asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average level of rent paid by retired agricultural workers and widows of retired agricultural workers living in housing belonging to the landowners and farmers who previously employed them.

No official statistics are available. But, judging by data in respect of serving farmworkers, I would expect the average to be low. And I would not be surprised if the majority paid no rent at all.

Does not the Minister agree that these rents are likely to be extremely low by current standards and that if tied cottages were abolished and their rents put on a fair rent basis, the increases would be savage? Will he not further agree that the Government's proposals to abolish the tied cottage system are likely to cause great distress to elderly people living in these cottages? What does he propose to do about it?

I reject utterly the implications of the hon. Member's remarks. The Government have no intention of raising farm workers' rents savagely.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of farm-workers living in tied cottages; and how many of these workers are called out on emergencies more that 12 times per year.

It can be inferred that at least 70,000 farmworkers live in tied Cottages in England and Wales. But there are no official estimates on this or the frequency with which they are called out on emergencies.

Did not the Tavistock Report State that, of the farm workers in tied cottages, 50 per cent. Were never called out at all and, of the other 50 per cent., a third were called out Probably less than twice a year? Does not this make a mockery of the farmer's Claims that the industry could not run without the tied Cottage System?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Tavistock Report, from a fine, independent inquiry has been monstrously misrepresented by certain sections of the farming industry, including farmers and landlords.

Will the Minister accept that a third of those in tied cottages have retired and are therefore unlikely to be called out, and that the same research to which he referred indicated that a majority of those living in tied accommodation thought it essential for some farm workers to live in tied accommodation in order to do their work properly? Does he understand that the weather waits for no man?

I was brought up on a farm and know a little about agriculture and farm workers, but let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Member that we have no intention of introducing legislation that will prevent farm workers from continuing to live on farms.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in 1948 34 per cent. of farm workers lived in tied cottage accommodation, and that in 1975 there are 55 per cent. who live in tied accommodation? Does not this indicate that the farmers are able to hold their labour force in general in the industry only through the tied cottage system and low wages? Will my hon. Friend give a firm pledge that the legislation to abolish the tied cottage system will be introduced by St. Valentine's Day?

I must confess to my hon. Friend that I am not sure when St. Valentine's Day is, but I give her the assurance that there is no weakening in the Government's resolve to protect farm workers from eviction and from the threat of eviction in the future.

Is it not a fact that herdsmen are called out on emergencies twice a day at milking times and that no herdsman in his senses wishes to walk back to his village in between the two milking times? Is it not a fact, further, that every kind of research has proved the hon. Gentleman to be wrong, and that persons who live in tied cottages like to live in tied cottages?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand what this issue is about.

I have milked. Has the hon. Gentleman?

I have milked, and by hand, too. Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman that under our new legislation farm workers and dairymen will continue to live in their present houses and that nothing will be instantly changed. What will change is that a farmer will not be able to get a farm worker out of a house solely on the basis of agricultural need.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the particular problems which may arise in agricultural employment in border areas such as Northumberland if the agricultural tied cottage system is abolished in England but not in Scotland.

It is too early to say whether any such difficulties will arise. This will depend on the form of legislation introduced by my right hon. Friends and whether local situations would in any way be affected by the separate timetable for Scotland, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) on 22nd October—[Vol. 898, c. 458–9.]

Does the Minister recognise that, whether this proposal proves a success or a disaster, there is a danger that agricultural employment could, for a time at least, be more attractive on one side of the border than on the other? Does the Minister recognise that it is of the utmost importance that the farm-worker should have a house near his job when he wants one, and that, if he is prevented from obtaining a house because no alternative arrangements have been made for retired workers, due to lack of money in local authorities, he will be in no way helped?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am confident that our legislation will turn out to be an enormous success for agriculture. The hon. Member has raised some important issues. Although we are introducing a Bill on devolution, we shall not solve the problem by redrawing the English border so that it corresponds to farm boundaries.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made to find alternative catches for cod fishermen.

Cod stocks on existing grounds are fully exploited and there are no alternative areas in which the British fleet might be deployed. However, work is being continued on other fish resources which we might utilise.

Is the Minister aware that the search for alternative resources following the Law of the Sea Conference is vital and should be proceeding now?

