asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to protect the English wine industry in the light of the EEC policy of restricting production.

I appreciate the concern of vine growers in the United Kingdom on this point, and I shall have their interests fully in mind when the question is discussed in the Council of Ministers in September.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Commission's proposals for dealing with the Community wine surplus, especially the ban on future planting, are entirely inappropriate to the tiny but growing English wine industry? Does he accept that the mere existence of a Community surplus, whether in wine, dairy products, or glasshouse products, is not necessarily a good reason for restricting British production? Is this not one of the disadvantages of trying to operate a Community market in these products?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The United Kingdom wine industry is infinitesimal in relation to the Community industry and it would be quite inappropriate if the ban on plantings were to be applied to the United Kingdom. On my hon. Friend's latter point, we would not expect production to be restricted in this country if we could produce more efficiently than our counterparts in the Community.

How is it that proposals like this can go forward from the Commission without any derogation on behalf of our own wine industry? Is it that representations on behalf of the industry were not made with adequate strength to the Commission?

With his great knowledge of these matters, the hon. Member will know that they are discussed fully in the Community. There is a special meeting of the Council of Ministers on 9th September to discuss this matter. At an official level we are in constant touch with the Commission, and we expect a satisfactory solution in September.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the supply of potatoes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present position of the potato market.

There has been a significant improvement in the supplies of potatoes coming on to the market from the new home crop. There were problems earlier this months, because the prolonged dry weather delayed the development of the crop, but these have been alleviated by the rainfall in the middle of this month.

In spite of the fact that we are just starting a Test Match, if the dry weather should continue for any length of time and the crop is bad, can the hon. Gentleman say whether there are favourable overseas supplies from such countries as South Africa and Poland, from which countries we have imported potatoes in the past?

I think we must wait to see how the crop turns out. The original difficulty was caused by the fact that we normally import new potatoes, subject to plant health requirements, and there was a shortage of supplies. In the case of Cyprus. in particular, the supplies did not materialise. With regard to the main crop, this is not normally a matter involving imports, but we are keeping the position closely under review.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is important to think ahead on this matter and that a balance must be drawn between assisting the farmers, who may run into difficulties if the dry weather continues, and looking after the housewives, who require a supply of potatoes at reasonable prices?

I appreciate the hon. Member's concern. The difficulties of last month were caused by factors that were hard to foresee. I have no doubt that in future we shall be better able to regulate supplies and, accordingly, ensure reasonable prices.

I realise that the Minister could not have foreseen the weather conditions or the potato shortage, but is he aware that the potato manufacturers in my constituency had to lay off a substantial number of people because the Minister was unwilling to issue a permit for the import of potatoes from Common Market countries? I am sure that it must cost the country much more to pay these people unemployment benefit.

The hon. Member should not over-dramatise the situation. I am aware of the circumstances to which he refers, in his constituency, although these were due to other factors besides those which were apparent. The difficulty with the supply of potatoes for chips was limited to certain areas of the country, and we do not expect a recurrence of that situation in the future.

It has not only been the shortage of potatoes that has affected the fish and chip retailers; it has been the high price, as well. Is my hon. Friend aware that costs have gone up 10 times in four months? What do the Government intend to do to deal with people who take advantage of the shortage and charge a very high price?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. In the period of shortage prices rose rapidly, but now they are down to between 6p and 9p per lb. retail. I would not have thought there was any difficulty in people finding a substitute for potatoes—and many people seem to think it an admirable object in life to reduce their consumption on this commodity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to issue the promised consultative document on the subject of agricultural service houses.

My right hon. Friends aim to issue this document as soon as practicable—probably next month.

Will the Minister be sure to consult all shades of opinion in the agriculture industry in this matter? He must be aware that many farmworkers would value the retention of the tied cottage system. Is he aware, for example, of the views of the Scottish farmworkers' section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, published recently? Will he confirm that he has approached these consultations with a completely open mind and, in that spirit, has not ruled out the possibility of achieving his objectives without legislation, if that should prove possible?

I do not doubt that farm-workers as a whole will warmly welcome the implementation of this historic reform, but nevertheless we shall consult all the interests in this matter—which is why we are producing the consultative document.

Does my hon. Friend agree that no man's home should depend upon his job—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Prime Minister?".] Does he agree that since half the farmworkers now live in free houses it is quite possible for the industry to operate without the tied cottage system?

I agree that it is desirable that we should move to a situation in which a worker's house is not dependent on his employment. I think that the interjections of Conservative Members in comparing the position of a farm-worker with that of the Prime Minister illustrates how ignorant they are of the position in which farmworkers and their families live.

Does not the Minister realise that he is totally out of touch with reality? Does he not understand that in livestock rearing and hill farms, for example, it is impossible to operate without tied houses? Will he stop preaching his gospel in the countryside when he knows that many farmworkers and the NFU do not support him?

I am sure that even the hon. Member will he aware of the very long campaign which the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has rightly mounted on this issue—

Not in Scotland.

We are talking about England and Wales. Agriculture is a devolved subject. The situation in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a great deal of real hardship is caused to farmworkers in some parts of the country, particularly in the South of England, through being thrown out of their homes when they no longer work for a farmer, perhaps because of health problems? Is he aware that for a long time the agricultural workers' union has been conducting a campaign on this issue, and that it has been Labour Party policy in past manifestos to abolish the tied cottage system? Can my hon. Friend say anything more definite about the time when something positive will be done to that end?

