asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many trees were planted in 1973, 1974 and 1975.

Precise figures are not available, but it is estimated that 113½ million, 106½ million and 103 million trees were planted in Great Britain in the years ended 31st March 1973, 1974 and 1975 respectively.

As we spend £2,000 million a year on importing timber, is not that a singularly disgraceful Answer? Is it not a fact that the fall in the planting of timber has been largely due to uncertainty in the private sector following the removal of tax incentives for the planting of trees, the private sector being responsible for nearly 50 per cent. of total plantings? Furthermore, a doctrinaire refusal—

Order. This is getting very near a speech.

I shall put a brief question. Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his refusal to consider the proposed legislation in Command 5999 of 1974, which would have helped private growers from EEC sources? Finally, what will the hon. Gentleman do with the 6½ million elm trees that have died, the loss of which will make the South of England look like a graveyard in 12 years' time?

I shall confine myself to the hon. Gentleman's main points. First, I cannot agree that it was a disgraceful Answer. If he considers the figures that I have given, I think that he will find that they are not as disappointing as he suggests. Secondly, he must recognise that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated the importance that we attach to private planting by affording relief to private woodland owners in the capital transfer tax.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House briefly whether the tree population is increasing or decreasing and by how much?

The problem with all these figures is that it takes some time before they are compiled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the latest figures reach only 31st March 1975. I think that he will recognise that a considerable number of factors have affected the recent planting in the private sector, not just the depressed state of the economy. A general factor has been the poor prices for timber throughout Europe.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the £162½ million recently granted to save Chrysler would have planted nearly a million acres of timber? Does he not agree that there is an urgent need for a rethinking of our entire economic policy?

No, I cannot confirm the hon. Gentleman's first point. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, coming from an agricultural constituency, would recognise that we always have to strike a balance between farming and forestry.

As the Minister has answered only one of my three supplementary question, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what facilities are available for the storing of beef which may be withdrawn under the proposed intervention scheme.

First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) on his appointment and on his restoration to good health, as I see.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the proposed intervention-only scheme may result in production for storage only? Will the right hon. Gentleman maintain his position vis-à-vis the beef premium scheme?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's first point and I am glad of his support in achieving the retention of our variable premium system by means of the negotiations in Europe.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that much more important than looking for facilities for intervention is to try to move to a situation in which we do not use the misguided policy of intervention? Secondly, will he note that I back him in his efforts to provide a testimonial to our traditional forms of beef in this new form of beef premium? More than 104 signatures have been applied to the motion backing my right hon. Friend in this attempt.

I have noted the support that my hon. Friend has given me. I believe that that support is reflected in all parts of the House.

Is the Minister in a position to give an assurance to beef producers that the present beef régime will be allowed to operate here in the next five or 10 years?

I have said publicly in Brussels what is our negotiating position. I am glad to have the Liberal Party's support.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he estimates will be the price of seed potatoes for 1976.

My Department does not collect the detailed information necessary to calculate an average price for seed potatoes over the season as a whole. Average prices for seed are very high at present, although many growers will have contracted for seed in the autumn at substantially lower prices. Without knowing what proportion of seed was marketed earlier in the season, I cannot give a firm estimate for the 1976 crop.

I am grateful for that reply. Is the Minister aware that all hon. Members are glad that the loss through bad weather in Scotland, where most seed potatoes are grown, was less marked than in England? We naturally expected that prices in Scotland would not be so bad. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that because of the inadequate award to growers last year, about 50,000 acres were grown under quota—

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to impart information, or is he asking a question?

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister satisfied that the award to be given this year will give sufficient confidence to farmers to plant the full quota acreage?

I agree that the situation in Scotland, owing to better weather conditions, was not as bad as it was in England and Wales. In his comments on the Annual Review award, the hon. Member seemed to be confused about the guaranteed price, which relates to potatoes sold for human consumption, not to seed potatoes. These factors will be taken into account in the review.

