asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he gave to consumer interests in reaching agreement on the common agricultural policy price review proposals.

I gave the fullest possible consideration to the needs of consumers within the overall national interest.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed package of food price rises is bad news not only for the consumer but for the taxpayer, who will have to pay to get rid of food surpluses which consumers cannot afford? Does not this further turn of the CAP screw undermine the whole basis of the Government's counter-inflation policy?

I cannot accept that. The effect by the end of the year of the price review, details of which I announced on 8th March, may be to add 1¼ per cent. to the retail food index. I remind my hon. Friends that the farm workers' leader, Mr. Reg Bottini, has said that he believes that farm workers will benefit from this deal.

Is it not important in the interests of consumers that there should be a steady expansion of our domestic agricultural industry, and does not that mean realistic prices?

I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Hon. Members who criticise the deal must realise that it conforms with the Government's policy in the White Paper "Food from our own resources".

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that United Kingdom wine producers are not adversely affected by United Kingdom membership of the EEC.

The special position of wine producers in the United Kingdom is recognised in the Community and has been safeguarded by the recent decisions of the Council.

Has my hon. Friend read the article in "Horticulture Industry" for February, which states that the EEC will be applying to the industry stringent regulations, including sample testing by an official station for five consecutive years? Will not that threaten a small but developing industry?

I have not read the article, but my hon. Friend will welcome my right hon. Friend's success in resisting a ban on the planting of vineyards in this country. Furthermore, he will accept that the Community rules relating to the production and marketing of wine are applicable in this country and that there is no evidence that they are detrimental to the industry.

asked the Minister or Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent progress has been made in the EEC towards the harmonisation of fuel prices for growers in the glasshouse sector of horticulture.

The Commission has set guidelines for national fuel aids to horticulture. Under the guidelines, subsidies on the cost of heating oil must end by 1st July 1976. There is also a condition that, if an oil subsidy is paid, steps must be taken to bring the price of gas up to the fuel oil price equivalent, after subsidy.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that although he was described in a recent issue of the Grower as a good listener, he has yet to satisfy the House that he is also a doer? Does what the Minister said mean that at last he has succeeded in putting British growers on an equal basis with their competitors in the EEC in relation to the price of fuel?

I am happy to receive compliments from all quarters, including the Grower. On 30th June 1976 permission to make payments in aid to glasshouse producers will cease. To that extent we have been successful in resisting any extension of these guidelines.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that British horticultural growers are able to compete satisfactorily with their Dutch counterparts?

Yes, I am satisfied. We must bear in mind that labour costs in Holland are substantially higher than they are in this country, and the biggest boost and protection to the indigenous horticulture industry is that since the last Question Time the value of the pound has fallen.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the green pound differs in value from the Irish green pound.

The United Kingdom green pound equals 1·75560 units of account and the Irish green pound equals 1·69653 units of account.

Will the Minister take steps to give the British farmer the benefits that the Irish farmer gets from the value of the green pound? Will he tell the House by what date he expects to be able to bring the green pound into line with the value of the pound sterling?

I cannot give a date. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have made four changes—in October 1974 and in February, August and October 1975. I keep under review the level of the green pound, but I have to have regard to the interests of both producers and consumers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the constant dislocation, unfairness, loss of employment and malpractices which result from this disparity and anomaly between the two green pounds taken in conjunction with the open frontier?

I have said previously, and I made clear in Brussels, that we should have to take action if it were shown that Northern Ireland's interest was being damaged. I am watching the situation closely.

Does the Minister agree that the distortions and disparities, which are occurring at an ever-increasing pace, are so disrupting the operation of the common agricultural policy that it is seriously threatened? Does he agree that it is vital that Finance Ministers should take firm, resolute and urgent action to get the monetary situation more aligned so that the CAP can work harmoniously and properly?

The right hon. Gentleman should address that Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I agree with Commissioner Lardinois, whose speech the right hon. Gentleman heard, that this is a serious matter which must be examined carefully.

Does the Minister agree that the benefit gained by the Irish shows what can be done under self-government, and would not Scotland benefit equally from self-government?

On the contrary, it is a great tragedy that Southern Ireland is not still in the British Commonwealth as well as in the EEC.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further adjustment is required in the green pound and other factors affecting domestic prices of food in view of the continual decline in the value of sterling; and what effect these changes will have on the prices of staple foods during the next 12 months.