I recognise the hon. Member's concern. As he will be aware, we have had monitoring voyages and the results have been very encouraging, especially with the blue whiting taken in mid-water trawls off the British Isles in the spring. The matter is being researched by my Department. There is the question of processing and, eventually, marketing, but we are doing our best to find alternative species to help the industry.

As catches in Icelandic waters provide a large percentage of the total catch of fleets from places such as Fleetwood and Hull, can my hon. Friend tell us whether there is any likelihood of a resumption of talks and also what is happening towards getting a settlement of this vexing dispute?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's constructive question. He will be aware that the waters around Iceland provide one-third of our cod catch and are very important to us, especially in the light of what I said in reply to the previous supplementary question. I understand that there is a possibility of a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Icelandic Foreign Minister today. We hope that we can get a resumption of talks at the earliest possible moment.

In view of the importance my hon. Friend attaches to this matter, can he say what progress is being made in discussions on the EEC common fisheries policy? How many meetings have been held at ministerial or official level? What sort of catch for the British Isles does my hon. Friend consider suitable? How many men will be employed and what range of vessels will be used?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about this matter, which is very important if we are to give confidence to the industry about its future shape and prospects. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture told the Community as early as last April that we could not wait until 1982 to renegotiate the Treaty of Accession in this respect. He said that it was urgent because we had the largest fishing industry in the Community. Proposals are being prepared by the Commission and I should not like to comment on them now except to say that they are being discussed at official level and that Ministers are involved.

Is the Minister aware that a promise has been given that these measures will be announced this week? Can he give the House some advance information about them, as they will be made public knowledge by the European Parliament in the next five days?

My right hon. Friend will be in Brussels early next week. The question of how soon the Commission's proposals are published is a matter for the Commission. We shall want to study them very carefully before making any further pronouncements on the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had concerning his refusal to take steps to prohibit the import of sperm whale products into the Unted Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the policies now adopted by the United States Government and the Government of New Zealand on the banning of whale products, if he will now reconsider his policy not to do the same.

I have received a number of letters from conservation societies and others on the extension of the existing ban on the import of whale products to cover products of the sperm whale. I believe that products from the sperm whale should continue to be exempt from the ban since stocks of sperm whales are not indanger of over-exploitation and because certain industries would face very real difficulties if these products were not available. However, United Kingdom research into satisfactory substitutes continues with Government encouragement.

Why did my hon. Friend refuse to accept a parcel of sperm oil substitutes delivered to him for examination this morning by the Friends of the Earth? Is he aware that there are adequate substitues for all uses of sperm oil and that I have a list of them with me if he wants to see it? Does he realise that the whale may disappear from our oceans and never return? Will he at least follow the example of the United States and New Zealand by banning imports of sperm oil products and work towards a 10-year moratorium on commercial whaling as resolved at the Stockholm Conference?

I shall clarify the position. I am aware that many hon. Members were told that the Friends of the Earth were meeting me today. Unfortunately, I had not been told. The Friends of the Earth later wrote to tell me that they would see me at 9.30 a.m. when, as Opposition Members know, I was involved in preparing for a Commitee debate. I wrote to the Friends of the Earth saying that I would see them this evening, and I am looking forward to doing so. I am sorry that there has been a mix-up in communications. In any case, I do not accept gifts.

I am not as interested in the lobby of the Friends of the Earth as I am in the preservation of the whale. Does the Minister agree that there are alternative substances, either natural or synthetic, which can replace sperm oil, whether in the manufacture of ladies' gloves or for other purposes? Will the Minister's Department look into the question, not necessarily from the point of view of a 10-year moratorium, but to see whether we can bring ourselves into line with two other Governments—New Zealand and the United States—both of which have considered this matter seriously? Will the Minister tell me of one product which cannot be replaced synthetically?

Substitutes for the manufacture of ladies' gloves are not to hand, but we are pursuing the possibility of substitutes. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern—and that of others—but I remind him that the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission has given us advice, which we accept. In the International Whaling Commission talks in London—which I was honoured to open—an amendment, called the Australian amendment, was passed, categorising the scarcity of species. We are aware that we must try to keep all the members of the Commission together, because if members do not co-operate, nothing can be done. We are very much seized of the importance of this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a further statement on the progress to date towards the objectives contained in the White Paper Food from our own Resources."

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the light of the import saving which would result from the increased availability of home-grown food processed by British food firms, he will accelerate the introduction of the measures advocated in the White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources."