Will my hon. Friend prevail on the Government to introduce a form of price control of potatoes—indeed, the few potatoes that are now available? Will he also take steps to purchase potatoes from outside the Common Market and in so doing will he try to sweep aside Common Market controls?

No doubt my hon. Friend refers to the main crop ware potatoes, but the amount of seed potatoes sold by retail is only a small proportion of the total seed potato crop. The difficulty is that if one seeks to control the retail price, it is possible that there will be a diversion of seed supplies to elsewhere.

May I thank the Minister of Agriculture for his kind words about me when he replied to an earlier Question?

I am unable to confirm those figures. There have been estimates of high cost in relation to both seed potatoes and main crop ware potatoes. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all the facts of the situation will be considered in the review now under way.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in expanding the capacity of sugar beet refineries, in order to deal with the increased production proposed under the White Paper "Food from our Own Resources".

The British Sugar Corporation tells me that work on the first two of its factories to be expanded, York and Newark, is progressing well. Expansion at York is virtually complete and that at Newark will be finished by October.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confirm that the vital proportion of United Kingdom supplies coming from home-grown beet should be substantially increased? Will he ensure that he observes a careful monitoring of other crops and the capital investment programme to see that processing capacity keeps pace with increased output? Will he take appropriate action if for any reason there is a shortfall?

I am anxious to see increased sugar beet production and the industry is serving the country well. This is our purpose, as we said in the White Paper. Unfortunately, last year, because of bad weather, there was a poor crop, but I am confident that we can expand our production.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is grave anxiety among sugar workers in my constituency about job prospects? Will he take steps to urge the farmers in the North-West to grow more beet sugar to be refined at suitable refineries such as those in Newton-le-Willows and Liverpool?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of the worries of many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and certainly members of my trade union are anxious about the ratio of supplies from abroad to home production. I note what he says. I do not think that any conflict should arise between cane sugar and sugar beet.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of potatoes were grown in 1973, 1974 and 1975.

The acreage planted to potatoes in the United Kingdom was as follows: 1973, 555,000 acres; 1974, 532,000 acres; 1975, 504,000 acres provisional. The percentage reduction in 1975 was broadly in line with that in the preceding years, and with normal yields supplies would have been in balance.

I appreciate the effect of last summer on the potato crop. Is the Minister of State aware that the reduced acreage in 1975 had something to do with the inadequate guarantee price for 1975? Will the hon. Gentleman see that the returns offered to growers this year reflect the true cost of production? Does he not agree that it is by encouraging farmers to grow more potatoes that prices to housewives can be reduced?

What matters is not just the target acreage, but the acreage planted. This depends on a large number of factors—including bad harvests, labour difficulties, the competitiveness of alternative crops, and the amount of capital investment required in the potato industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the suppliers of seed potatoes have been selling them for immediate consumption? Does he accept that that amounts to an act of irresponsibility, because it will affect next year's crop? What steps is he taking to curtail these activities?

I said earlier that the price control of seed potatoes could lead to a diversion of supplies to other areas. The price of seed and main crop potatoes is consistent with the shortfall that has overtaken us. There has been a severe shortage. We believe that the steps we have taken to ban the export of potatoes, to lift import bans and to change riddle sizes will assist the situation. Although we have taken these steps, there can be no guarantee that they will obviate the shortfall.

Until there is an adequate supply of home-grown potatoes, will the Minister confirm that he will not interfere with the purchase of foreign-grown potatoes used by the potato-processing industry in my constituency?

Suspension of the common external tariff on main crop potatoes has been agreed. The import of foreign potatoes depends on plant health and other safeguards.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable anxiety among housewives and proprietors of fish and chip shops about the large quantities of potatoes being bought by large-scale users leading to an inevitable reduction in supplies? Does not this result in higher prices? Will he assure the House that he is pursuing the matter with the Potato Marketing Board? Is he satisfied that the Board is using its best endeavours to achieve a stable price?