There is no requirement to adjust the green pound because of changes in the market exchange rate of sterling, but I keep the green pound under review. As no change in the green pound is currently being made, the second part of the Question does not arise.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the figures given by Commissioner Lardinois last Tuesday— that the Community paid a subsidy to Britain of £190 million last year, which is equivalent to about one third of the subsidies paid on food, and that currently the Community is subsidising British food to the extent of £15 million per month? As the fall in the value of sterling against European currencies since the last adjustment in the green pound last October is 8 per cent., is not another adjustment required soon?

I naturally accept that a fall in the value of sterling tends to increase the price of imported foods, although this increase may be offset for a number of major agricultural commodities by the operation of the MCAs. That is why I agree with Mr. Lardinois.

Would not it be better if the right hon. Gentleman announced a 5 per cent. limit on the disparity between the green pound and the exchange rate? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman quoting how many times he has altered it. The pound goes down and down. Will not he announce a limit so that, when it is reached, there will be an automatic devaluation? That is what the industry needs.

I cannot accept the argument about an automatic devaluation. I have answered that before. But I have made four adjustments, and I keep the matter under review.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Commissioner Lardinois, talking in London this week about the terrible mess of the common agricultural policy, suggested that Britain should reconsider her decision to lower food subsidies? Is not this a very good idea? Will my right hon. Friend allow food subsidies to continue as they are, because of the ever-rising cost of our food?

That is another matter which is not covered by the original Question.

Does the Minister agree that the present disparity with the green pound is encouraging racketeering in the movement of grain and meat between the various countries? Can he say whether the Commission is looking into the many rackets going on at the moment?

I can only repeat what I said earlier. Naturally, I am concerned with matters affecting the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and I have stated that we are watching the position carefully.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that on Tuesday of this week Mr. Lardinois also said that unless we had economic and monetary union, the EEC would collapse? Does my right hon. Friend agree with that view? Will he encourage the revision of our own independent currency to bring about the collapse, which is perhaps about the best thing that could happen for British agriculture?

We must look at this matter constructively. I will not commit myself on matters which need careful study. However, my hon. Friend and others who are anxious to destroy the common agricultural policy do not realise how that will endanger our food supplies.

Does the Minister appreciate that Mr. Lardinois did not use those words? He said—and I repeated it today—that unless the monetary distortions and disparities were ironed out, the common agricultural policy would not have a chance. That is the important point, and that is what I asked the Minister to urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Yes, I agree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). My hon. Friend had got the wrong end of the stick.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what is the present level of stocks of skimmed milk powder in the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the current size and cost of the skimmed milk powder mountain.

Stocks of skimmed milk powder in EEC intervention stores on 11th March were 1,158,000 metric tons, of which 29,000 metric tons were held by the United Kingdom Intervention Board. These stocks have accumulated over several years as a result of the operation of the system of intervention purchases and sales by which the common agricultural policy underpins the market. As these transactions take place continuously, it is not possible to state the total cost of the balance in store at any one time.

Will it not cost British farmers at least an extra £28 million to pay for the 60,000 tons that will be imported if the incorporation scheme is accepted? Is it not particularly unfair to poultry and pig farmers, and does it not make a nonsense of the Government's policy to peg costs?

I do not agree. The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. The figure is 40,000 tons. I agree that there is a problem. I do not like the incorporation system, and I said so in Brussels. I am in touch with the trade and I want to make the procedures as smooth as possible for the trade.

Does not this mountain illustrate the absurdity of the intervention system? Was not the Minister's decision in Brussels to agree to these regulations contrary to the wishes of the House, and why did he make it?

I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question because he is a member of the Scrutiny Committee which said that further consideration of proposals need not delay adoption by the Council should such adoption prove necessary in the course of negotiations to achieve a satisfactory settlement of the whole package.

I disagreed.

The hon. Gentleman may have disagreed, but his Committee did not, and the Chairman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) took another line.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the deposit scheme? Will there not be 12 categories of the level of deposit for the import of soya and protein before there can be equivalent withdrawal? What will these categories be? How much money will be required? What will be the duration of the scheme? What are the terms for repayment?

I cannot give that information. Talks are continuing on this subject. I shall be only too pleased to follow up the matter with the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the skimmed milk and price proposals will ensure the continuation of a mountain of skimmed milk? Bearing in mind that skimmed milk costs about four times as much as any other additive, will not the cost of incorporation in the poultry industry alone add about £6 million, which will have to be borne by the British consumer?

