asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having concerning the tenure of service cottages in the agricultural industry.

There has been a series of discussions at Ministerial and official level following publication by my right hon. Friends last August of the consultative document and these discussions will continue as necessary for purposes of preparing the related legislation.

After all his consultations does the Minister now accept that in farming, especially dairy farming, certain houses have to be tied to certain jobs? To relieve the fear of homeless-ness, will he consider a system of licensing essential agricultural service homes, in co-operation with the responsible local authority, to provide replacement housing on job loss or retirement?

If the hon Gentleman has read our consultative document, he will recognise that we accept that there are circumstances in which it is right and appropriate that farm workers should live either on or in the vicinity of the farm where they work. I have made it absolutely clear that "abolition" does not mean "demolition".

Does my hon. Friend agree that no one's home should depend on his job and that security of tenure is as important to farm workers as it is to tenant farmers and their nearest relative?

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to note that the latest report, which was sponsored by the Milk Marketing Board—I do not agree with all its contents—brought out the fundamental feature of the system—namely, the insecurity and the fear of the threat of eviction which particularly affects older workers.

Is not the Minister aware that there are many agricultural workers, including members of the union, who believe that tied cottages should remain? Will he have proper consultations with an open mind and not merely bow to the blandishments of his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Bright-side (Miss Maynard)?

I have met many farm workers, but I have yet to meet one who is opposed to what the Government intend to achieve in this respect. However, I am conscious that there has been a great deal of misrepresentation, not all of it deliberate, in the Press in connection with this matter and that it has led a number of farm workers to believe that "abolition" means "demolition."

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the present level of potato prices.

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

On the potato situation in general, I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 26th January, to the statement made during the debate on the Adjournment on 28th January, and to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) on 16th February. The average United Kingdom producer price in the week ending 21st February was about £183 per ton and retail prices are currently in a range of 9½p-14p per lb.—[Vol. 904, c. 29–31; Vol. 905, c. 490.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that housewives and greengrocer retailers, angered by the price increases, have now been further incensed because mouldy, substandard potatoes have been mixed with potatoes for human consumption? This is a disgraceful form of cheating. How does my hon. Friend intend to remedy the situation, to stop the cheating and to prevent its recurrence? How does he intend to bring down the price of potatoes?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about this matter and I have been in contact with him about it. However, I do not believe that the complaint is general. The problem may be centered in some areas. The remedy for those affected would be through the Food and Drugs Act.

Will the Minister inform his hon. Friend that it is important to ensure that a realistic guaranteed price level is arranged in the Price Review so that the full acreage is taken up and supplies next year are adequate?

I recognise the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. The guaranteed price is a factor that must be taken into consideration. The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the outcome of the Review. Nevertheless, there are other factors that influence the acreage actually planted.

Has our membership of the EEC helped or hindered my hon. Friend in dealing with this matter?

My hon. Friend will be aware of our actions and the representations to the Community on this matter. Following application by the United Kingdom, the CCT on new and main-crop potatoes has been suspended until 28th March.

For the benefit of his hon. Friends, will the Minister confirm that it is Government policy to take no action on this matter before the Price Review?

I am not sure that the hon. Member's observations need a reply. Although I fully recognise that the potato shortage has caused some problems for many people, nevertheless many of us would do well to reduce our consumption of potatoes. I understand how hon. Members generally want to carry more weight in public affairs, but the potato does not always help to put it in the right place.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made any estimate of the effect which the international introduction of a 200-mile EEZ will have on the British fishing industry.

The effect must depend in part upon the outcome of the Community reappraisal of the Common Fisheries Policy and upon possible negotiations with third countries.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is essential within the economic zone to provide a 100-mile exclusive zone for the British fishing industry if it is to have a future? What is he doing to prepare now for protection of the 100-mile exclusive and 200-mile international limits?

I am aware of the industry's views. I shall be seeing the hon. Member and his colleagues in Hull tomorrow. The Government stand by their desire to move to a 200-mile limit. The Community, however, is an important consideration. The document which is before us is being studied carefully.