Some farmers sell their crop on the market as soon as it is lifted, but a far greater proportion of the main crop is put into store for release throughout the season. Orderly marketing is essential at this time if supplies are to continue. On the question of price stabilisation, I would refer my hon. Friend to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection in her speech to the National Farmers Union last week when she said that any action by the Government or the trade to restrict prices artificially would encourage consumption and lead to a rundown of stocks which we need to market in an orderly way.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of agricultural incomes in 1975 compared with 1974.

Information on United Kingdom farming net income in 1973–74 and 1974–75 is given in the 1975 Annual Review White Paper (Cmnd. 5977). A revised figure for 1974–75 and a forecast for 1975–76 will be published in the 1976 Annual Review White Paper.

It is very convenient for the Minister to be able to answer the Question in that way, but would he not agree that last year was the worst in living memory for a very large number of farmers? Does he realise that if he is prepared to admit that and the fact that much of it was due to Government mismanagement and doing too little too late, he would give us confidence that he has learned from his past mistakes?

I cannot accept that. It is a convenient way to reply because it is accurate. If the hon. Member reads the White Paper, he will appreciate some of our difficulties. I do not accept his conclusion. Confidence has been restored in many parts of the industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been a dramatic and welcome improvement in the income of dairy farmers in the last few months, particularly with the price increases and the remarkable level of production that has been achieved? However, does he realise that if we are to reach the guidelines laid down in the White Paper, dairy farmers will need a further incentive, although we must remember that there is a limit to the extent to which consumers can fund this expansion?

In any price-fixing decision—and the review is still going on here and in Europe—we shall take note of producers' returns. They must have adequate returns, but we must also have regard to the consumers' interests. We need to strike a reasonable balance.

As this question is central to the review, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that, as a result of the review, he will be able to bring long-term confidence to the industry and give life to the White Paper he published in April which was, in a sense, a non-event? Can he also assure us that in going for the beef premium scheme, in which we support him, he will not bargain away the competitive advantages of British producers?

The right hon. Gentleman's party ended the guarantee scheme when it entered Europe without any safeguards.

Humbug!

The hon. Member has been demoted. He should shut up. He is being too offensive. If he wants to ask me a question, I will give way. You are an absolute humbug yourself.

There are a great many "you's" going about. Even right hon. Gentlemen are addressing the Chair.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will renegotiate the Common Fisheries Policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the progress in the Common Fisheries Policy.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) on 22nd January.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the United Kingdom has the longest coastline in the EEC and therefore has most to gain or lose by renegotiation? As 200-mile exclusive economic zones are likely to be enforced in the next two years, would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is of the utmost importance in renegotiating the common fisheries policy to ensure that Great Britain gets at least a fair share of the fish in its waters, which it is not getting at present?

The hon. Member is concerned about the urgency of renegotiations. I remind him that my right hon. Friend gave notice in Brussels as long ago as last April that we wanted an urgent re-appraisal of the policy and that we were not prepared to wait until 1982 when, under the Treaty of Accession, the common fisheries policy is to be reviewed. The Commission and all member countries are involved and these consultations take time. There have been consultations between the Commission and officials at which we have taken every opportunity to stress the need for an acceptable solution.

Is the hon. Member aware that this question is of such importance that it merits a reply from the Minister of Agriculture himself? Will the hon. Gentleman indicate when the fishing industry will be told the aims being pursued by the Government in the course of their renegotiation, if there is such a thing?

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that all Ministers in the Department speak for the Government with equal authority. As I have said on many occasions, our aim in the review of the common fisheries policy will be to ensure that our fishermen can take catches which meet the needs of fishing communities and take proper advantage of the wealth in some of the waters around our shores. The United Kingdom has the biggest fishing industry in the Community. We want to make sure that the interests of the industry and the consumer are protected.

Is my hon. Friend aware that although the odious features of this policy stink in the nostrils of every hon. Member from any constituency—

You voted for it.

—there is a much more delicate and dangerous issue before us at the moment? Can my hon. Friend tell us what is happening in the Icelandic fishing dispute, particularly as we have been told that our ships have sailed and that the Icelanders have been given orders not to harass our vessels.