I am grateful to my hon. friend for those remarks. The time when a farmworker loses his job, perhaps through ill health, retirement, or just because he has fallen out with his boss, is the time when he most needs his home, but it is precisely then that he cannot count upon it. It is our clear intention to implement this very important reform in the next Session.

Since the agricultural tied cottage represents a very small percentage of all tied houses, will the Minister explain why the Government have selected them for this inquiry?

We have done so because it is in the agriculture industry that far and away the most hardship has been caused. The evidence for that can be found in the number of possession orders granted each year and in the number of evictions, which represent only the tip of the iceberg.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been achieved in increased home food production since publication of the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will lay down a timetable to facilitate the implementation of the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to announce the results of his discussions with the NFU on how to achieve the aims set out in the Government White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources", and if he will publish those results.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to follow up his White Paper on "Food from Our Own Resources" with detailed and long-term plans for increased production in each section of the agricultural industry, where this is desirable.

The White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" established guidelines for agriculture and agricultural policy into the 1980s. The discussions initiated in May following the publication of the White Paper are continuing. In the meanwhile, I announced last week measures which are expected to increase producers' returns in a full year by over £100 million. I shall continue to keep the situation under review and shall make further statements as the need arises.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that farmers in the Isle of Ely, and probably everywhere else, are less interested in White Papers and more interested in some guarantee of profitable trading? Is he aware of the appalling difficulties of the farming community in raising capital, as a result of the lack of confidence? Is he further aware that it is impossible to expand without capital? What does he intend to do about that?

What we intend to do is set out in my White Paper. Resources will inevitably have to come from the market. I went to Brussels the other week and secured a change in the representative rate, which means over £100 million for producers at this time. The hon. Member must realise that the country is facing difficult economic circumstances, and what I secured in Brussels amounts to substantial action to help British farmers' returns. This was a mid-term increase in common support prices and in the milk guarantee. I made it quite clear that we shall pursue the long-term objectives of British agriculture as set out in the White Paper. I recognise the difficulties, but we shall not go back on what we have said.

In order to help farmers to meet the objectives of the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend consider cutting down losses through animal diseases by increasing the number of vets in the State Veterinary Service, and will he give us his views on the Swann Report on this subject?

I have announced the publication of the Swann Report and I hope that hon. Members will study it carefully. I agree with my hon. Friend. When I took over as the Minister morale in the service was not good. I believe that there has now been an improvement—it is no good the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) smiling, and deriding what I say. He cannot deny that there has been a tremendous change of morale in the profession. It has had a good pay award, and there has been a 6 per cent. increase in staff—

Only 6 per cent.?

The Conservative Government did nothing.

Does the Minister not agree that increased gross returns are not the same as increased profitability, and it is increased profitability that the industry requires? How will the Minister set about achieving that?

As I have said, the change in the representative rate amounts to 5 per cent., across the board. In the current difficult circumstances, I think that that is a reasonably fair balance between the needs of the producers and the needs of the consumer.

Does the Secretary of State agree that hill farmers have a contribution to make, and have particular problems? Will he tell us what priorities and plans for assistance he has in mind for Britain's hill farmers?

I agree with my hon. Friend—as Minister of Agriculture, not as Secretary of State—that the hill farming sector must be helped. I represent a hill farming area. In the last award I gave the hill farming sector priority. Only this morning I discussed with the industry problems affecting the hill areas and the various hill subsidies that we have given.

The Minister spoke, as indeed the White Paper speaks, of increased milk production. Is the Minister still as complacent as he seemed last time we had Questions on agriculture, about the possibility of having to import liquid milk this winter? If liquid milk does have to be imported this winter, will the Minister resign?

I am never complacent, and I have no intention of resigning. The White Paper is a good paper, and I hope that all hon. Members will support it.

Will the Minister tell us how he expects to achieve increased milk production when the number of cows is falling at the rate of 3 per cent. a year? Further, will he estimate how many dairy farmers will go out of production if tied cottages are abolished? Does he realise that unless dairy farmers in Britain receive 40p a gallon for their milk this winter, many more will go out of production?

Before I became Minister there was a scheme to enable people to switch from the dairy industry to the beef sector. I recognise that there is a serious problem in the dairy industry. That is why I was glad to have this interim award, which will help the industry.

The Minister has said that there is a problem in the dairy sector. Does he not agree that there is a conflict between the objectives of "Food from Our Own Resources" and the recent common agricultural stocktaking document? Will he undertake to ensure that the policies in the stocktaking document, for reducing the production of liquid milk, will not apply to the United Kingdom?

I have said over and over again in this House, in reply to Questions, that there is no conflict between our interests and what is mentioned in the Community's stock-taking document. Basically, it states that production should be encouraged in the areas where it is most efficient. Our industry is extremely efficient and, therefore, I have made our position clear in the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now announce the continuation of the operational subsidy for fishing vessels.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current position of the fishing industry.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) on 29th July.

Further to the Minister's decision to continue subsidies, will he agree that that is only a temporary palliative? It is now 14 years since the Fleck Commission reported, and the industry again faces all the uncertainties inherent in the possible extension of our fishing limits to 200 miles. Will the hon. Gentleman give careful consideration to setting up an independent commission to consider the future of the industry on the lines recommended by the Fleck Commission?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that this financial aid is an extension of the aid given in the past six months. It was given in a situation in which we realised that certain difficulties have to be overcome in order to ensure the viability of the industry. In our announcement of the initial subsidy or financial aid we said that in the long run the industry must obtain its return from the market.