I refer the hon. Members to the reply which my hon. Friend gave the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on 23rd October. In the Annual Review, which has now started, we are reviewing the state of the industry in the light of the strategy set out in the White Paper.—[Vol. 898, c. 222.]

Do not the deplorable September livestock returns show clearly that agriculture is moving backwards? Is not expansion threatened, first, by the Government's capital taxation policies and, secondly, by their biased attitude towards tied cottages?

I cannot accept that. Beef prices show a return of confidence which has been caused by my being able to obtain a premium system, which has worked. The hon. Gentleman must also recognise the return of confidence that is developing in the milk industry. Milk production has increased considerably over that of last year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than making agriculture a political football, as the Opposition often do, it would be better for the country if my right hon. Friend were to consider the setting up of an all-party Select Committee to examine the industry and determine how to put into effect the policy contained in the White Paper "Food from our own Resources"?

The setting up of a Select Committee is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I resent the gloom-mongering of some hon. Members. I think that confidence is returning.

Does the Minister accept that the figures for the cattle breeding herd, the dairy herd and the pig breeding herd are all down? I could enumerate more. Is he satisfied with investment in agriculture? Does he not feel that Government policies militate against further investment? Is he satisfied with the level of profitability of the food manufacturing and processing industry which is, in my view, minute? Does it allow for expansion and encourage new investment?

We still adhere to the White Paper "Food from our own Resources", which reveals the Government's strategy. I accept that for various reasons there has been some measure of retrenchment, but I cannot accept the gloom that some people purvey in the House and outside. In the dairy sector, which is important for the beef sector, and in the livestock sector, including beef in hill farming areas, there is a considerable improvement in confidence. I intend to hold on to what I achieved in Brussels for the beef régime.

Far from the September livestock figures being unsatisfactory, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the pig breeding herd is substantially larger than it was a year ago—by 14,000 animals—and is not that evidence that he is pursuing his policy as effectively as possible?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reference to the pig breeding herd as another example of confidence returning. The same also applies in the cereals sector. There are still great problems of inflation, which affect not only the farming community but all sectors. I am anxious that the Price Review determinations and what I achieve at the negotiations in Brussels will help the farming community.

I accept that things are not so bad as they were. However, will the Minister please stop describing as gloom merchants those who refer to his figures showing that agricultural production is likely to be severely reduced this year? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the target contained in the White Paper is a 3 per cent. expansion in the five years to 1980? Is it not likely that this year's overall production will be 7 per cent. down rather than 3 per cent. up, and, therefore, that for the re- maining four years we shall have to expand at the rate of 5½ per cent. rather than 3 per cent.? Will the Minister make sure that that rate of expansion is achieved?

That figure was not a target: it was an objective. I cannot be specific each year about the annual rate of production. All I am saying is that there has been a period of retrenchment in the industry over this year, but in certain key commodities there has been an improvement. Milk production will be greater than it was last year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement concerning his policy towards the future role of the hill cow suckler herd.

The hill cow suckler herd is important both with regard to the economic position of the hill areas and as an integral part of the beef breeding herd. The White Paper "Food from our own Resources" recognised that beef production rather than dairying could make the best use of resources in the uplands, and the Government expect the hill cow suckler herd to continue to play an important part in future beef production.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that returns to producers in England from this source are still not yet up to the levels in 1973, as his Department confirmed in a recent answer? Given the significant increases in costs of fertilisers and feed to farmers on hill and upland farms, what proposals has he in mind to increase their returns and to maintain the viability of areas such as West Cumbria, which he knows so well, in this aspect of agricultural policy?

I know that my hon. Friend, who represents a hill farming area, is anxious that the hill farmers—and particularly those who are responsible for the suckler herds—should have confidence and adequate returns. Calf and store cattle prices at the autumn sales have been considerably higher than last year, and in some cases are back to 1973 levels.

Will the Minister say why the Government will not pay the hill cow subsidy in full, as recommended by his counterparts in Europe?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have said over and over again that I shall reexamine this if necessary but I believe that the firmness of the market shows that returns are adequate and that there is confidence. We are also operating the less-favouredareas directive.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although things have marginally improved in the hills, there is a very long way to go and a great deal of difficulty still for those producing beef in the hills? Is it not necessary, therefore, to give them some injection of confidence?