The Commission has produced a working paper on the CFP review which is being considered. I refer my hon. Friend to the statement on the Icelandic situation by the Prime Minister yesterday which is still relevant to the current situation.

Can the hon. Member confirm the word "renegotiation" as at the last session of the European Parliament I was told by Commissioner Lardinois that there was to be no renegotiation? Is there to be a renegotiation or not? Who is the liar in this matter? Someone, either here or in Europe, is lying to the fishermen of Great Britain about this matter. What is the position on the coastal State preference which the EEC is to consider? Unless we have a 50- or 100-mile exclusive area, our rich pond, which has been preserved by our fishermen, who are preservationists, will be used up by European fishermen—[Hon. Members: "And the Russians."]—who have been the opposite.

As various Ministers, including myself and my right hon. Friend, have been involved in discussions for at least four days on the Icelandic situation, on which we are awaiting the outcome, and as negotiations for a 200-mile limit will take place soon at the Law of the Sea Conference and as I have already given information about the common fisheries policy renegotiations, there is no reason for the hon. Lady or any other hon. Member to think that nothing is taking place on these fronts. As I have said, we recognise the importance of the industry to our economy and to our fishermen, and we shall certainly make sure that in all these negotiations our point of view is put most firmly.

May I give the Government the opportunity of issuing a categoric denial of a belief that is held, rightly or wrongly, by the industry—that the United Kingdom fishery interests may be or could be traded in some way for other objectives of the United Kingdom in the Community? Secondly, is the Minister aware that feeling in the House about the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy is very strong? The longer renegotiation is delayed, the more difficult it will become. There is a feeling that we are dragging our feet. Will the Minister make sure that we get on with this job?

For the second time this afternoon I remind the right hon. Gentleman and his Front Bench colleagues that they were the architects of the common fisheries policy. They were the people who got rid of the fat stock guarantee. They negotiated the Treaty of Accession. The Government are committed, as my right hon. Friend has observed, to renegotiation of the common fisheries policy before 1982. We have said that we cannot wait long. We are pressing the matter with a sense of urgency. The right hon. Gentleman can leave us to look after British interests this time and to make the necessary changes in the terms which he and his party agreed to accept originally.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of farms were let under the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 in 1950 and 1975.

64 per cent. of agricultural holdings in England and Wales were rented wholly or in part in 1950 and 54 per cent. in 1974. Figures for 1975 are not available. These percentages are not strictly comparable because of alterations in the coverage of the agricultural census.

The percentages represent a decline and the Government should be seeking to look after the interests of agriculture as a whole. Will the Minister try to ensure that there are still farms to let to those in the industry and to those young people well qualified to enter it? Will he ensure that such tenancies as are available are let to those best qualified to take them up?

The hon. Gentleman seems to be referring to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The Government have made it absolutely clear that they are considering whether to give sons of tenant farmers who work on the holding a statutory right to succeed. That is what the new provision is all about.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in amending the Common Agricultural Policy so that it more nearly meets the needs of the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC stocktaking document.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals for the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy were discussed at the recent meeting of EEC Agriculture Ministers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the negotiations to reform the Common Agricultural Policy.

The Commission's proposals for EEC agricultural support in 1976–77 take account of the discussions of its stocktaking report and include important proposed changes, especially in the milk and cereals sectors. The proposals were discussed at last week's Council. I believe that, when decisions are taken, further progress will be made in improving the operation of the common agricultural policy.

Given that the price of most basic foodstuffs is now much lower outside the EEC than within it, and given the increasingly desperate attempts being made to deal with growing food surpluses, particularly the beef mountain, which is now largely inedible, does my right hon. Friend agree that the next meeting of Agriculture Ministers is likely to be of crucial importance? Does he accept that it is essential he gets major reforms which will allow us to move away from the senseless intervention system and go back to the system which served us so well in the past?

My hon. Friend should realise that Governments, including Labour Governments, have always practised intervention in this country for cereals and potatoes. We have said that we do not accept that permanent intervention should be the sole method of support for beef. That is why I made my statement in Brussels on the matter. The talks are continuing.