The industry does not want to depend on long-term subsidies. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that changes are taking place in the common fisheries policy. The question of the future of the industry is tied up with limits, access, quotas and other aspects. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is losing no time in pressing all these matters in Brussels, as he did in April and as he has done since, in order to help the industry become viable.

Is the Minister satisfied that this is enough for the industry at this time, when it is in these difficulties? Does he accept that it would be extremely helpful to the industry and would cost the taxpayer very little if there were a moratorium, for a period, on the repayment of loans to the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board and that this would go a long way towards improving the temporary cash flow while the Government sort out the long-term future of the industry?

I value the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the aim of the present subsidies. However, I assure him that the repayment of loans is, among other matters, being borne in mind at present, because the industry's future is still under consideration. We hope that the financial aid that has been welcomed by the industry will help to give it some confidence about the future.

I welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to extend the period of aid. Does the Minister agree that before the period expires it is important that the Government should make a serious study of the future requirements and size of the fishing fleet? Is he aware that there has been a great loss of confidence, because it is felt that the Government are simply prepared to allow a decline in the industry? Will the Minister ensure that that study will be carried out during the period of this temporary respite? Has there been any evidence over the past six months to support the decision to exclude boats shorter than 40 ft from the limits for aid?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the decision to give no aid to vessels under 40 ft in length was considered in relation to structural aspects applying to those vessels eligible for aid. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern and that of the industry about the long-term future of the industry. These matters are tied up with other considerations, for example, the Law of the Sea Conference, the common fisheries policy, and other matters which are now under urgent consideration by the Government.

Will the Minister explain to the House and the inshore fishing industry why it has been discriminated against for the second time in six months? Are not that industry's problems, in their own way, just as great as those of the middle-distance and deep-water fishing fleets?

I deny that there has been any discrimination. The subsidy announced in February, for the first six months of this year, covered those parts of the industry which are responsible for 90 per cent. of the catch. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have had to clip some money off the longer vessels and maintain the policy of the previous subsidy in not giving help in respect of those boats under 40 ft in length. We do not believe that the structural considerations applying to vessels eligible for aid apply in the case of vessels under 40 ft, although we appreciate that there are difficulties. The subsidy is only a temporary aid until other matters are sorted out. We shall certainly bear in mind the problems to which he has referred.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take in the light of the present difficulties of beef farmers; and if he will make a statement.

The recent fall in market prices has not affected the total returns received by beef fatteners. These are fully maintained by the premiums. Average total returns in Great Britain for the week beginning 14th July were, for example, £22.94 per live hundredweight. As regards future prospects and the particular interests of calf and store producers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on 24th July.—[Vol. 896, c. 271. ]

As the production of beef is such a lengthy business, necessitating much long-term planning, will the Minister give a certain amount of stability and reassurance to the industry by promising that the present beef arrangements will be continued through 1976 and beyond, if necessary?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am unable to answer that question in detail, because my answer would depend on the annual review and other negotiations concerning the EEC. He will realise that we have given the seasonal prices, which go right through to the end of February. This has been welcomed by the farmers' unions and others, and will give a degree of confidence. In addition, assuming that the present beef arrangements continue, there will be the further increase in our intervention price of at least £1 per live hundredweight, when we take the next transitional step towards the common guide price at the beginning of the 1976–77 marketing year. These things are likely to give confidence to the industry, and I have no doubt that when the new prices are being considered the current situation will be taken into account.

No doubt my hon. Friend will be aware that one of the major problems facing the livestock industry is the problem of fodder in the coming winter. What measures will the Government take to alleviate this situation? Will my hon. Friend consider issuing an order to prevent the burning of straw?

My hon. Friend obviously shares the general concern about the fodder situation—a concern that we had last winter. The fact is that although the fodder supply situation is one of smaller quantity, the indication at present is that the quality is much better. There has been appreciation of the work of the ADAS in helping farmers in this situation. The points made by my hon. Friend will be borne in mind.

Does the Minister accept that due to the extreme drought conditions prevailing, largely in the South of England, many farmers, including myself, are already feeding hay? Will he give serious consideration to lowering the minimum classification limit for stores and heifers, as one way of alleviating the situation? If he lowered it to 5 cwt. it would help the store situation this autumn, which is likely to be disastrous.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. I shall bear those points in mind.

Will my hon. Friend answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson)? Could we not have some more decisive action on the question of straw burning?

This matter has been considered by my right hon. Friend, but we do not think that any action is necessary at present. However, we shall bear the matter in mind, with other measures which may be necessary.

Is the Minister aware that my farmers will be relieved to learn that his right hon. Friend has got around to discussing with the unions concerned the appalling problems of hill farmers? However, is the Minister further aware, from the many letters he has received on the subject of last week's package, of the serious plight of my farmers, which that package will do nothing whatever to relieve? Does he appreciate that my farmers need action, not words, and that unless they get some cash in their pockets—for example, by a restoration of the cut in the calf subsidy, and the immediate payment of a further hill cow subsidy—they will be unable to buy the fodder which, despite what the Minister has said, will be in very short supply this winter, because the barley is very short on the stalk and whether or not they burn it there will be very little of it?

I think that the hon. Lady will realise, as we do, that the industry needs profits, and not prophets of doom. The Government are seeking to ensure the former, while the Opposition seem to be looking after the latter. The hon. Lady has obviously overlooked the fact that for the beef industry the package announced a few days ago by my right hon. Friend amounts to about £31 million net, in aid to the industry. As to the hill cow subsidy, the hon. Lady will recall that not long ago we brought forward the payment to the early part of the year, which helped farmers' cash flow. This is a move which cannot be easily repeated. However, the points made by the hon. Lady are being borne in mind. Indeed, they were under discussion with the President of the NFU, whom we met this morning.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a comparative list of prices in respect of horticultural products for the United Kingdom and other members of the EEC.