My right hon. Friend will be welcome in Hull to see the trawlers laid up there and to open the new fish dock. Is it the Government's intention in the negotiations to press for an exclusive economic zone of 100 miles for British fishermen and not just to support the idea of a 200-mile international limit? Is that the Government's negotiating position?

No, it is not the Government's position. That is the view put to us by the industry, and I am looking at it carefully. I shall be anxious to protect our fishery interests, but I do not want to be shackled at the beginning of the negotiations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will have the support of all sides of the House if he takes a firm stand on the need for a 100-mile exclusive zone within the EEC policy? Will he tell the Community that he regards this as a fundamental national interest and that in the event of the Community failing to understand that position we shall withdraw from Community institutions until it does?

I get a lot of strange advice from certain quarters. I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion. This is a very important United Kingdom issue, not specifically a Scottish nationalist one.

Is it not a fact that in this problem as in that of potatoes my right hon. Friend is hampered by British membership of the Common Market? Is it not the case that right across the whole range of foodstuffs we are in difficulties as a result of our membership?

No, I cannot accept that. I have tried to tell my hon. Friend in a courteous way that he should not fight old battles which have been lost. Britain is now a member of the Community. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend wants to ask me a question he should stand up to do so.

Some people have changed sides.

Order. I decide who will get up to speak.

It is true that some people change sides. It is necessary to face reality, not to live in a dream world. The simple fact is that the Community has not harmed our potato crop—the damage was done by the bad weather.

Will the Minister bear in mind that in negotiations concerning the 200-mile limit he faces the particularly important and difficult task of safeguarding the position of our inshore fishermen? Is he aware that if the deep-sea vessels withdraw from other waters into inshore waters, and if there is what has sometimes been called "fruitful swapping" of rights with other countries for waters and rights elsewhere, British inshore fishermen may be deprived of their customary fishing grounds?

I accept the point made by the hon. Member, who has a tremendous inshore fishing interest in his constituency. I recognise that this sector of the industry is just as important as the distant water fleet. I shall watch the point carefully in the negotiations.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect a statement on the progress of negotiations?

Yes, I go to Brussels on Monday evening. I hope that we shall get a decision on the price negotiations that week.

What about fisheries?

No, I am dealing with the common agricultural policy. I shall have to make a statement to the House because our own Price Review is involved.

I was asking about fisheries and—

Order. I have not called the right hon. Gentleman to ask another question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think there has been some misunderstanding.

Order. I will take any points of order at the end of Question Time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now state whether he intends to take any action in response to the request for special assistance from the National Farmers Union to help the growers whose polythene tunnels were severely damaged or destroyed by the gales of 2nd January.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now considered the request made by representatives of the NFU in respect of the storm damage on 2nd January; and if he will make a statement.

It is not our policy to compensate farmers or growers for the effects of extreme weather conditions. However, we have examined the rules of our grant schemes and propose to amend them so as to recognise that the normal practice is to insure buildings for their current value which may not be the same as the cost of replacement. We also take account of the fact that some structures are uninsurable.

I express my gratitude for that reply, particularly the Minister's last remark. Why are the Government more than willing to pour hundreds of millions of pounds into failing American industries yet in difficulty about making even short-term loans to a basically thriving British industry which has suffered a natural disaster—one hopes it was a unique event —an industry which merely calls for some form of short-term assistance to get it back on its feet again?

One of the reasons we support the horticultural industry is its contribution to employment. That, too, is why the Government supported the car industry.

Does my hon. Friend accept that his Answer today will be welcomed by glasshouse growers in my constituency? Is he satisfied that glasshouse growers face fair competition from their rivals on the Continent?

There is a great deal of scope for argument about what constitutes fair competition. However, we make every effort to ensure that the Commission monitors the aids given to other producers. Our producers are not at a disadvantage compared with producers in other member States generally.

If the Minister thinks that there is even a lukewarm case for giving help because of damaged polythene tunnels, does he not realise that there is a much stronger case for giving help where glass was destroyed? There was no polythene which could not be saved, but glass which was smashed has gone for ever. Will he now consider whether it is time to talk to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about giving the industry two or three years—

Order. This is Question Time and this Question deals with polythene.