I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that I criticised the scheme. I am anxious that we should have a working scheme. I know that there are problems, but it is a once-for-all scheme and I hope that hon. Members will not exaggerate the problems.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins)? He is unable to give details of a scheme which is already in operation, and that is intolerable. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to turn his mind in favour of the scheme until the House has had a chance to debate it. Will he also turn his mind to the possibility of renegotiating the scheme if, as seems likely, it has the universal condemnation of both sides of the House and of the trade?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I presented the scheme and I was prepared to debate it, but, because of events in the House, we were unable to proceed. This is a matter for the Leader of the House. I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman said, but I believe that it would have been wrong for me to hold up the whole package of the price review by sticking firmly against the scheme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce the name of the next Chairman of the Forestry Commission.

No, Sir. As indicated in the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on 4th March, the chairmanship of the Forestry Commission is among the appointments on which the Prime Minister advises the Queen and he would be responsible for an announcement.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate how much enjoyment the Forestry Commission has given in recent years by the expansion of its recreational facilities? Is he aware of the large num-best of jobs that it has created? In consultations leading to the appointment of the new Chairman, will he urge that whoever is appointed should continue this expansion?

I agree that recreation is an increasingly important part of the Commission's functions. I am satisfied that the new Chairman, when he is appointed, will recognise that.

Will the hon. Gentleman stress to the Prime Minister that the new Chairman must be someone who is conversant with the contribution made to forestry by the private sector? Great though the achievements of the Commission have been, does he agree that forestry cannot survive without the active cooperation of private planters and that they cannot do their job unless the present taxation system is radically reformed?

I agree that the new Chairman should recognise the contribution of both the State and private sectors of forestry.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the next Chairman of this most attractive and successful area of the public sector enjoys the success and respect enjoyed by the present Chairman?

I endorse that tribute to the present Chairman. The Forestry Commission is a splendid example of public enterprise and I hope that the new Chairman will continue with its policies.

Did not Lord Taylor announce his retirement in November? Why has there been this delay?

Lord Taylor intends to continue in his post until June this year, but we shall be making an announcement before then.

On this occasion will my hon. Friend appoint someone who believes in public ownership? At the same time, will he put some forestry workers' representatives on the Commission and not so many landowners and people who believe in having a commercial timber trade?

I wholly share my hon. Friend's sentiments. It seems to me that we want a Chairman who believes in public enterprise and who wants to make a success of it. It is important that the Commission should reflect the aspirations of the workers in the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has received to date from farming interests in Scotland concerning the possible effects of the Dock Work Regulation Bill.

I have received no representations since my reply to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on 26th February.

Will the Minister do everything in his power to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment not to extend the scheme to Perth Harbour? The scheme could result in the closure of Perth Harbour and could do irreparable damage to farmers throughout Perthshire.

The Bill is still going through the House. I am always consulted about harbour matters and I shall take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any extension of the scheme will be subject to an affirmative Order of both Houses?

I think that hon. Members know that.

Does the Minister accept that the application of the Bill to non-scheme ports, not only Perth—there are 120 in Scotland—would have a ruinous effect on the livelihoods of farmers and on the nation's food supply? It would put a stranglehold on food supplies, the supply of raw materials and foodstuffs to farmers, with its consequent effect on egg, pig and poultry production.

I cannot accept that. The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate. The Bill is in Committee and there will be ample time for discussion.

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

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 29th January. Since then, first-hand prices have fallen in accordance with the usual seasonal pattern. Nevertheless, firsthand prices are still generally well above the levels prevailing at this time in any of the last few years.—[Vol. 904, c. 295.]

Does the Minister accept that one of the most important aspects of the current position in the fishing industry is the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy? Does he consider it helpful for his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to cut the ground from under the feet of our negotiators by saying yesterday that there is no prospects of getting a 100-mile limit?

The hon. Gentleman should put the matter in perspective. We have often made clear that the United Kingdom has a major interest in the fishing industry within the Community. What matters is not just the limitations— although they are important—but that the British fishing industry in future has access to waters which will give it the catches necessary to maintain viability.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in reconsidering fisheries policies the Government should take into account the consequences of an agreement between Iceland and Britain? The EEC negotiations should deploy a strategy to revamp the industry and give a chance to deep sea ports such as Hull.