With permission, I shall publish in the Official Report such retail prices as we have for February 1975, the most recent month for which figures are readily available.

Will the Minister accept that those figures, whatever they may be, do not show the degree of subsidy which is occurring within the EEC, in terms of both credits and heating costs, particularly in the glasshouse sector? In this situation, the NFU is unable to obtain a detailed picture of subsidies within the EEC. What is the Minister's Department doing, within the dialogue in Brussels, to get more information? Will the Minister take a less complacent tone about this industry than he has done recently, given that we are only half way through the season and that problems of inflation still bear heavily?

As the hon. Gentleman recognises, it is very difficult to obtain a clear picture of the various aids which

Sources:

United Kingdom—General Index of Retail Prices.

Other Countries—National Publications.

Notes:

Owing to differences in varieties, grades and methods of presentation these prices are not necessarily comparable one with another.

Comparable figures for Italy are not available

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the current profitability of the glasshouse sector of the horticulture industry.

The glasshouse sector is too diverse to enable an overall estimate of profitability to be made. However, on the information available so far this season I believe that efficient growers are obtaining satisfactory returns.

Bearing in mind the current situation, does the Minister agree that the market is sufficiently buoyant to give a good return to glasshouse growers and that the special subsidies given to the industry were obviously given at the right time?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unlike some other members of the Community, we concentrated the subsidy into last year, when it was badly needed. It is the case that wholesale tomato prices, for example, are up by 45 per cent., which is very helpful to the industry.

Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents who

exist throughout the Community. However, I reject absolutely the suggestion that we have been in any way complacent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcomes the firm prices which his horticultural producers are receiving at present.

Following is the information:

are engaged in the glasshouse industry are now in considerable financial difficulty? They fear that these difficulties will become even more formidable as winter approaches. What are the Government prepared to do to stave off the threat of bankruptcy, which is a real threat to these people?

The hon. and learned Gentleman should recognise that the amount of money put into the British industry in the form of oil subsidy compares extremely favourably with that paid in any other member State of the Community. He should also not lose sight of the capital grants that we give and the help that the ADAS gives to growers who wish to convert to more efficient forms of heating.

Despite his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), does my hon. Friend not recognise that many growers have been very hard hit by the increase in fuel prices? Is he not aware that as a result of the refusal to extend the subsidy, many of our growers are working at a severe disadvantage, as compared with Dutch growers, who are enjoying a considerable subsidy at present?

I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that the British Government moved very quickly to pay the subsidy when it was most needed. We really cannot go on indefinitely providing an operating subsidy to an industry which is getting very good prices for its produce.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to facilitate intervention buying of cereals in the event of the United Kingdom's prices falling below intervention prices in the coming harvest.

Sales into intervention are governed by Community rules. It is open to owners of wheat and barley at any time to offer their grain for sale into intervention and, if the conditions are satisfied, it will be bought at the appropriate price.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he able to predict the future trend of grain prices, in view of harvest predictions in the Northern Hemisphere? Is he further able to give any estimate of the likely yields of this year's harvest in the home market?

There are indications that this year's harvest will not reach the previous figures, but I cannot give any forecasts. I shall look at this matter carefully and get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

If we come to intervention buying after this harvest, will my right hon. Friend consider, in the light of the quality of the grain produced, arguing a case for a special lower category in feeding wheats?

This matter came up the other day in the Community, but I have not made up my mind on it. There are arguments for and against. I shall watch the position carefully.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the levels of butter imports in tonnage and value terms in 1972, 1973 and 1974; and what is the forecast for 1975.

With permission, I shall publish the figures for 1972, 1973 and 1974 in the Official Report. These show a higher level of imports in 1974 than in 1972 and 1973. It is not the practice of my Department to publish forecasts of imports.

While finding it difficult to thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he does not consider that the Secretary of State's answer to an earlier Question about the dairy situation in Britain showed a complacency that is totally out of place? Is it not true that the home dairy industry is now in a state of crisis and that cows are being brought forward for slaughter at a disastrous rate? What steps will the Government now take to set the British dairy industry on the path of expansion?

The Question was about butter. I deny the hon. Gentleman's allegation about my right hon. Friend. The main effect of the discussions on the green pound, and the agreement reached last week, will be on the guaranteed price for milk, which is worth £60 million in a full year. That addition has been welcomed by the farming industry.

Does the Minister agree that virtually no butter will be made in this country between now and March 1976? Does he accept that that will happen as a result of the shortage of milk caused by Government policies, and that the recent 2.2p per gallon rise will do nothing to stem the downturn in milk production? Will he give us an assurance that before the winter begins there will be another adjustment to the milk price, so that we can put dairy produce and dairy production back on the right road?

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to either the Minister's statement or the announcement last week. Since the 1974 annual review we have increased the guaranteed price of milk by 37 per cent. That has helped the industry. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that there are increases in the pipeline which must still be put into effect. The fall in butter production is not due only to the fall in milk production or to more milk being consumed as liquid; it is also used in the manufacture of cheese and other products.

Following is the information: UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS OF BUTTER ' 000 tons £ million 1972 … … 339 165 1973 … … 327 134 1974 … … 437 230*

Source: Overseas Trade Accounts. *Adjusted in the light of more recent information.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation of the measures adopted by the EEC Commission on 7th July in respect of the egg industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about imports of foreign eggs, particularly from France.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present position of the United Kingdom poultry industry.