Is the Minister aware that £54 million which should have been used for restructuring agriculture was transferred from the Common Market budget in order to subsidise the skimmed milk mountain and similar projects? Does he accept that that is an absolute scandal for the CAP which should be put right in the stocktaking document and in the next price review? May we have an assurance that that will be done?

The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) is a member of the Scrutiny Committee and he will remember that I spoke to it in detail about this matter. I believe that we should have co-responsibility in relation to milk surpluses and price fixing based on the efficient farm. These are all matters which have been raised by the British in support of our German colleagues, who initiated the stocktaking document.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the CAP must force the cost of food to ordinary people in this country ever upward, irrespective of the trend of world prices, at variance with what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is trying to do and completely contrary to the Government's anti-inflation policy?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's comment. I believe that some commodities are cheaper within the Community than on world markets. It is our aim to improve the CAP, which will enable us to guarantee adequate supplies for our consumers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from increasing the price of food artificially, thereby sitmulating inflation, the CAP is absorbing no less than 75 per cent. of the total Community budget? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that we have entered an economic madhouse?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestions. The CAP is practically the only policy which is working specifically in Europe. We must have a pricing system which gives a fair return to the farmer as well as to the consumer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest EEC proposals for the standardisation of milk and other regulations likely to affect the production and marketing of liquid milk in the United Kingdom.

On the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I would refer him to the statements I made during the debate on 15th January about the latest Commission proposals relating to the fat content of whole milk.

Does my hon. Friend agree that permission to import milk of a lower average butterfat content than the average set by British producers would lead to a price war in which British producers would be forced to lower the quality of fresh milk and in which door-to-door sales could ultimately be damaged? In the end the consumer could be provided with a poorer product and the producer with a much smaller market. Is he prepared to do something to prevent that?

I am not sure that my hon. Friend was present during the debate on 15th January. These matters were discussed then and assurances were given that we should certainly do our best in the Brussels negotiations to protect the present situation. The choice is between standarisation and non-standardisation of milk. So far as possible we want our present system to continue.

If a standardisation policy were introduced in the EEC, it would lead inevitably to greater butter surpluses. Will the hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that the Government will stand out against standardisation? I believe that it would endanger the future of the daily pinta in this country.

The effect of the fat content proposals on the Community's surpluses of butter and skimmed milk powder were mentioned in the debate on 15th January. I believe that the hon. Gentleman took part in that debate. In the recent discussions in Brussels on the price proposals, my right hon. Friend has made very positive proposals about surpluses generally with a view to their elimination. This subject is being considered.

Does my hon. Friend remember that on 15th January he told the House that he would try to get an agreement with the EEC that no unstandardised milk of less than 3·4 per cent. butterfat content would be imported? Will he tell us what progress he has made?

The argument was between 3·5 per cent. and 3·76 per cent. or 3·8 per cent. There has been no further Community discussion since the debate, but we shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to include the Dartmoor National Park as a brucellosis eradication area.

Yes. As I stated in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) on 19th January, compulsory measures for the eradication of brucellosis will be extended to the rest of Devon from 1st November 1977.—[Vol. 903, c. 338–340.]

Will the Minister explain why there is to be a delay of nearly two years, especially as he has not admitted to any shortage of "vets" in response to a Written Question which I took the precaution of putting down?

I am glad that the hon. Lady has noticed that the Government have achieved remarkable success in the staffing of the State Veterinary Service. In Devon there is a fixed number of veterinary officers, and their time will be taken up with the eradication programme for the eastern part of the county.

Will my hon. Friend declare the whole of the United Kingdom a "Brussels-osis" eradication area?

The Government went a long way towards achieving their objective by announcing earlier this month that we intended to complete the eradication of brucellosis in this country in the early 1980s.

Will the Minister consider ghosting on Dartmoor, as replacements for the Moor have to be borne and reared on the Moor and a gap of two or three years would result in heavy losses to the hill farmers on Dartmoor? Will the Minister accept the principle of ghosting?