I do not think that I need to add to what I have already said. We have done our best in the negotiations with Iceland with much tolerance to look after our industry. Catches in third country waters should be taken into account in the discussions on the future of the CFP. We want to maintain a viable fishing industry and the deliberations of the Law of the Sea Conference and on the CFP will have that in mind. It is difficult to talk about the future shape of the industry until these questions have been resolved.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the current position of the fishing industry in the South-West is extremely serious, particularly for mackerel fishing, due to certain fishermen coming down from Scotland and other parts of the world and depleting stocks of mackerel? Will he take steps to see that these stocks are conserved?

Stay out of our waters.

I will resist the temptation to become involved in the family quarrel on the other side of the House. I have no comments to make on the insistence of the Scottish National Party on fishing rights within 200 miles of Scottish shores. The waters around our coasts are British and are available to British shipping.

Does my hon. Friend recollect that in our various debates on fishing the Government have always refused to state any definite fisheries policy on the ground that they did not wish to display our negotiating hand for renegotiating the CFP? Did not yesterday's statement give away our negotiating hand?

I do not know to which statement my hon. Friend is referring. If he is referring to the meeting of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State with the Scrutiny Committee, I should tell him that I was present. We did our best to give as much information as possible to that Committee without saying too much. Basically, we have made clear our insistence on ensuring the viability of our fishing industry, which is the major fishing industry in the Community.

Is the Minister aware that fishermen off the South coast feel increasingly threatened by the over-fishing of their grounds, due not just to the problems off Cornwall but to abuse of the quota system by Belgian trawlers and over efficient methods of fishing, such as beam trawling? What will he do to protect the interests of the inshore fishermen?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we do not regard beam trawling as scientifically bad for the fish stocks. We have insisted on the need for the quota system to be reinforced. This is a matter which we are bearing in mind.

Does my hon. Friend accept that all these political arguments—the Law of the Sea Conference, the common fisheries policy, and the like—lie ahead, whereas now, both north and south of the Tweed, the fleets are in difficult financial circumstances? Therefore, will he consider immediately some form of operational subsidy by which, as in the past, the situation is salvaged by the payment of so much per day per ship when at sea?

I recognise my hon. Friend's continuing interest in the industry and its problems. Although costs have increased, so have earnings overall. It is interesting to note that the earnings of the Scottish industry, for example, rose by 17 per cent.—that is £1·8 million— in January and February of this year compared with the same period of 1975. I recognise the importance of the points made by my hon. Friend, but he will be aware of the aid that we have given the industry in the past 12 months— including vessel grants, loans, harbour works, scientific support, research and development, as well as the temporary subsidy. My right hon. Friend has said that he will examine any well documented case of overwhelming need if it is put to him.

Is the Minister aware of the serious further deterioration in the financial position of the industry since we last debated it five weeks ago, with ships being laid up and sold and workshops being closed down? Is not the position we have reached so serious that the Prime Minister himself should join in discussions with other Heads of State in the Community to bring this important matter to a rapid conclusion? Is it not that serious now?

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern. But he will know that, under the Treaty of Accession, the present common fisheries policy continues until 1982. In April last year my right hon. Friend said that this was an urgent matter. Talks are still under way. In the fishing debate only a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend said that he would examine any well documented case of overwhelming need for financial aid. I appreciate the points made by the British Trawlers Federation recently and its demand for help for the industry. No one can say that the Government have been late with the aid, last year and at present, which the industry has needed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will backdate the increased compensation payments under the new brucellosis eradication schemes to 1st November 1975.

My right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland are considering this matter in the light of the representations that have been made.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am pleased to hear that answer? However, will he take on board the fact that the NFU was negotiating this matter way back last June and that farmers in Roxburghshire and probably elsewhere allowed their cattle to be slaughtered because they thought that the payments would take effect from last November and they now face serious financial losses unless this decision is reconsidered?

These are some of the arguments that we are considering. However, the hon. Gentleman will understand that we have to take these decisions against the background of the Government's constraints on public expenditure.

Does the Minister accept that this is a very serious problem? Will he consider giving way about the date of 1st November and going back to the beginning of the eradication year, which was 1st June for many areas in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he consider this matter urgently, because many farmers wish to purchase stock now?

We are giving it urgent consideration. However, the hon. Gentleman is going a little far when he talks about retrospection further back than 1st November. All the discussions have been on the basis that the claim is for retrospection to 1st November.