Since the measures authorised by the European Commission to deal with the situation in our egg market came into effect on 7th July, egg packing stations have increased the prices they pay to producers by an average of over 5p a dozen. Imports are running at a low level. We shall continue to watch developments in the market closely.

Does the Minister accept that the reduction in imports is due to the strengthening of the market on the Continent? Will he therefore keep a careful watch on this trend, bearing in mind the fact that despite the improvement which he mentioned, the return to producers is still 5p below the cost of production?

The situation has improved, partly as a result of the steps taken by my right hon. Friend in Brussels. The changes in the export restitutions means that there is now more encouragement to send eggs from Europe in other directions rather than to the United Kingdom, and especially to third countries. All those factors, combined with the steps we have taken to allow the export of eggs to France, are helping the market.

Is the Minister aware of the continuing concern in the poultry industry? Will he say how many eggs have been exported to France? Have the difficulties encountered with arsenical compounds in feeding stuffs been overcome?

My right hon. Friend and I met the leaders of the British Poultry Federation yesterday. I held a meeting with other representatives of the industry and the NFU in my constituency on Saturday.

We have reached agreement with the French to allow the import of British eggs into France as we have taken steps to ensure that arsenical compounds are not used as feed additives.

Many hon. Members are relieved at the achievement of the Minister of Agriculture. As this problem has existed for many years, it is strange that the Opposition have only recently taken an interest in it, despite the fact that the previous administration refused to take any action.

I appreciate those comments. Despite the demands made as a result of the economic situation, my right hon. Friend pursued this matter vigorously in Brussels. Steps are now being taken within the Community, and by its egg-producing member States, to ensure greater stability of egg production in future.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he regards as the acceptable minimum size of the United Kingdom trawler fleet.

The trawler fleet comprises vessels of different sizes and catching capacity, based on different ports and fishing different stocks at varying distances from our shores. It would not be helpful to speculate about its appropriate size at the present time. The important consideration is that it should be able to take full advantage of the fishing opportunities open to the United Kingdom.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an equally important consideration is that in the past 18 months the United Kingdom trawling fleet has been reduced, overall, by 20 per cent. and by almost 30 per cent. in Scotland? Is he aware that the inadequate subsidy scheme, which was announced this week, will mean that the number of vessels tied up or transferred may approach 40 per cent. of the fleet by the end of the year? Does he agree that after September there must be an end to this hand-to-mouth existence and that there must be certainty of stable, long-term financial viability in the industry?

The subsidy was welcomed by the industry. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's mean attitude towards the announcement, when he said that the subsidy was not enough. The hon. Gentleman must not be a Mr. Micawber. This is a good deal for the industry, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions in Brussels on 16th July, so far as they related to direct elections to the European Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made at the meeting of Heads of EEC Governments in Brussels on 16th July.

I have been asked to reply.

It is not the practice to make set speeches at these meetings and details of the discussions are confidential. The question of direct elections arose in the context of discussions on the future development of the Community. The Heads of Government decided that various ideas should be looked at by the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Council will set up a working group.

Why are the Prime Minister and the Government so unwilling to make a statement of principle in favour of direct elections? Are they afraid of allowing the British people to choose their representatives to the European Community? Might the answer be that the system of election used might be much fairer than our system?

Not at all. Direct elections appear in the Treaty of Rome, as an objective. We accept that treaty. The Prime Minister told the House on 3rd July—we repeated it at the meeting of Heads of Government—that we should examine the matter very carefully. We are doing so now, as there are complicated constitutional issues involved. The Prime Minister also welcomed the decision of the Heads of Government to ask the Council of Foreign Ministers to look into this and to report back to the Heads of Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be pointless to accept the principle of direct election of members of the European Parliament without a considerable increase in the powers of the Parliament to which they are being elected? Otherwise, the electorate will not be interested in voting for such people. Will my right hon. Friend create machinery between the Government and the current representatives of Britain at Strasbourg to devise ways acceptable to Britain of increasing the powers of the current Assembly? Until we do that, the principle of direct elections seems irrelevant.

That is a wider question. The Government will be happy to talk to the present representatives, to hear their views and to discuss with them the powers of the present Assembly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no decision about direct elections to a European Parliament until we know what powers that Parliament will have, if any? Will he give an assurance that there will be no changes in those powers without the consent of each national Parliament?

Yes. I can give a complete assurance. There will be no change in the method of selecting or electing our representatives without the consent of this Parliament?

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if the Government agree to direct elections to the European Parliament it will be made clear that candidates will not be confined to members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and that any British citizen on the electoral roll will be entitled to stand as a candidate for that Parliament?

I repeat that as we accept the Treaty of Rome we accept the principle of direct elections as a long-term objective. The second point raised by my right hon. Friend is exactly the kind of matter that has to be considered. It has to be considered very carefully. That is why we have made a study of it in addition to the study being made by the Foreign Ministers.

asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to meet the heads of the nationalised industries to discuss his statement of 11th July on the economic situation.

asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the heads of the nationalised industries to meet him to discuss his statement of 11th July on the economy.

asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to meet the leaders of the nationalised industries to discuss his statement of 11 th July on the economic situation.

asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to meet the heads of the nationalised industries to discuss his statement of 11th July on the economic situation.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend discussed our intentions on pay limits with the heads of 21 public corporations on 10th July. They have assured the Government that they will support the new policy in every way and that they will operate strictly within the limits laid down in the guidelines. The Ministers concerned will continue to keep in close touch with the corporations on the implementation of the policy.