European Community aid is a matter which we shall consider when we have our discussions on prices, which will be very soon.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland his recent statement about the increase has been welcomed in County Fermanagh and County Tyrone where this subsidy is being paid at the moment? Will he have a serious look at parts of North Antrim and County Londonderry? Will he also extend the increase there?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I take an interest in Northern Ireland agriculture. I have visited the area, and I know Antrim and Londonderry. I shall look at this with special reference to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and when I have made my investigation of it, I shall write to him.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet the National Farmers' Union to discuss the problems of the horticultural industry.

The current Annual Review will provide the opportunity for such discussions.

Is the Minister aware that the National Farmers' Union is very concerned that growers in the glasshouse sector will be very severely hit by the recent heavy increase in the cost of fuel oil, which represents such a very high proportion of their costs? Is he also aware that Holland, Belgium and Germany are assisting their glasshouse growers with the cost of fuel oil to the full extent agreed by the European Community?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the way the oil companies have decided to increase their prices will have an adverse effect on horticulture. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that, if we are to remain in the Community, we ensure that competition is fair. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that the Commission is now challenging the Dutch proposals and the Dutch scheme.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the Lea Valley it is estimated that the increase in the price of oil and other expenses in the coming year will add at least 19p to 20p to the cost of a 12 lb. box of produce? Is he aware that this is extremely serious and that in relation to the Dutch, who get their fuel so much cheaper, our industry is placed in such a difficult situation that it will face extinction in due course unless something is done? Will he give further consideration, therefore, to the recommendation for a subsidy if some other agreement cannot be arrived at early on to give our industry the protection it needs?

I recognise my hon. Friend's deep concern and interest in his horticultural constituents. I would point out that in Holland the bulk of the heating comes from gas, and the European Commission is seeking to force up the price of gas. However, I accept the basis of my hon. Friend's remarks. Certainly the Government are anxious to see the continuance of a prosperous and efficient horticultural industry.

I acknowledge that the European Economic Commission is investigating the matter in respect of Holland. However, will the hon. Gentleman recognise the urgency of the position for our domestic growers? Will he ask his right hon. Friend when he goes to Brussels next week to investigate the possibility of rationalising the method of aid to national growers, thus doing away with the accusation of unfair competition?

I do not quite understand that question. However, as the hon. Gentleman's leader is seated beside him, I may as well put the point that there is a limit to the extent to which Opposition Members can press for Government subsidies for private industry at the same time as complaining about the public sector borrowing requirement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the net cost of farm modernisation schemes last year.

Have we come to Question No. 9? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]

Is the Minister aware—apart from the fact that he is answering Question No. 9—that that figure is inevitably disappointing, bearing in mind the effect of inflation on farmers, and, of course, the decline in the value of money? How does he square that with the objectives set out in his own White Paper?

There is a problem here in relation to the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme by which we have been required to lay down certain conditions as a result of membership of the Community which are bureaucratic and which we are seeking to simplify. We hope that this simplification will considerably increase the uptake.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received representations concerning the possibility of large quantities of eggs being imported from France in the first quarter of 1976; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received representations on these lines. Sales of French eggs in this country have, however, recently been at relatively low levels and the sales in other markets have increased. I have no evidence to suggest that this trend, which has in part been encouraged by Community action, will be reversed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on sorting out the tangle of difficulty with arsenical additives and so on. However, will he bear in mind that there are fears that the continuing over-production of eggs in France seems likely to lead to dumping in this country in the early part of 1976? Will my hon. Friend also note that a recent attempt to sell British eggs in France has been entirely unsuccessful, and will he draw this fact to the attention of British consumers in the hope that they will not overlook that reaction?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and I take note of his comment about the difficulty of selling British eggs in France. However, by changing the situation with regard to the use of arsenical additives we have at least now made it possible to export eggs to France. But it is a matter of being competitive. My hon. Friend will be pleased to note that France sent us only 2,100 boxes of the estimated total of supplies in the week ending 23rd November—total supplies that week were 727,000 boxes—representing only ·38 per cent. of our total supplies. There are also other indications that export restitutions are encouraging the export of eggs from France to third countries, and I understand that check placings in the Community in the first half of this year were down on last year's figure.

Actual size in this matter is not important. Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that exports in both directions are being treated by Governments on both sides of the Channel in exactly the same way?