The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that a considerable number of herds—our latest figure is 560—are currently registered as accredited within the voluntary eradication scheme. He will also appreciate that the Ministry is encouraging other herds to enter into groups and to become voluntarily accredited, which is all to the good in the supply of replacements.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is able to assess the degree of damage sustained to glasshouses during the storms on 2nd and 3rd January 1976.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) on 16th January.—[Vol. 903, c. 286.]

Does the Minister appreciate that the financial embarrassment caused to horticulture by the increased price of oil has been exacerbated by the storm damage? Is he satisfied that a sufficient quantity of fresh vegetables grown under glass will be available in the spring?

We are conscious of the serious damage caused to certain horticultural producers by the recent gales. Our assessment of the position is that the overall effect on the national supply of horticultural produce is likely to be insignificant.

As it is the policy of the Agricultural Commissioner in Brussels to reduce the acreage of glasshouses, will my hon. Friend say whether the damage caused by the recent storms is welcomed in Brussels? Will Brussels be prepared to pay as compensation for the damage inflicted by nature what it was prepared to pay to get its way?

I cannot speak for the European Commission, but my right hon. Friend will appreciate that Her Majesty's Government successfully opposed the Commission's proposal for demolition grants for the destruction of glasshouses.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary understand that the storms have further lowered morale following the Government's refusal to support the glasshouse industry in the way it was supported in the other Community countries? Will the Government give an undertaking to come to the aid of the glasshouse industry if it runs into severe problems, as they did for the fishing industry?

I utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's implication that all other member States are paying an oil subsidy. We have made clear repeatedly that that is not so. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman from the Opposition Front Bench to berate the Government for refusing to pay additional subsidies to private industry when at the same time the Leader of the Opposition complains that the public borrowing requirement is too large.

asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to North-East England.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite the economic difficulties affecting the North-East, £2 billion will be invested on Teesside in the coming five years in manufacturing industries, but that even so there will still be unemployment among unskilled workers? Will the Government introduce further schemes for the training of unskilled workers and untrained school leavers so that the pool of unskilled workers is reduced?

Yes, Sir. In addition to the £250 million ICI programme, the expected 7,000 jobs directly related to North Sea offshire activities and the consequential secondary employment, my hon. Friend will know that of the 45,000 people who will benefit from increased training opportunities as a result of the £70 million provision the Government have made for the Manpower Services Commission, many will be the region's younger work people.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the unemployment figure in the Northern Region of 103,000 is the highest since 1940 and has risen by 13,000 since Christmas? As a matter of urgency, will he visit the whole region to discuss with those responsible for employment the fall in the level of investment due to this Government's policy?

I do not accept the last few words of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I share with him the anxiety he has expressed about the unemployment level in this and other regions which traditionally have had many difficulties. In a few minutes' time the House will be debating the wider subject of unemployment, when the matter will be dealt with in greater detail by my right hon. Friend and hon. Members.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware from earlier visits to the North-East, particularly in the rural parts, that it is an area of low wages? Therefore, the people in the North-East have an interest in the second stage of the incomes policy continuing to discriminate in favour of those who are on low wages and also in such reforms of the tax system as ensure that the increases they get are not taken away in tax.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis as it affects the rural areas in the North-East and other regions, although it would be premature for me to try indicate what might come out of the second stage of the incomes policy, because it has to be discussed with industry.

asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to visit Tyne-mouth.

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

When, despite the good industrial relations in the North-East, unemployment is worse in modern times, does not the Government's apparent lack of concern for the shipbuilding industry and its problems contrast with the enormous amount of aid poured into Chrysler? Will the Prime Minister tell the ungrateful leaders of the irrelevant and irresponsible strike at Linwood that no more public money will be poured into Linwood until they change their attitude?

While I do not know his constituency as well as the hon. Gentleman does, I have a strong feeling that Linwood is not in his constituency and that he has departed from the Question. On a number of occasions during the Chrysler negotiations last year I gave strong warnings that the provision of public money in the event of disputes would not be forthcoming. Although I welcome the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the state of industrial relations in the North-East since the Government came into office—

I did not say that.

