike situation?

I have to rely on reports of the President's statement in this context, but the President will know from what was said to his predecessors that the Labour Party, when in government before, when in opposition, and now, is totally opposed to the first strike use of nuclear weapons. That is and has been our position, and I hope that it is fully understood in all parts of the world.

asked the Prime Minister when he will next chair a meeting of the NEDC.

asked the Prime Minister when he will next take the chair at a meeting of the NEDC.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on 24th June.

When the Prime Minister next goes to the NEDC he will doubtless wish to explain and discuss his Government's measures designed to beat inflation. Will he be able to assure private firms, large and small, that they will not be made the whipping boys of the Government's new policy and will not be forced to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea when faced with strikes in support of claims above the limit?

It is not usual, although it occasionally happens, for NEDC to deal with matters affecting pay. A brief statement was made yesterday on this subject. There is no question of making small firms the whipping boys of the policy. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are in close touch with the CBI, which itself put forward a number of proposals. We want to reinforce the proposals of the CBI and the TUC in this direction.

On the general question of incomes, which may well be one of the major subjects of discussion with the NEDC, will my right hon. Friend say what steps the Government propose to take on the recommendations of the Boyle Report and when the House may expect a statement?

Yes, Sir. I fully appreciate the depth of feeling among hon. Members. I have received a number of representations from both sides of the House about the way in which pay and allowances have been eroded since the last review in December 1971. Since then, prices have risen by 65 per cent. and average earnings by 85 per cent. There is undoubtedly real hardship among Members of all parties, especially young Members with family responsibilities. The Government are considering this matter very urgently. We intend to publish the report, together with our recommendations, within 10 days or so.

Assuming that the House accepts our recommendations, I give an assurance now that the Government will propose to pay the resulting increases in pay and allow- ances as from the date when Lord Boyle signed the report on 13th June, so that hon. Members will not be adversely affected by the time which the Government must take to get the right answers in the context of our current discussions with the TUC and the CBI on anti-inflation measures in the year ahead.

The Government are anxious that, in applying the limits on incomes for the coming year which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Tuesday, we shall be able to take decisions about anomalies in respect of awards in industry generally including hangover cases from the last pay round and arbitration decisions which have been made or are already proceeding. The transitional arrangements which we must announce in the next few days will be very important, and we certainly want to consider how they should be assimilated to the report of the review body dealing with Members' pay and allowances.

Will the Prime Minister explain now what he intends to do should the miners come out on strike in defiance of a statutory policy?

Sir, that is a hypothetical question, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I hope to have the opportunity of saying something about this, not to the hon. Gentleman, who has not spent long at the coal face, but to the members of the National Union of Mineworkers when I address them next Monday.

Will the Prime Minister give two assurances—first, that the increase in prices since the Members' salaries were last increased will be met in full in the Government's recommendation, and, secondly, that the Government will now consider getting us out of this bizarre charade of having to pretend and "Box and Cox" about our pay, by having it linked to a decent index, so that the difficulty may be sorted out?

I cannot give any information to my hon. Friend on the first part of the question. All I can say is that nothing that happens in the next week will change the Government's attitude to the report. There will be no question of any guillotine falling, or anything like that, between now and publication.

As to the second part of the question, while I am not in a position to announce the details of the Boyle Committee's recommendations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I think the House is entitled to read the report itself, when we publish it, with the Government's recommendations. This problem might have been easier to handle if during the three and a half years, for most of which time there was a Tory Government in office something had been done. Nothing was done for three and a half years.

While I am not yet in a position to announce these details, I think it is right that the House should know, on procedure, in relation to the financial proposals, that the Boyle Committee recommends that, for the future, Members' pay should be reviewed every two years automatically. The Government accept this, but I think the House itself may wish to consider it, and I propose to initiate discussions through the usual channels and in every way to get back-bench opinion on the question whether the time has not now come for Members' pay to be linked directly and automatically with other relevant salaries. What they are is a matter for discussion. I am sure that the House will—[Interruption.] For a lot of younger Members in the House this is not a laughing matter. It may be for some well-heeled hon. Members opposite, but not for younger Members. I believe that it should be for the House as a whole to decide—there are arguments for and against, and I have always favoured this myself—whether it would like to take the whole question out of the range of external inquiries and debates in this House and make it more automatic. If that is the wish of the House, the Government will most certainly very happily make the necessary arrangements.

Is the Prime Minister aware, on the vitally important question of Members' salaries, that some of us believe that it might have been better if this information had not arisen out of a purely coincidental supplementary question from the Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, to which the Prime Minister made a long and totally unprepared supplementary answer? We would prefer a proper statement in the normal way, and a proper opportunity for the House to discuss it.

May I have the temerity to return to the Question originally addressed to the Prime Minister about the NEDC, and ask him whether his attention was drawn to the speech of Sir Ronald McIntosh on 11th March, indicating that there were occasions on which it would help to enlarge the membership of the NEDC by including consumers' interests and, indeed, representation of the Opposition parties in this House? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will rightly wish to get the maximum support for the proposals which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is likely to introduce, would not this be a suitable occasion on which to make that enlargement, so that all parties in this House can have detailed discussions about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals?

The right hon. Gentleman's proclivity, on matters of great importance to the House, to go into purely procedural issues—as he has done in regard to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes)—does not necessarily fit him for membership of the NEDC. But, concerning the early part of the question, this is a matter of very great importance. If the right hon. Gentleman had wanted a statement after Questions, he would no doubt have put down a Private Notice Question. I believe that it has been to the advantage of the House that it was taken in the way it has been.

With regard to the NEDC, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in indicating that Sir Ronald McIntosh said that it would be a good thing to extend the membership of the NEDC to include consumer interests. The right hon. Gentleman may not have been aware that Mr. Michael Young, from the Consumers' Association, has been a member of the NEDC for two months. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman's first reference was to the Consumers' Association. I am glad to tell him that Mr. Young has attended two meetings of the NEDC, one of which was under my chairmanship.

As to broadening the membership of the NEDC to include representation of Opposition parties, I do not believe that this would be right. It has not been the view taken by any Government, by the CBI or by the TUC in the 12 or more years since you, Mr. Speaker, in another capacity, set up the NEDC