We are very sensitive about the importance of this matter. Now that we have made it possible for British eggs to be exported, we want to make sure there is freedom in this situation. We are in touch with the French authorities and, indeed, with the Community to bring about a greater stability in supply and demand in relation to eggs.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of unprocessed meat is held in cold stores in areas covered by the Dock Labour Scheme.

The information available to my Ministry about food held in cold stores does not distinguish between stores located in ports to which the Dock Labour Scheme applies, stores in non-scheme ports and stores elsewhere in the country. The total quantity of unprocessed meat other than poultry meat held in public cold stores on 21st November 1975 was 102,000 tons.

As we import over 500,000 tons of meat, carcase meat and offal, which has to come through cold stores, will not the new Dock Work Regulation Bill have a very serious impact on our food supplies should there be a dispute in that area? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) have pointed this out on separate occasions to the Secretary of State for Employment, to no avail, will the Minister take his right hon. Friend to one side and tell him that, above all, our priorities must be our food supplies and not that particular piece of dogmatic Socialism?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is crying "Wolf" too soon. The Dock Work Regulation Bill was given its First Reading only the other day. It provides that the National Dock Labour Board should consult me. I believe that that will help considerably. I do not wish to disturb imports of food into Britain

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it might have been more appropriate if the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Mates) had paid a little more attention to dogmatic inefficiency, and particularly to the dogmatic inefficiency of the intervention scheme of the Common Market whereby there are three times the amount of beef in cold store as a result of intervention and 1,200,000 tons of dried milk?

As my hon. Friend probably knows, Question No. 15 relates to intervention. I shall answer him then.

Is the Minister aware that if the present Dock Labour Scheme, which covers 3 ½ per cent. of cold storage capacity in this country, were extended to the five-mile band, it would cover 63 per cent. of our capacity? Is he further aware that his support for the Bill has caused wide dismay in that, in the event of a strike, the Bill would have sinister implications for food supplies for the British housewife, and sinister implications for fanners, as there may be a danger of stopping up the supply of feedingstuffs for British livestock?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is crying "Wolf". After all, the Bill will be debated, and there are safeguards: I have given one example, on consultation. Furthermore, I believe that unions act responsibly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was borrowed from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation last year.

During the year ending 31st March 1975 loans amounting to £37·9 million were made to the industry by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. However, as I understand it, this is less than that borrowed in the previous year. Taking into account inflation, capital costs must be higher. Is the hon. Gentleman happy with this situation? Does he believe that there is sufficient confidence in the industry and that people are not laying off borrowing money for capital development—which is needed to attain the target specified in the White Paper—because of threats of additional capital taxation?

As the hon. Gentleman has implied, there has been a decline in lending during the past year. That has happened for a number of reasons, including reduction in land values, cash flow problems and high interest rates. There are already indications, which have evidently even trickled through to the Opposition Front Bench, that there is greater confidence in the industry now. We expect that, with the working out of the White Paper and with the forthcoming Price Review, this confidence will accelerate.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the levels of interest paid on loans from the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation are very high? Is it not time to look at the rates of interest—rarely above 5 per cent.—paid by European farmers on loans from the various organisations in the European farming industry?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the rates charged by the AMC are governed by the cost of the money which the Corporation raises from time to time by debenture issues on the money market and which reflect the long-term nature of its borrowings. However, the rates are competitive with those that farmers would have to pay elsewhere. In the long run, the real answer is to tackle the problem of inflation, because that will help to resolve some of these difficult issues.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of skimmed milk stocks in the European Economic Community.

The total amount of skimmed milk powder held in storage by EEC intervention agencies on 27th November was 1,083,000 metric tonnes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the distaste with which the housewife of this country hears about the over-production of food and of its ultimate storage at heavy cost to the taxpayer? Is he aware that in the Common Market countries every cow is being sub- sidised at the rate of £ 40 per head? Does he realise that this is a situation that in the end will cause the complete collapse of the common agricultural policy and with it our dairy farmers, who are unable to compete with the inefficient dairy farmers in Europe?

I have always accepted that surpluses of that kind are wasteful. That is why we are trying, through the stocktaking exercise, to readjust the Community's policy. This problem does not exist only in Europe. Many other parts of the world, such as the United States of America and Australia, have the problem of surpluses of skimmed milk. I am aware of the problem.