I think I can help the hon. Member. When growers replace glass that has been destroyed in storms, they are entitled to grants. The effect of the small concession I have announced is that the growers will get more grant.

Does the Minister appreciate that we agree with him about the employment position in the glass-house industry? Will he represent to the Chancellor that this industry provides excellent opportunities to avoid exporting currency in the short term by helping us not to import more hothouse produce than necessary?

I agree that horticulture makes a valuable contribution to saving imports, which is why the Government support it with capital grants and advisory services.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the farming and horticultural industries in relation to the possible effects of the Dock Work Regulation Bill; and what reply he has given thereto.

A number of organisations expressed concern about the possible effects. Before the Bill was published I replied that their views were being considered by the Secretary of State for Employment and myself. Afterwards, I referred them, where appropriate, to the provisions requiring the National Dock Labour Board to consult me in regard to food storage.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he has not been to the Cabinet to tell the Prime Minister and his cronies that he will not permit the agriculture and horticulture industries to be held to ransom by a group of dockers? Will he tell the Cabinet that he will permit the passage of the Bill only over his dead body?

No. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is becoming very extravagant. We had a full day's debate on these matters on Second Read-in. I shall be consulted adequately.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the dock workers could take strike action at any time, even at this moment, if they so desired, and could do precisely what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has said? Therefore, is not the hon. Gentleman's suggestion absolute nonsense?

For once I agree with my hon. Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety among fruit growers and others who maintain large cold stores within the prescribed mileages of dock towns, and especially in Kent, which is, in effect, a peninsula?

I accept that there are anxieties among some hon. Members. However, as I have said, I shall be consulted fully at every stage.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current extent of agricultural self-sufficiency in Great Britain; and what were the equivalent figures for this time last year.

Home agriculture and fisheries contributed 55 per cent. to the United Kingdom's total food requirements in 1973–74, the latest year for which aggregate figures are available. The contribution in 1972–73 was also about 55 per cent.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that last year we imported £1,850 million worth of food that we could have grown ourselves? Is there not an urgent need to reduce that figure? Is not that objective made much more difficult by provisions such as the capital transfer tax, which is very destructive of agriculture?

The hon. Gentleman should not be unaware that in the past 10 years the amount that we have grown ourselves has increased from 51 per cent. to 55 per cent. The position is that 45 per cent. of the food we import cannot be grown in the United Kingdom for climatic reasons. During the two past years or so when we have been responsible for agriculture, my right hon. Friend has brought forward various packages and changes in the green pound, all of which have helped to add to the confidence of the industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we shall have a tremendous slump in the production of poultry unless we seek permanent exemption from EEC Directive 118 on the conditions of slaughter?

These matters are under review by the Ministry in consultation with the Community.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the world population is growing much faster than world food supplies and that that looks like being the pattern for many years to come? As a result, we shall not be able to import the same proportion of food. Will the hon. Gentleman and the Government concentrate on expanding home food production?

It is not hard to conceive a population explosion taking place, but the fact remains that in the White Paper we forecast that by the 1980s we shall be saving approximately £500 milion a year on imports. Over a period of years the sort of saving envisaged in the White Paper will be realised because of various steps that my right hon. Friend has taken.

Is not one of the problems of increasing our sugar self-sufficiency that we occasionally have bad weather? If we are to accept the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and live in reality, would it not be a good thing to maintain reasonable quantities of imported cane sugar?

My hon. Friend will be aware that in the White Paper we aim to achieve 50 per cent. sugar self-sufficiency by the 1980s I am aware of the concern of my hon. Friend and others about the sugar situation. The important things is to have security of sugar supplies, and then to have regard to the need to have sugar in the form that we want it—for example, cane sugar for refining in this country. My hon. Friend will be aware of the steps in the past year or so to try to satisfy the needs of the consumer and the interests of workers at the same time.