Will the Lord President remind the Prime Minister that the losses so far reported by the nationalised industries in one year amount to more than £14 per head of the population, with more to come? Is he aware that the people are fed up with the prospect of having to pay for these vast losses out of their straitened incomes? Are not prices for the products of nationalised industries rapidly moving out of the range of those who need them most?

No, Sir. The deficits which are being announced reflect the degree to which the publicly-owned industries have been constrained in their pricing policies, under both the previous Conservative Government and the present Government, and, therefore, the extent to which the publicly-owned industries have been subsidising private industry.

To absorb a growing number of unemployed, is not a national recovery programme called for? Has not the Prime Minister rightly encouraged France and Germany to expand their economies, whereas we are being asked to cut back ours? How can it be inflationary for us to expand our economy if it costs little more to keep a man fully employed than to have him idle?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be making an announcement about this before the Summer Recess.

Why are the Government stubbornly pressing on with their further disastrous programme of nationalisation when it is clear to everyone except the prejudiced and blinkered Socialists that nationalised industries have failed the nation, that we cannot afford more nationalisation and that if we get more it will lead only to more unemployment and more inflation?

That supplementary question from the hon. Gentleman was entirely predictable. It is on a level with all the supplementary questions he puts on this subject. The hon. Gentleman has not made a constructive comment on anything since he came to the House. The nationalised industries are the basis of our economy. For many years now they have been restricted in their pricing policy and, therefore, they have been subsidising the rest of our economy.

How much of the £6 a week permitted wage increase next year will be taken up by increased energy, rail and postal charges?

I cannot answer that off the cuff. If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question we shall let him have a reply.

Are not Opposition Members hypocritical about this matter? Does not private enterprise receive about £2½ million a day in various subsidies? Have not Opposition Members only this afternoon demanded subsidies for the fishing industry? It is apparently all right to have subsidies for the fishing industry and private enterprise, but not all right to have subsidies for nationalised industries. Is it not clear that the Opposition are a bunch of damned hypocrites?

I deprecate that phraseology. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it differently.

If I have gone beyond the bounds of parliamentary terminology, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the appropriate words, whichever they are.

In the light of last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party at which the Environment Secretary's decision to accept a Lords Amendment to the "Clay Cross" Bill was overruled by a majority of 21, could the chairmen of the nationalised industries be told which of the Government's policies will in future be decided by the Cabinet and which by the Parliamentary Labour Party, on the advice of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

Last night my right hon. Friend, in a democratic manner consulted his colleagues on a purely parliamentary matter. We are willing to accept the decision of our colleagues on this.

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

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that were the Prime Minister, he, or indeed anyone, to visit Hatfield he would learn to appreciate how dependent that part of my constituency is on the aerospace industry? Is he aware of the damage caused to that industry, on the civil side, by the threat to the HS146 and, on the missile side, by the threat to the USGW? Will he confirm that the Government do not intend to commit the folly of buying American weapons for the Navy and cancelling this valuable British project?

With regard to the USGW, no decision has yet been taken on how to meet the obvious requirement for an underwater-to-surface guided weapon. A great many factors have to be taken into consideration, including operational performance, cost, foreign exchange expenditure and the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of equipment within the alliance. I repeat that no decision has yet been taken on how to meet this requirement.

Does the Lord President accept that the uncertainty in the aerospace industry, to which the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) often refers, would be ended if the Government dropped their plans for nationalising that industry?

To end the uncertainty, may I make clear that we think that the Bill will have its Second Reading in November.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC and the CBI.

I have been asked to reply.

As my right hon. Friend has told the House, there have been and will continue to be extensive discussions between the Government, TUC and CBI on the proposals contained in the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation" (Cmnd. 6151).

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best proposition that could be put forward at the forthcoming meeting with the TUC, and perhaps to a lesser extent at the meeting with the CBI, is that, arising out of our recent debates on the new economic policy and, bearing in mind all the legal difficulties in relation to conspiracy matters and injunctions, the Government should drop any intention they may have of introducing, in any form, reserve powers of the kind that have been loosely described by Government spokesmen?

What has emerged from the long but excellent debates we have had is the massive amount of support for the Government's policy in the House and in the country. There is no intention to introduce the reserve powers unless we are forced to do so. If we are forced to do so, we shall introduce them.

If the Prime Minister does meet the TUC will he explain to it precisely why the Socialist Government felt it necessary to raise the Bank Rate by a full 1 per cent. on the day after the announcement that there were 1 million unemployed? Is it because the Government's conversion to monetarism is complete, or because the Government's control of public expenditure is still non-existent, that the Government have ended up where all Socialist Governments end up, by being completely in pawn to foreign bankers?

I think the hon. Gentleman understands as well as I do the reason for that increase.

Will the Leader of the House accept that many of us are pleased that the Prime Minister finds it worth while to have discussions with the TUC and CBI? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the next time the Scottish Trades Union Congress asks for a meeting with the Prime Minister it will not be with the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Energy, particularly when the STUC wants to discuss the economic and unemployment situation in Scotland?

I do not know whether the hon. Lady is trying to appear as a great champion of the STUC. The Prime Minister and I, and several colleagues, some time ago spent a whole weekend in Glasgow, discussing all kinds of matters with the STUC, and we intend to do so again later this year.