One of the Commission's proposals to get rid of the surplus of dairy products is a two-tier price system for this country's milk. Will the Minister assure us that he will oppose that and virtually veto it if the Commission should persist?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that I appeared before the Scrutiny Committee the other day and discussed part of this matter with his colleagues and himself. I shall note the point. It will inevitably come up in Brussels. On the main issue, I believe that these surpluses should be dealt with quickly. It may well be that they will have to be disposed of in food aid elsewhere. However, above all I stress that the United Kingdom is a very efficient dairy producing area.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will dismiss the Secretary of State for Trade.

No, Sir.

Does the Prime Minister recall that during the course of his disastrous performance here last Thursday he told the House that the referendum result had been utterly decisive? How does he reconcile that degree of finality with his right hon. Friend's membership of a Labour Party watchdog committee designed to monitor the activities of the EEC? Can we now take it that the doctrine of collective responsibility has been finally laid to rest?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about this matter. I have read the transactions of this particular committee. I did not think that it was particularly a Labour Party committee. I understood that some Opposition Members were on it. The Committee specifically said that it accepted the decision of the referendum.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that Labour Members do not share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie)? Will he also accept that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade have a golden opportunity next week to appear as Santa Claus in Lancashire, providing that they are prepared to listen to the voices of the united Labour movement through the TUC, the Labour Party conference, the Parliamentary Labour Party yesterday and the liaison committees at work in Lancashire and throughout the country on the subject of import controls? Will he accept the invitation to appear as Santa Claus and not as a star character in "A Christmas Carol"?

My hon. Friend could have added to that list the CBI. Neither the CBI nor the TUC is in favour of generalised import controls for our balance of payments, but they take the view—we have said that we accept that view—that where sectors of industry that have a future are being threatened for their very existence by imports in a world depression, we must look at the matter.

I wonder whether the Prime Minister could clarify a statement on import controls that was made in the House last night after Ten o'clock. The Minister of State, Treasury, in reply to a question by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), gave an assurance that there were no secret negotiations on the subject of import controls. Does that mean that there are no negotiations at all, or that the Prime Minister is going ahead without them?

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that question. I have not seen the particular words used, but I accept her account of them. There have been no negotiations on this matter—if by that is meant international negotiations. Certain procedures have to be followed. Those procedures have not started for the reasons I have just given to the House. Therefore, there is no question of any secret negotiations taking place, but procedural consultations in accordance with our international obligations would be necessary in certain circumstances. I have explained to the House—I have perhaps gone further than any of my colleagues in this matter—that the issue has been held up because of the difficult situation, which is still continuing, concerning Chrysler. Indeed, negotiations are taking place today.

asked the Prime Minister if he will reduce below the present figure of seven the number of his special advisers; and what is the present total cost of the salaries of these advisers.

No, Sir. The total annual cost of salaries for the Policy Unit at 10 Downing Street is about £ 43,000.

Will the Prime Minister tell the House what areas of Government policy would have been less damaging to the country had the advice of these gentlemen not been followed? Since advice is always available to the Prime Minister from the Tribune Group—presumably free of charge—does he not think that it would be more appropriate for the salaries of this rather discredited retinue of Marxists to be paid by Transport House rather than by the taxpayer?

I suppose that might go down well with the Primrose League in Eastbourne. If I thought that it was right to waste the time of the House and prevent other hon. Members putting serious questions, I would simply tell the hon. Gentleman that this was in accordance with the provisions laid down by the Fulton Committee. My predecessor had special advisers who were paid for by the Treasury. The suggestion that Dr. Donoughue is a discredited Marxist makes me laugh.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the CBI.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 25th November.

Will the Prime Minister tell the CBI when next he meets it whether he accepts the warning in the Bank of England's December Quarterly Bulletin that public expenditure must take a smaller proportion of our national resources if the economy is to regain its strength?

I spoke on these lines about the base not only at the Guildhall recently, but when I addressed the National Council on Social Services yesterday. I shall tell the CBI that the whole House, I hope, is encouraged by the CBI's latest survey on industrial trends, and I hope that some hon. Member—perhaps some right hon. Member—will get up and say so.

Will my right hon. Friend consider giving an added impetus to the growth of the economy by limiting hire-purchase restrictions?

I cannot anticipate the statement on the economy that will be made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when we have the debate on the economic situation next week.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now allocate to a senior Cabinet Minister special responsibility for the self-employed.