The hon. Gentleman did not say it, but it happens to be a fact. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes it. He will know that the loss of man-days through disputes last year was very much less than it has been at any time since 1968, and about 75 per cent. less than it was in one year under the Conservatives.

As my right hon. Friend is in favour of Socialism, industrial regeneration, regional development and of being even-handed about devolution for England, Scotland and Wales, can I count on his personal support for my Private Member's Bill, which seeks to establish development agencies—comparable with those already conceded to Scotland and Wales—in each of three English development regions—namely, the Northern, Merseyside and the South-West?

Of course, there is no Governmental responsibility for Private Member's Bills, but I shall certainly give very close consideration to the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend so that I may decide—if I decide to vote—which way I should vote.

I should like to refer to the Prime Minister's Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter). Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Government are responsible for the maximum number of working days lost through unemployment in the post-war period and that Labour's present level of unemployment would represent some 300 million man-days in a single year? The responsibility is his.

The right hon. Lady is, of course, falsifying the facts. Only last week even Conservative newspapers like the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, although being a little critical of us for not acting more quickly on inflation, said that the responsibility was that of the Conservative Government before us. The right hon. Lady should take a little more time off to study what the Conservative Government really did.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that he fought the last election in speech after speech on the basis of having got unemployment and inflation down and under control? Unless he fought that election on a false prospectus the present level of unemployment is Labour's level of unemployment.

The right hon. Lady is totally wrong, because we warned in the summer of 1974—before the election and during the election—as did the then Leader of the Conservative Party, no doubt while the right hon. Lady was offering her election bribes, that we were in for heavier unemployment in 1975. [HON. MEMBERS: "8·4 per cent."] We so warned and we said that this would be a world-wide problem. It was a worldwide problem arising from events in 1973 affecting all countries. The Conservatives Government did nothing about it.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to visit Whitehaven.

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

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that he would be welcomed as a long-standing friend of the community in West Cumbria? Will he also accept from me that there is considerable dissatisfaction in that area with the Government's policies towards compensation for pneumoconiosis? Does he recall his speech to the NUM conference last year when he rightly praised the decision to compensate miners in the coal mining industry? However, does he recognise the incidence of this dreadful disease in other industries, principally, iron ore mining? Is he aware that the Departments of Energy, Employment and Health and Social Security have not made any positive response on this issue? Will he initiate Government action so that all sufferers from pneumoconiosis can be afforded similar treatment?

I have, of course, been much concerned with the area and with the introduction and development of a number of factories in my hon. Friend's constituency. The problem of pneumoconiosis outside the coal mining industry and especially in the iron ore industry has been extremely serious in that area. My hon. Friend will remember the part played by Lord Adams of Ennerdale in this matter.

asked the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Malaysia.

I have at present no plans for such a visit, Sir. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs visited Malaysia from 11th to 16th January.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Malaysian Government in a brochure designed to attract foreign investment have stated that they are prepared to introduce restrictive controls on imports to protect their industries and that this is similarly offered by many other countries? Is there any chance of our following their example?

My hon. Friend will be aware that an agreement under Article 4 of the GATT Multi-Fibre Arrangement was concluded last October between the EEC and Malaysia. It came into force at the beginning of November in relation to movements of textiles and clothing.

In view of the deteriorating international situation, will the Prime Minister consider getting in touch with the Malaysian Government, the Singapore Government and the two new Governments in Australia and New Zealand to see whether it would be a good thing for this country to rebuild the small presence that it had in South-East Asia and on the island of Gan?

We are in close touch with the Malaysian Government, although the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, tragically, their then Prime Minister recently died. However, I have already had exchanges with his successor. We are in constant touch with Singapore and with the two new Governments in Australia and New Zealand. We are in touch with those countries concerning all the problems and dangers that may face those areas. However, I am not at all certain that either they or we would feel that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was sound and right in the circumstances. Indeed, I think that it would certainly accord ill with the general desire of the whole House for economy in public expenditure.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 29th January.