If we add Scottish fish landings to Scottish agricultural produce is not Scotland self-supporting in food?

As Scotland is still a part of the United Kingdom, it still receives the benefits of the policy that the Government have pursued over the past few years.

Will the hon. Gentleman now admit that we are in a ridiculous position with agricultural production falling and the balance-of-payments gap widening? Is it not time that long-term confidence was given to British agriculture so that we can achieve greater self-sufficiency?

I wish that the Opposition would not continue to make their gloomy forecasts about the future of agriculture. There is the possibility of a record peacetime harvest of wheat. The pig herd is expanding and there is confidence in the dairy industry. Not so long ago the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) and his hon. Friends were forecasting the rationing of milk by Christmas 1975.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings administered by his Ministry are subject to agricultural tenancy.

Three hundred and eighty-eight.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether future policy will mean one law for Government tenancies and another for private sector tenancies and, if so, why?

The hon. Gentleman was a member of an Administration which favoured the exclusion of statutory smallholdings provided by local authorities and the Ministry. That is something which the hon. Gentleman pursued in Government with his colleagues. I wish to do something about the matter, and yesterday I tabled clauses which I hope the hon. Gentleman will read.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's Press statement about these matters, will he tell us how he justifies putting himself in a better position as a landlord than other landlords?

All statutory smallholdings are subject to democratic control. That is the reason.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the legislation which the Opposition have in mind is designed to protect tenants against unscrupulous landowners, who often put out tenancies to auction or to tender so as to extract the maximum possible revenue from their land, landowners who often could not give a hoot about agricultural production?

I hope that my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to discuss these matters when the clauses are discussed in the House. I am rather surprised that people should condemn local authorities, which are statutorily responsible for smallholdings. When I say that there is democratic control, I mean that every councillor must face election.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy towards the EEC Commission's proposals for a sheepmeat régime.

I have already told the Council of Agriculture Ministers that I cannot accept the Commission's proposals as they now stand. I am not prepared to agree to the introduction of any Community arrangements for sheepmeat which do not safeguard our essential interests, including our third-country supplies.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that if, in addition to the Common Market duty of 16 per cent. rising to 20 per cent. which we must now place on lamb imports, we were compelled to impose the whole lunatic machinery of the CAP, lamb prices would increase by 50 per cent. and lamb would virtually disappear from the British table? Does my right hon. Friend accept that his reply is extremely welcome? If such a proposal should re-emerge, he would earn the support of the whole House if he were to resist it with great strenuousness.

I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the Community recognises the importance of third countries, such as New Zealand. I have been in close touch with New Zealand Government and I consider that the tariff of 20 per cent. is too high. I have always defended the access by New Zealand supplies, and I shall continue to do so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is widespread unrest in this country about the circumstances in which live sheep are sent to the Community? What steps is he taking to expand the meat carcase trade from this country?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me another question. I was dealing with the subject of sheepmeat.

Will the Minister resist this further encroachment on Britain's food supplies, which is totally unjustified because the Continental EEC countries are not large consumers or producers of lamb?

I cannot accept that. I have constant meetings with my New Zealand friends—I stress that I regard them as friends—and I defend their interests in the Community. I believe that in principle their situation has been accepted.

Does the Minister agree that the Community accepts the principle of the entry of New Zealand meat and has withdrawn its proposals on the subject of sheepmeat? Does he also agree that the whole exercise is aimed at obtaining access to the European market for United Kingdom sheepmeat and Irish sheepmeat at reasonable prices and time?

I accept the hon. Gentleman's view, which is quite correct. I am anxious that the régime should not harm our interests and I have stated that over and over again.

Whatever sheepmeat regulations are introduced in the near future, will the Minister give an assurance that he will hold on to the present market price system for lamb and will not go into intervention buying?

Whenever the question of the sheepmeat régime is debated, I shall, of course, consult all the interests concerned. The House knows that I frequently attend meetings of the Scrutiny Committee and I am quite rightly subjected to questions from colleagues, who undertake the task in a constructive manner. I do not think the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) need worry too much about the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts have been made by his Department to seek new outlets for elm timber in face of the glut caused by Dutch elm disease.