It ill becomes the hon. Lady—a member of the Scottish National Party—to be concerned about the STUC. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the STUC is on record as saying that the Scottish National Party has no relevance to the working people of Scotland?

On a point of order. May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, the matter of the grouping of Questions in so far as it affects the rights of hon. Members. Some time ago the grouping of Questions by the Prime Minister was raised with you, and it was agreed that he would stop at Question No. Q10. Today Questions Nos. 53, 41 and 46 were taken by Ministers replying for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Question No. 13 was not reached. It seems to me that a difficult situation arises over the rights of back benchers.

There must be flexibility in any system, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point will be noted.

The House will deplore such violence and will join with me in expressing sympathy for the families.

The House will understand that, while this investigation is continuing, I cannot give full details. However, my information is that at about two o'clock this morning a minibus containing members of the Miami Showband from the Republic of Ireland, who were returning from a professional engagement in Banbridge, County Down, was stopped on the main Dublin road north of Newry. Five members of the band were apparently ordered out of their vehicle by terrorists. There was then an explosion. This was apparently the premature detonation of a bomb. There was also some shooting. As a result, three members of the band were shot dead and one was seriously injured. Two other men believed to have been terrorists were killed by the explosion. The remaining member of the band was unhurt but is understandably badly shocked.

Neither the identity of the terrorists nor that of the organisation to which they belong has been definitely established, but the police are following a positive line of inquiry.

Does the Secretary of State agree that this horrifying outrage is rendered, if possible, more shocking by the fact that it was carried out against persons who were peaceably visiting the United Kingdom from another country? Does he further agree that what matters now is the identification and the bringing to justice of the survivors amongst those who were responsible, and the further improvement of the rate of detention and conviction of terrorists?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the victims were visitors, peaceably visiting part of the United Kingdom for innocuous reasons. The police are pursuing a line of investigation. The evidence so far available makes them reasonably confident that the terrorists were not members of the PIRA or any related organisation. I cannot confirm that any particular Protestant group—the UVF for example—was responsible. I understand that an arm with the letters "UVF" tattooed on it has been found.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we are grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and to him for enabling every one of us to express our detestation of this atrocity and to join in sympathy and prayers for the dead and bereaved and best wishes for the recovery of the survivor suffering from shock?

Does not the fact that the showband came from across the border, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, and that members of it originated from different sides of the border, remind us that the terror hangs over the Irish Republic as well as the United Kingdom, and should be met in co-operation by the two sovereign Powers?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Her Majesty's Opposition support him and the security forces in all measures, including detention, that may be appropriate for the smashing of the terrorist gangs, whatever colours they brandish and besmirch?

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He will know that in the past six months the violence has come not from one quarter but from across the community divide. Some people—not the hon. Gentleman—seem to ignore that. The RUC, with the assistance of the Army where appropriate, will pursue the killers in this case. As I have informed the House, it is following a positive line of inquiry.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on the Government side of the House, too, will want to be associated with his expressions of horror at this latest tragic incident in the Six Counties and to express our sympathy with the relatives and families of the dead men? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if such an incident occurred anywhere else in the United Kingdom there would rightly be a massive public outcry for concentrated police activity to bring the criminals to book and to trial? Will my right hon. Friend give us further details of the kind of action the police are taking to bring the case to the courts?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words, which are in accordance with the views on both sides of the House. I agree that people become numbed in Northern Ireland, and sometimes one feels that there is not the same outcry as there would he in other parts of the United Kingdom. What matters in Northern Ireland is that people on both sides of the community divide should express their horror when something is committed by people on their side of the community fence. This is happening increasingly. As for my hon. Friend's other question, it would be better if I simply used the words that I used in my statement: the police are following a positive line of inquiry.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that the hon. Members on this bench, representing the Northern Ireland constituents, totally condemn, without reservation, those who were guilty of this diabolical deed? Was the band a mixed band, with both religions represented in it, as I have reason to believe? Will the new patrol group of the Royal Ulster Constabulary be operating in the area to bring the criminals to justice?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words, and for the fact that he says them without reservation. His words will matter in Northern Ireland. I have no knowledge of the religion of the people concerned. The special patrol group is involved.

First, may I express my sympathy with all the relatives of those who lost their lives. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that the area in which this atrocious murder took place is allegedly a Loyalist area, where there is no hostility or animosity towards the police or the security forces? Is he satisfied that adequate protection is being given to those who travel in such areas? Will he confirm that those who are allegedly responsible for this brutal crime came from an area known as The Triangle in Portadown, where a number of brutal murders have taken place recently? Is he satisfied that the RUC and security forces are giving due attention to the murderers who emanate from that area?

The police are accepted in the area. It is certainly not a no-go area by any stretch 'of the imagination. The police cannot protect every inch of a road as people are traveling along it. It would be wrong of me to give any suggestion that they could. Even if another five battalions of troops were sent it could not be done. It is easy to murder and kill—far easier than to talk and argue. It is much better for me to leave to the police the question where the murderers come from.

Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 4th August—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security Pensions Bill, the Child Benefit Bill, and the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill and others that may be received.

TUESDAY 5th August—Completion of remaining stages of the Employment Protection Bill.

Motion on the undertaking with Caledonian Macbrayne Limited.

WEDNESDAY 6th August—Until 7 o'clock a debate on Court Line Limited.

Thereafter, until, say, midnight, a debate on the textile, clothing and footwear industries when EEC Documents S/799/75 and R/1431/75 will be relevant.

THURSDAY 7th August—Subject to agreement, the House will meet at 11 am, take Questions until 12 noon, and adjourn at 5 pm for the summer until Monday, 13th October.