Although we welcome the increase in the upper limit of compensation outside Scotland, there are still problems for herds in areas which are not compulsorily eradication areas. Although they get compensation still, farmers are at much greater risk in those areas than in compulsory eradication areas. Will the Minister ensure that something is done to improve the amount going to these areas to encourage those in eradication-free areas to stay in the scheme?

I cannot accept that there are not continuing benefits for herds to remain in the scheme. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have welcomed our announcement some time ago outlining our plans for the complete eradication of brucellosis.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of fish from the North Sea have been granted by him under quota to Communist countries under the North East Alantic Fisheries Agreements.

By international agreement the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission is responsible for the management of fish stocks in the North Sea. Quotas are negotiated by the fifteen member States of the Commission taking into account traditional fishing patterns.

May I ask the Minister how many more of our fishermen have to join the dole queues before he will accept that the industry is in need of help? Having given way weakly over quotas, will he assure the House that there will be no such action when defending the interests of the industry in Common Market negotiations?

If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we have not had our fair share of the quotas under the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission allocations, I remind him that in the North Sea the total amount of fish for all countries is 718,000 tons of which the United Kingdom has 213,000 tons and the Communist countries 76,000 tons. The basis of the decisions on quotas is the state of the fish stocks, and the maximum sustainable yields as given by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and other advisory bodies on fishing resources.

Will not the Minister of State realise that these excessively low priced imports are just one of the factors causing the fishing industry to be in an even greater mess than at any time during the last two years? Will he further realise that we are sick to death of his answers that he is having talks and discussions and considering matters? Will he take up the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) a few moments ago— that this matter should be put into the hands of the Prime Minister to see whether he can retrieve the industry from its tragic position?

The hon. Gentleman must know that we have had to start from the position in which his Government left us some years ago when they negotiated the Treaty of Accession. We have done our best, in the last year or two in which we have been responsible to give the industry the wind of support it needs, pending the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference and the reappraisal of the common fisheries policy. The industry has had improvements as a result of our efforts and we are pursuing the negotiations most urgently.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of officials from his Department who have right of access to agricultural land.

The number of officials of the Ministry who possess powers of entry to agricultural land is approximately 1,630. This figure does not include those veterinary surgeons in private practice who also possess these powers and receive fees from public funds for carrying out statutory duties.

Although I acknowledge that animal and plant health requires supervision, as does the checking of capital grants, is there not a material difference between the answer given now by the Minister and the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on 10th February, that the total number was 2,110, representing 72 categories? Is it not alarming that there can be such a large difference between two replies? Will the Minister tell us what is the trend?

My reply did not include veterinary surgeons. In view of the complexity of agricultural legislation important to the working farmer, it is essential for various reasons to have an adequate inspectorate and officials able to give advice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the value of loans made by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation was in 1974 and 1975.

Loans made to the industry by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Ltd. during the years ending 31st March 1974 and 31st March 1975 were £47·9 million and £37·9 million respectively.

Has the Minister seen a recent statement from the managing director of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation producing devastating arguments about the danger of taking capital out of agriculture, a danger fully reflected in the recent decline of investment shown in the annual price review? In view of this, will the Minister now take steps to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer the urgent need to change the capital taxation on agriculture so as to remove this threat?

I am aware of that statement, and I share the concern about the effects of capital taxation. We have had an interdepartmental committee looking at this question. I cannot report on it finally to the House, but I regard it as a serious matter. On the other hand, there has been an improvement in cash flow, and I believe that the package we agreed in Brussels is a good one for the working farmer.

But does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that as long ago as last July he told us that he was having this inquiry made by the interdepartmental committee? Will he give us the benefit of its conclusions as soon as possible?

I will do so as soon as possible.

Will the Minister tell the House what progress has been made in the EEC towards a land bank structure, such as other EEC countries have, as he well knows that in this country the AMC rates are excessively high?

The land bank concept of subsidising credit is not as good as the capital grant system that we have. I was glad to mention in the recent review that we are to have £30 million extra on capital grants.

In his desire to provide extra capital for agriculture, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how farmers can be expected to put in hand new schemes before the details of the improved proposals have been announced? How soon will he give full details of the extra help that he intends to provide?

I gave the broad picture when I announced my review. I accept that the working farmer needs further detatils, and these will be provided.

asked the Prime Minister if he will be addressing the Scottish Trades Union Congress in 1976.