No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council told the House on 24th July 1975, matters arising from the diversity of the activities and interests of the self-employed do not form a coherent whole, important though they are, and are better handled on the basis of existing ministerial responsibilities.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in answer to recent questions I have been told that there have been no meetings with the self-employed about the proposals in the Gracious Speech? As the self-employed and small businesses play a vital part in our economy, surely they are as entitled to be consulted as the big battalions, the TUC and the CBI?

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has an important point here. However, it is not an argument for having a Minister with responsibility for the self-employed. For example, some of the self-employed are principally concerned—I am thinking particularly of those in the retail and wholesale trades—with the activities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and others are concerned with purely industrial questions. In my contacts with the CBI I have always felt that it was fully responsive to small businesses and it has made many representations on their behalf. At the CBI's quarterly councils small businesses predominate in the representation.

Even if we accept the Prime Minister's premise, is it not extraordinary that the Secretary of State for Social Services should use her powers to vary by order the national insurance contribution and put it up by 8 per cent. on gross profits of over £ 3,600 without reference to the self-employed and apparently without any idea of the increased number of bankruptcies that this might create? If he will not allocate a Minister, is there not at least a case for there being greater consultation or, to put it at its lowest, as much consultation as he is prepared to have with the TUC and the CBI?

There is the fullest consultation with the Ministers responsible. The House had a full debate on this matter on 4th November. All such questions as those in the right hon. Gentleman's mind were fully dealt with in that debate, which is better by far than to try to deal with them at Question Time.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on this side of the House are in full support of the fullest possible assistance being given to small business men? Is he aware that some people who are supposedly self-employed, particularly in the construction industry, have a record of avoiding tax and national insurance payments and are therefore a threat to the very structure of that industry? Will he make it clear that, although we support the genuine small business man, we cannot accept the bogus self-employed?

My hon. Friend has on a number of occasions pressed this point, which is fully accepted in the construction trade. He will recall that the House legislated on this matter in the previous Session. However, he is right to point out that there are many anxieties, outside the particular group of people to whom he referred, about the problems of small businesses.

asked the Prime Minister how many visits he has made to Scotland in the last 12 months.

I have visited Scotland on six occasions in the last year, Sir.

The Prime Minister will recall that a fortnight ago he disparaged my initial reactions to the White Paper on devolution. Does he accept that every newspaper in Scotland, whatever its political viewpoint, has fundamentally criticised the White Paper? Will he now enter into detailed—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Daily Record".] I said every newspaper in Scotland, regardless of its political viewpoint. I am not aware that the Daily Record is a Tory newspaper. Every newspaper in Scotland, regardless of its political standpoint, has criticised the White Paper. Will the Prime Minister now enter into serious discussions between the parties before publication of the Bill on how best to improve the White Paper?

The House, as I do, always takes full account of the advice that we get from newspapers, whether north or south of the border. These important constitutional issues are for right hon. and hon. Members elected to this House to decide in the last resort. My right hon. Friends and I have answered a number of questions on this matter.

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

I did so last July, but I have at present no plans for a further visit. I met the Swedish Foreign Minister here last week.

When my right hon Friend visits Sweden, will he examine how the Swedes have managed, under successive Labour Governments, to combine a high and rising level of public expenditure with an expanding economy? Does he agree that we have much to learn from Swedish labour market policies, particularly in training and retraining, and that shortages and ineffective deployment of skilled manpower remain among the chief obstacles in the way of successfully expanding the British economy?

Yes, Sir. I believe that the Swedes lead Europe on the subject of retraining. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter many times with Prime Minister Erlander and Prime Minister Palme. The Swedes provide far more resources and facilities for training than almost any other country. The importance that we attach to this area is shown by the fact that, despite present constraints on public expenditure and demands from other people that we should cut public expenditure to ribbons, we have made extra funds available to the Manpower Services Commission for training and retraining no fewer than three times this year, making a total of about £ 70 million. I agree that that is nothing like what the Swedes do, but it is very important in assisting training. It is providing about 45,000 additional training places, over three-quarters of them for young people.

Will the Prime Minister consider that the happy situation which his hon. Friend described might have something to do with the fact that the marginal rate of taxation of income and wealth tax combined in Sweden is lower than the marginal rate of taxation on incomes alone in this country?

I welcome that intervention. Sitting as he does below the Gangway, the right hon. Gentleman may tell the House something which his Front Bench has not told us—which expenditure the Conservatives would cut in order to cut taxation.