The Forestry Commission, with the full co-operation of the home and importing timber trades, has set up an Elm Marketing Group, charged with seeking out and promoting markets for elm timber. The Forestry Commission itself has been active in promoting wider use of elm timber.

Is the Minister satisfied that he is taking enough action in this respect, particularly in encouraging other Departments to use timber from elm trees in the home industries, particularly in the construction of motorways? On the subject of the preservation of the countryside, is he satisfied that trees are being replaced rapidly enough?

A tremendous level of activity is taking place in this respect and the Forestry Commission has been particularly active. If I may single out one organisation which has increased its consumption of elm, it is the National Coal Board. We do our utmost to encourage replanting and the Department of the Environment does all it can to encourage tree planting.

Can the Minister say how many elm trees have been felled as a result of the disease and how many are likely to be lost as the disease increases?

I should like notice of the question about the number of trees felled to date but, whatever the number felled, an even greater number still standing are diseased. This is a serious problem.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sons succeeded to their fathers' tenancies last year; and what percentage of tenancies created last year this represents.

I regret that my Department does not keep this information.

The Minister's reply is very disappointing. Despite his laudable attempts to ensure some kind of preferential succession of sons of tenant farmers, will he none the less reflect on the awful warning of the Labour Government's attempts to provide for security of housing tenure—attempts which have led to the largest increase in homelessness ever recorded?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study carefully the new provisions tabled by the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The House will be given them today. Hon. Members must be patient. The National Farmers Union feels strongly about this matter. Its propaganda in the debate on this subject showed that it was anxious that the Government should do something about the matter, and we are doing so.

In view of the extent and substance of the provisions tabled by the Government, has the Minister made representations to the Leader of the House for time to be given to debate those important proposals?

The right hon. Gentleman came to seem me about this matter and we discussed the situation informally. I thought that we had a gentleman's agreement that the best place to discuss the matter would be in Standing Committee.

I agree that it is right to debate the matter in Committee, but surely substantial amendments amounting to some eight pages of typescript and dealing with important principles should be debated before the Committee considers them in detail.

I recognise that the provisions are most important, but I repeat that I discussed the matter with the right hon. Gentleman and it was agreed that the first discussion should take place in Committee. I did not initially want that to happen, but I felt that the Opposition wanted it.

rose—

We want to be fair to the House. Perhaps the matter can be raised on another occasion.

Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks, and I am sure the thanks of many tenant farmers, for tabling the new clauses on this important subject? This legislation has long been overdue. Will he resist the temptation to give in to Opposition Members, who totally oppose such legislation?

This is now Government policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of skim milk powder will be imported each year if the incorporation scheme now under review is approved.

Our import requirements would depend on a number of factors and no estimate can be given at the present time.

Is the Minister aware that apart from the concern of many poultry and pig breeders that the use of milk powder may result in an increase in the price of their compound ration of £6 per ton there is a great deal of uncertainty over the properties of this skim milk, some of which went into intervention before June 1973, which may have serious effects on its keeping properties and on production? What investigations have been made into this most serious aspect?

The present stocks in the Community amount to 1·1 million tons. That figure must be reduced urgently. The only practical way of dealing with such a large quantity is by incorporating it in animal feeding stuffs. However, the quantity is relatively small and the direct effect on retail prices should be relatively small.

As one who voted against entering into the EEC, may I ask the Minister to explain why the British people have to pay for the dried milk mountain in the Common Market when we had nothing to do with incurring it?

This matter is under review and we agree that various aspects still have to be clarified. On the subject of skim milk, I note the capacity of the hon. Gentleman to make mountains out of mole hills.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make a further revaluation of the green pound.

I am continuing to keep the level of the green pound under review, having regard to the interests of both producers and consumers.

Is the Minister aware of the continuing concern in the farming industry about the valuation of the green pound? What is he going to do to bring the value of the green pound into line with the pound sterling?