As we are reaching the end of an unusually long Session with a lot of uncompleted work—for example, three major Bills have yet to go to the House of Lords and many Bills have to return from there, while many important measures have not yet been debated, in spite of assurances to the contrary—would not the Lord President agree that the legislative programme has been grossly overloaded and that we have not had the time for proper parliamentary scrutiny nor are we likely to have it? Would he not therefore drop one or two Bills from the Government's programme now?

No, Sir. The programme has been a heavy one but I do not agree that it has been unduly overloaded. There will be an overspill period in the autumn. We certainly hope to complete our legislative programme for this Session.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last week when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) asked you whether it was possible for a motion to be moved requiring the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) to come to this House, you said that it was a matter for the House and not the Chair. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt have seen Early-Day Motion No. 622.

[ That the Governor of Her Majesty's Prison at Brixton do bring the Right honourable John Thompson Stonehouse in custody to this House on any one day before the eighth day of August, if the said Right honourable John Thompson Stonehouse shall desire to be so brought up, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants to the said Governor and to the Serjeant at Arms attending this House accordingly. ]

This motion, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth and others, and to which I am a signatory, asks that the right hon. Member should come here to give an explanation of himself to the House. Since it is our right to know what has been happening, may I ask the Leader of the House either to move such a motion or to give time for us to move it so that the right hon. Member may be brought here?

There are obviously a number of views about this. I think it would be sensible to wait until we have a specific request from the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand the position, we have not yet had a specific request. If we receive one, we shall have to consider it. The House will have to decide the matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that you had already received such a request from the right hon. Member.

If the hon. Member will refer to the terms of the letter which I read out to the House he will see that the request is not yet specific.

May I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House Early-Day Motion No. 624?

[ That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to abolish the archaic rule which compels the courts to wait upon the formal consent of Parliament before they can take judicial notice of the public record of proceedings in Parliament and asks that the rule be submitted for examination and report by the Select Committee on Procedure. ]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this motion has been signed by a number of right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House and that it urges the Government to take action to abolish the archaic rule which makes parliamentary consent necessary before Hansard can he read in a court of law? Is he aware that it was the abortive attempts last week by the Law Officers to follow this rule that gave rise to the equally absurd double voting episode in this House? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that there will be an early opportunity to debate this motion? If there is not time to do so, will he give the House an assurance that the Government will take steps to submit this rule to the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible?

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will certainly consider what he says. The rule would certainly appear to be archaic.

Like a number of other things in this House.

I respect what the hon. and learned Member says about this. Perhaps I could have some discussions through the usual channels to find out how we can deal with the matter.

In connection with the same Early-Day Motion, may I ask my right hon. Friend to study the amendment which I have tabled? It reads, leave out from first 'to' to end and add 'have the two reports of Lord Donovan's Joint Committee of both Houses on Defamation and Privilege considered and decided upon by the two Houses, and meanwhile to take no steps to alter the existing law which prevents other courts taking judicial notice of words spoken in Parliament, since any such change would inhibit Members from discussing criminal or civil offences suspected or committed by any person, or from doing as Mr. Duncan Sandys did and break the law (in his case the Official Secrets Act) in the national interest, if their words could later be used elsewhere as evidence of such crimes or civil offences' Is it not time that the House discussed the report of Lord Donovan's Joint Committee of both Houses on the whole subject of defamation and privilege rather than attempt to deal with one tiny issue by itself? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this procedure prevents our words from being used in evidence in court without the permission of the House? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is something that we should all think about before we endeavour to change it in isolation?

That is a much wider question. The more immediate and rather restricted question was raised by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). I will certainly look at this. I hope that there will be an opportunity to deal with this next Session.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman yet again whether he expects a statement to be made next week about the Maxwell Stamp Report, bearing in mind that as reported in col. 749 of Hansard for 10th July he promised to write to me about this, and unless the Post Office has failed to deliver that letter, it would appear that the letter has not yet been written?

We will look into this and write to the hon. Gentleman. Certainly there will not be a statement next week.

Can my right hon. Friend say when time is likely to be given for discussion of the archaic laws of bankruptcy and liquidation, both of which are sadly topical and on both of which we have been promised legislation in due course?

Certainly not next week.

In view of the statement by the Prime Minister that he was seeking a détente of action, not words, and the fact that the main action which seems to have followed that speech is the suppression of the Socialist majority in Portugal, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House about the whole Helsinki operation?

I am sure that if the House wishes it, my right hon. Friend will be very happy to make a statement about this most important conference when he returns.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House will be grateful to him for saying earlier this week that he is willing to set up a Select Committee to visit Cyprus? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the Committee will be set up before the House rises so that it can visit the island and see the refugees, British and Cypriot, who constitute an important problem for which this House ought to take immediate responsibility?

I hope to table a motion on this subject today.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we shall have a debate in Government time on foreign affairs during the overspill period? Does he not agree that it is more important to keep our gaze on some of the extremely serious events taking place in the world than to deal with a further rash of Socialist Bills?

I certainly think that it is time we had a foreign affairs debate and I will try to ensure that we have one in the overspill period.

Would my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House for ensuring that the Summer Recess begins in time for the "Glorious twelfth"—the start of grouse shooting? Would he further accept that he would have earned further congratulations from my hon. Friends if he had preserved a sufficient amount of parliamentary time to ensure that essential Government legislation was passed while at the same time reaching a terminal date in the summer which coincided rather more with the school holidays of our children?