No, Sir.

Would this not have been an excellent opportunity for my right hon. Friend to remind the Scottish Trades Union Congress that the solution to the problems facing the people of Scotland and elsewhere lies in the application of Socialist principles, and that the important thing for them is to see that these Socialist decisions are made—not the city in which they are made?

I agree totally with my hon. Friend on this question. I am sure that the majority of the Scottish people recognise this, just as they recognise, equally, that any vote on their part for the Scottish National Party is a vote for separatism.

When he meets the STUC, will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate it on its superior knowledge of the situation in Scotland, as compared with that of the Labour Party in Scotland? If he accepts that one Member in the House is a majority and a mandate, will he say whether that would apply if 36 SNP Members were elected to Westminster?

I am not sure that I follow the hon. Member. I am certainly clear that the Scottish TUC, which has played a very important rôle in matters affecting the future of Scotland, would be the first to agree with me that it is against separatism, which is the policy of the Scottish National Party.

The hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) asked about Socialist principles. Would the Prime Minister care to say why the news of his resignation was greeted with a pin-striped panic and a short, sharp fall both in sterling and on the Stock Exchange? Was it, as some of his hon. Friends believe, because he is the most Conservative Prime Minister of all time, or was it the appalling prospect presented by any of the six people standing for the leadership today?

It is not for me to fathom the mystery of why people, sometime out of ignorance, occasionally out of malice, and sometimes out of perception, buy or sell shares on the Stock Exchange. My forecast was a fall of 15 per cent. and it was 15·7 per cent.

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

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on 18th March, Sir.

As the Government have been in touch with the South African Government about the withdrawal of the remaining South African troops from Angola, may I direct the Prime Minister's attention to the presence of much more numerous Cuban forces still in that country? As Dr. Fidel Castro made a statement last week in Conakry implying that Cuba might have a rôle to play in other countries in Southern Africa, is it not important that those Cuban forces, too, should be withdrawn? What are the Government doing about that?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has made clear, as I have, our views about intervention in Angola, but the Cuban forces have not in the last few weeks been requested by any other country in the area to intervene in its territory. If they were to intervene in any other territory, there would be a new and extremely serious situation. We have made this clear to all concerned in recent weeks as I have already informed the House.

If my right hon. Friend should visit Pretoria, would he make it clear to the South African Government that our Government give no recognition whatever to the bogus independence of the Bantustans?

Yes, we have already made that clear. This is a matter which any Government would have to decide upon. If a request for recognition as an independent State were to be received from one of the Bantustans, it would be considered in the light of the well-established criteria for recognition in all the relevant circumstances of the time. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs explained to the House on 10th March that this was the Government's position. We think it most unlikely that the Transkei would fulfil the criteria necessary for recognition.

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

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on 18th March, Sir.

Further to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), Mr. Gromyko this morning dismissed any question of possible Soviet involvement in Rhodesia as a fairy tale. Since Angola was clearly not a fairy tale, did the Prime Minister secure an assurance from Mr. Gromyko while he was in London that Soviet equipment would not be used to support aggression across any frontiers in Southern Africa?

We have made clear both in the meeting I had at my initiative with the Soviet Ambassador a week or two ago and in the most recent talks our views on the question of any overseas intervention in what was previously British territory in that part of Africa.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the speech of a previous Conservative leader, Mr. Harold Macmillan, when he spoke about the wind of change? Since it is now reaching gale force in Rhodesia and since two leaders in this House are supporting changes to reduce racial discrimination in that part of the world, should not the Leader of the Opposition now get up and support the stand made by the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity, and other organisations?

The question of Rhodesia was fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary earlier this week. Successive Governments—Labour in the 1960s and Conservative in the early 1970s—negotiated and discussed with Mr. Smith, and no solution was forthcoming which any British Government could accept. I believe that that is still the position. I am sure, too, that the Leader of the Opposition, who was a committed member of the Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), will agree that we have laid down standards throughout which are binding on all parties in the House. Even if in the famous debate the Conservative Party split three ways, the record of its Government in office has fully confirmed the line we have always taken.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the final report of the Royal Commission on the Press.

The Royal Commission on the Press hopes to present its final report early in 1977.