Since October 1974 I have obtained changes from the Community on four occasions. It is not contemplated that there will be any change in the forthcoming price review negotiations.

As the latest figures show a fall in the sheep and cattle herds, with the dairy herd down by 5 per cent. and the beef herd by 7½ per cent., will the Minister stop this decline by revaluing the green pound?

I moved very quickly on this matter, unlike my predecessors, and I am anxious in the negotiations to achieve something which will do more for the beef industry than a revaluation of the green pound—that is, to keep the variable premium system.

Is the Minister aware of the difficulties caused to Northern Ireland agriculture by the different values of the Irish and the sterling green pound? Is he examining the alleged racket of double payment of beef premium on cattle exported to Eire?

The hon. Member takes an interest in these matters and will know that I recognise the importance of the Northern Ireland industry and its contribution to United Kingdom agricultural production: I cannot say when there will be a further change in the value of the green pound, but I will watch the matter carefully and I recognise that it could have a serious effect on Northern Ireland's trade.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) on 22nd January.—[Vol. 903, c. 581.]

When my right hon. Friend next meets the NFU, will he discuss the effects of the common agricultural policy? Does he remember that the re-negotiation of the terms of Britain's membership of the Common Market included references to benefits for farmers and consumers? Can he tell us now where these benefits are? Can he—

Order. That is enough for now.

My hon. Friend must be aware that I am continually in close contact with farmers' leaders in Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. We meet frequently on matters affecting the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are to be made for the supply of New Zealand butter and cheese to the United Kingdom consumer after 1977.

The detailed arrangements for implementing the European Council's decision of 10th March 1975 are under consideration in the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in The Times of 5th February that the European Community is in no hurry to honour the commitment on New Zealand dairy products entered into in the re-negotiations? Can he assure us that he will resist any effort to dishonour this commitment?

I hope my right hon. Friend will not always take for granted what appears in the newspapers, much as I respect The Times—it is a very fine newspaper. We are having negotiations next week and my right hon. Friend need not worry too much.

If my right hon. Friend were one of the New Zealand Ministers, would he be satisfied with the rate at which negotiations are proceeding?

The New Zealand Ministers are well pleased with the progress that we have made in their interests. I am always in close contact with them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of the subsidy of 11p a pound on butter, there has been a considerable increase in butter imports rather than a benefit to the British butter producers? Has this subsidy benefited the New Zealand butter producers?

New Zealand has had a traditional trade with us in butter and dairy products and that should be maintained. As I said earlier, New Zealand is naturally anxious about tariff arrangements, but we are anxious to protect our traditional suppliers of food, of which New Zealand is one.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects to make his next Ministerial broadcast.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Mr. Stanley) on 25th November, Sir.

As an all-party Select Committee has today unanimously condemned the Government for the folly of their defence cuts, which are a threat to our security, and as Moscow is doing a marvellous public relations job to promote the Leader of the Opposition as the wicked witch of the western world because she has the courage to warn the nation of the dangers—

Order. This is Prime Minister's Question Time. Half the House wants to get in.

As my right hon. Friend has warned the nation of the dangers of appeasement and disarmament, when is the Prime Minister going to tell the nation where he stands?

I am glad that when the hon. Gentleman put down his Question two weeks ago he had information about what might appear in yesterday's Select Committee Report, which will be studied very seriously by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. There is no ministerial responsibility here for what is said in Moscow. Moscow made a typically humourless reaction to the discovery that the Leader of the Opposition has now discovered that the Berlin wall was built 15 years ago. In regard to defence policy. I notice that in the right hon. Lady's "Panorama" broadcast—

It was damned good—far better than the Prime Minister's.

It was very good. The right hon. Lady said that she was not querying 94 per cent. of the defence cuts, but only the last 6 per cent. That will not be enough to tear down the Berlin wall.

When my right hon. Friend makes his next ministerial broadcast, will he do me and himself a lot of good by explaining to our people how we are to bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift of wealth and power in favour of working people and their families? Does he think that it will be brought about by—?

Order. Let us have one question at a time to the Prime Minister.