I chaired a meeting of the Cabinet this morning and will be holding further meetings with my Ministerial colleagues and others during the course of the day, Sir.

As the Prime Minister is holding further ministerial meetings, will he discuss with his hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council the subject of devolution now that the devolution debate has finished in another place? Will he confirm recent newspaper reports to the effect that the Scottish Assembly is to be given full control over trade and industry and the Scottish Development Agency in Scotland and that the hated veto will be removed.

There is no ministerial responsibility for what the newspapers report, as has been said by many speakers at this Box. I was not aware that I was having any meetings on devolution today. The House fully discussed the problems of devolution over a period of four days. It happened to seem longer, but it was, in fact, four days. As a result of that debate, I think that all parties have taken the view—as became clear from my exchanges with the deputy Leader of the Opposition last week—that they want to sit back and reflect on the debate. I see that the Scottish nationalists are shaking their collective heads. Of course, they do not want to sit back and think. They have not thought it through at all. However, I believe that the whole House will want to reflect on the very important issues raised in the four-day debate.

If my right hon. Friend finds time today, would he phone his representatives on Merseyside? He will then discover that 549 workers have been given their notice from Western Shipbuilders, adding to the already high level of unemployment on Merseyside. Would he make representations to his fellow Cabinet Ministers that it is high time that the ship owners were requested to have their repairs done and ships built in this country rather than going abroad and so causing further unemployment of workers in our shipbuilding areas?

Yes, although it might not arise out of this Question, I am aware of the further redundancies caused by the circumstances described by my hon. Friend, coming on top of some other serious redundancies in other areas of the industrial sector. With regard to the placing of contracts for both shipbuilding and ship repairing, the Government have made clear, as have my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for shipbuilding constituencies on both sides of the House, the desire of all of us to see more orders placed in this country. My hon. Friend will know that, on a recent visit to Merseyside—

Come on, Harold, it is after 3.30.

I notice the frivolity of Tory Members about unemployment, a frivolity which they also showed earlier on pneumoconiosis. Whatever disagreements we may have, at least my hon. Friend treats this problem seriously. I was about to say, which is relevant to his question, that on a recent visit to Merseyside, as he will know, I spent a good deal of time with the shipping companies in the course of which I urged them to place more orders at home.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to a matter, Mr. Speaker, which you have discussed with the House before—that of the grouping of Questions and the rights of hon. Members in this regard? On a previous occasion, you said that there needed to be some flexibility, but I think that the House would appreciate more guidance from you.

I do not think that this is a matter on which the Chair should give guidance. I think that it is a matter for Ministers.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been well recognised, by the Select Committee on Procedure and others, that this is one of the most difficult problems we have and that it is not possible to lay down an absolute rule as between individual Ministers. In the case of my own Questions, there were complaints when, like my predecessor, I grouped my Question No. Q23, for example, with Question No. Q1. I have tried to group Questions up to No. Q10, but, because of the development of syndicates, this meant—[Laughter.] Oh yes. It meant that my Question No. Q1 was grouped with Nos. Q2, Q4, Q6, Q8 and Q9 and no other hon. Members got a look-in. I therefore announced to the House—I am surprised that this was not referred to—that from now on and until further notice, until the House could lay down some rules itself, I would not group at all, so as to give all hon. Members, not just members of the Tory syndicate, a chance to have their Questions answered.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we are on the subject of Prime Minister's Questions, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you have noticed that of the 25 down today, 13, I think—over half—ask that he should visit some place, almost any place, from Penzance to Peru, and that two or three ask him what he is up to today. Would you accept—

Order. We have a very important debate to come. About 60 right hon. and hon. Members want to catch my eye later. There will be a debate on procedure on Monday and I should have thought that that was the time to raise these matters.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a Member from the North-East of the United Kingdom—as long as it is united—may I ask for some clarification of the use of the phrase "in this House", including the use by the Prime Minister today of the phrase "the North-East"? As one of the North-East MPs, I resent the fact—

Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.