Since this may be my last opportunity to say it—[Hon. Members: "Good-bye".]—may I say how much I shall miss asking the Prime Minister important questions, confident in the knowledge that I shall never receive an answer? When the right hon. Gentleman gives his evidence to the Royal Commission, will he explain his curious resignation remark about forgiving the Press? For what trespasses does he forgive them?

I have every confidence that when the hon. Member fulfils his promise to the House, we shall win Blaby. The hon. Member has always been an interesting questioner, although usually on the wrong lines. At a time like this, however, one should forgive the Press and all its sinful enormities. To answer the hon. Member's question in full would probably mean the disappearance of all further action on business today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Royal Commission on the Press finally reports my right hon. Friend will be taking another seat in the House of Commons to listen to it? In line with the discussions that he and I had last night about where that seat will be, I have taken, as shop steward on behalf of the Front Bench below the Gangway, a few soundings of my colleagues. By a majority view they have decided that a novel arrangement could be arrived at whereby a seat can be arranged for my right hon. Friend at the end of this Bench provided that someone else is shunted off it and on to the Treasury Bench.

I am glad that my hon. Friend has disclosed to the House the nature of those very confidential discussions. I regard him as the shop steward of that Bench. I was asking only that I might be allowed to sit in the traditional place of someone in my future position, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) will move up a little. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be the first to agree that there was no deal or any question of a transfer from his Bench to this, and that matter will in any case not be under my direction.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not my shop steward? Will he take into account the fact that many of us do not want to know what he will be doing during the next week or two, and that all these questions are quite irrelevant?

My hon. Friend is always helpful in these matters. Once when I was in difficulties on a Question he rose to ask whether I had had a good dinner—which I had. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his interventions. We have both been in this House a long time and I hope to be sitting alongside him in the near future.

asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Trade, Industry and Employment in dealing with the unemployment situation in Scotland.

Yes, Sir.

Since the latest Scottish unemployment figures are the only ones in Britain to show an increase, is it any surprise that more than 100,000 Scottish Workers went on strike yesterday to protest against unemployment? When my right hon. Friend shortly joins his comrades here on the Back Benches, will he try to use his considerable influence to ensure that his successor does not just get a new job for himself but tries to fight for jobs for other people by pursuing a Socialist policy of full employment?

The fact that there was a strike yesterday, obviously supported by my hon. Friend, was not a surprise: it was a disappointment. The most recent figures on unemployment, which have been tending this way for some three or four months, and one must not attach too much importance to a single month's figures, have actually fallen in all regions, except, seasonally corrected, in Scotland.

Is the Prime Minister satisfied with the work of the Secretary of State for Scotland who stated categorically in the House yesterday that he did not regard the rising unemployment figure as disastrous? Is he aware that the SNP Members, like their colleagues in the STUC, certainly regard the figure as disastrous and have every intention of trying to rectify the situation by building an economy in a free Scotland?

I of course accept that the hon. Lady and her colleagues regard the rise as disastrous. What is clear to all hon. Members, except those on her rather narrow Bench, is that if the SNP prescriptions were operated, unemployment in Scotland would be a great deal higher and the standard of living there a great deal lower as a result of their desire for divorcement, which, to be fair to them, they have never disguised. They are separatists and the people of Scotland are not.

Without paying too much attention to the blandishments of SNP Members—and my right hon. Friend correctly states that if they had their way, the situation in Scotland would be completely disastrous—will my right hon. Friend use his considerable influence and good offices in Scotland to ensure that if there has to be a further degree of unemployment—which I do not accept— it is spread equally throughout the country and does not result in the closure of whole factories in Scotland?

I was not succumbing to blandishments. I was answering a perfectly fair question of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain), whom I always treat with great courtesy.

Before the Prime Minister finally lays down the reins of office at the end of the fifth ballot, will he take a look at the workings of the new Scottish Development Agency, which has some very serious problems on its hands, and assess whether in terms of job creation in rural areas of Scotland it will be as effective as the old Small Industries Council and Development Commission undoubtedly were?

I note that the hon. Member refers to a fifth ballot. It is not for me to make forecasts about that. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed, however, the much greater dignity surrounding the question of the leadership of the Labour Party as compared with the action of so many of his hon. Friends, particularly the weightier ones—by "weightier" I am talking of bulk and not intelligence—[Interruption,] I know the hon. Member concerned. He was a Labour Party agent. He resigned because he objected to a Labour Government limiting the increase in council house rents which he wanted to raise. I guarantee not to shop him while I am speaking from this Bench.