Since I have said that I have no plans for a ministerial broadcast, it is wasting the time of the House to give advice on what I should say in a broadcast I am not going to make. If my hon. Friend had been where I was last night, he would have had a very full answer from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

When will the Prime Minister concentrate on seeing that this country is properly defended and concentrate his diplomatic policy on seeing that people can fly to freedom from Communist tyranny if they so wish?

This country is much better defended within the 94 per cent. of defence expenditure cuts which the right hon. Lady accepted in her broadcast. As for people flying from the Soviet Union, or any other Communist country, I never like to say these things in public, but if she will inquire she will find out how many people have come out of the Soviet Union over the last 20 years as a result of my requests and pressures. I would refer to the statement by Moshe Dayan that Ruth Alessandrovich was let out in response to my requests. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but this is a serious matter. The Israeli ambassador said that the Panovs were released as a result of certain action taken by me. On returning from Romania the right hon. Lady was stupid enough to publish the list of the people she had asked for. I am happy to say that a much larger number have been released this week as the result of my representations.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Chairman of the Press Council.

I have no plans to meet the Chairman of the Press Council, Sir.

When the Prime Minister meets the Chairman of the Press Council, will he discuss with him the continued refusal of his Press Office to communicate fully with The Times newspaper? Does he agree that it is a disgrace that these people, who are paid by the taxpayer, should be selective in how they discharge their duties?

I have already said that the question of legal proceedings arises here, which the hon. Gentleman, as a former employee of The Times, should know all about. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman what, with his contacts, he should have known—The Times gets exactly the same treatment from No. 10 as any other newspaper, even if it does not always deserve it.

If my right hon. Friend meets the Chairman of the Press Council, who happens at the moment to be Lord Shawcross, will he remind that gentleman of his words in the House on 2nd April 1946?—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman is about to quote, I can save him from temptation.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister remind Lord Shawcross of what he said in the House on 2nd April 1946 in winding up for the Government the Third Reading debate on the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill—namely, that we are the masters now?

I am aware of my then right hon. and learned Friend's political view, but I think his views have changed a little.

He has seen the light.

Nevertheless, I feel that one of the most distinguished legal pundits of our time, as he must be acknowledged to be by everyone, will be the first to realise how wrong it is to press questions of this kind when legal proceedings are pending. In any case, I do not want to bother my noble Friend—if he still is—Lord Shawcross, because I know that he will have seen the motion about the treatment by a certain newspaper of an hon. Member who was interviewed on the telephone and then said to have written an article for that newspaper. As the motion asks for a reference to the Press Council, I am sure that action will be taken.

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

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

Does the Prime Minister recall that when he opened the new Thorn lighting laboratory last year he met a number of my constituents, members of the work force, who expressed to him their deep concern about the developing situation in the television industry? Bearing in mind the recent improvements in the unemployment figures, what assurances can the Prime Minister give to my constituents in the light of subsequent developments at Skelmersdale, bearing in mind that London has lost more than half a million manufacturing jobs in the last few years?

Skelmersdale—which was in my constituency, but is no longer, although many of my constituents work there—was a great tragedy which has been the subject of statements and answers—

Highly unsatisfactory.

Order. The House is only wasting time.

by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. As the House will be aware, this was a very difficult matter. Every effort was made to save these jobs but the position was made impossible by the withdrawal of the American firm which was in partnership. It was a great tragedy. I do not underrate it and I am well aware of the consequences in my hon. Friend's constituency.

If the Prime Minister does visit Edmonton, will he ask the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Prices and Con- sumer Protection what is the point of a bogus price check scheme consisting of a thin list of items which anyway would not have gone up in price by 5 per cent. over the next six months? Is it not an action calculated to take in only the smallest Chinese minds?

There are not many precedents for asking on a Question about a visit to a particular constituency supplementary questions to another Minister through his Parliamentary Private Secretary. It is a total Waste of the time of the House when more important Questions are on the Order Paper. My right hon. Friend has answered these questions in the House and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to take her on again, I shall be glad to pick up the bits when she has finished with him.