asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration was given during the recent price review negotiations to the "stocktaking" document on the common agricultural policy.

The European Commission's stocktaking report, and the conclusions drawn by the Council from its examination of it, were taken fully into account.

Is the Minister aware that in the recent review there was no major attempt to reduce the structural surpluses that exist? When will some measure of co-responsibility be introduced so that the consumer may enjoy the benefits of such surpluses as exist?

I cannot accept that. The hon. Member knows that there was an attempt to deal with surpluses, and that has led to the controversy over skimmed milk, for example. In principle co-responsibility has been accepted, but details have to be worked out.

Is the renegotiation of the common agricultural policy now completed, or is it still going on?

It is not completed. It is an ongoing process. I have emphasised that over and over again, and we still have to get further improvements.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one embarrassing result of the review, in respect of milk, is that by not taking into account the recommendations of the stocktaking document the milk powder mountain across the Channel is likely to grow? Will he say what progress is being made with the scheme in this country? Are compounders able to take their money out of deposit? Is the skimmed milk powder available for them to use? Is not the real point that the arrangements made for milk across the Channel will, unfortunately, allow the mountain to remain?

I agree that the mountain is there. It was always agreed in the stocktaking discussions that there should be an attack on these mountains. There is no doubt about that. That is why I accepted the proposal in the package, and felt it right to send skimmed milk for food aid, for example.

Is it not the case that whatever proposals may have been made to deal with the existing surpluses of skimmed milk, other decisions continue to add to the mountain? As for any achievements that we had in the negotiations on the question of a premium system for beef, surely this too is not succeeding, because we are beginning to see a beef mountain developing in this country also?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's argument that a beef mountain is arising here because of the premium system that we negotiated.

In spite of it.

I believe that intervention can play a part. I have always said it. Indeed, it is a safety net. But we shall rely basically on the variable premium which is working, and which, I hope, will be incorporated into the Community system.

Will the Minister impress on his EEC colleagues that the best way to get rid of the skimmed milk powder mountain is to stop all industrial fishing among his EEC partners for one year and substitute skimmed milk powder for fish meal?

I am prepared to consider some of the interesting ideas put forward by the hon. Member. It is the first time I have heard this suggestion. I am not treating it in a cavalier way; I shall consider it carefully and bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

Has my right hon. Friend been into a butcher's shop recently, or has his wife, perhaps, told him about the tremendously high price being charged for prime English and Scottish beef, while large quantities of this commodity are going into intervention and storage?

I have always argued that we should not rely on permanent intervention. I sought to negotiate in the Community something similar to our deficiency payments system. We have got the variable premium, but we have had a little difficulty over intervention. However, I took immediate action and withdrew from intervention meat of a certain category. In other words, intervention will not apply to it. That action has been criticised by other people, but I think it was right to take it. We have achieved success in that respect.

asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with Messrs. Tate and Lyle, Messrs. Manbre and Garton and the British Sugar Corporation about the refining of sugar.

We are having a series of discussions with the interested parties, which we hope to conclude by the end of May. However, further consultations after then will no doubt be needed before all the necessary decisions can be announced.

Is the Minister aware that under the plans discussed with the Government several hundred jobs in Greenock and Liverpool will be lost, because we are prevented by EEC regulations from importing more than 1·4 million tons of sugar? In view of the serious unemployment in Greenock and Liverpool, will the Minister and his colleagues approach the EEC with the request to be allowed free imports of cane sugar?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the negotiations that are under way between the Community and the ACP countries. I appreciate his natural concern and that of many others about the future prospects of the industry. My right hon. Friend is in close touch with the trade unions and others in the consultations that are taking place.

Have the trade unions representing the beet sugar industry been a party to these discussions? Will my hon. Friend confirm that there will be the fullest discussion with all those interests, particularly in eastern England, as part of his overall presentation?

Yes. I appreciate the concern of the unions involved. I have one beet sugar factory in my constituency. The unions have been in touch with our officials on this matter, so that their point of view can be taken into account.

rose—

Mr. Adley. Question No. 4.

Oh.

Order. It is very unfortunate for hon. Members to make a noise like that, because we spent a long time on the previous Question. If we moved at that pace, Question No. 12 would not he reached, and it would be unfair to hon. Members who have put down later Questions.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to protect and assist the Mudeford fishermen in accordance with the letter sent to him recently by the hon Member for Christchurch and Lymington.

The hon. Member's letter raised a number of points ranging from dredging to the activities of East European factory trawlers. I have considered them in detail and I replied to the hon. Member yesterday.

I thank the Minister for his letter, which I have just received. Does he not think it most unsatisfactory that the botom-sweep post-dredging in Christchurch Bay is to be done under the jurisdiction of Bournemouth Corporation, which will be both judge and jury? Will the Minister arrange to have an independent survey so that my constituents feel that they are getting a fair deal?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the surveys undertaken by Bournemouth Corporation in September last and in the summer of 1975. I shall certainly look into his suggestion, but I cannot make any promises at this stage.

Does the Minister accept that an extension of fishing limits would assist not only the fishermen in the area of Christchurch but every other fisherman in these islands? Does he further accept that the fishermen are saddened and angry at the appalling surrender of the Government and the EEC in renegotiating the common fisheries policy, and by the statement made by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that we have surrendered our claim for a limit of 100 miles and will be lucky to get 50 miles?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not represent my right hon. Friend as saying that we have surrendered our claim for a limit of 100 miles. My right hon. Friend and I, and others, have said that we do not think that the 100-mile limit is obtainable or realistic. We are negotiating substantially to improve the situation that will otherwise obtain in 1982. My right hon. Friend and I believe that the two major elements of the negotiations are a satisfactory coastal régime and a workable quota system. We are negotiating realistically. We are not prepared to put forward unrealistic demands in Brussels. We are prepared to put forward demands that we feel are realistic in relation to the needs of a viable fishing industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the first outbreak of rabies in Great Britain, following its extension into areas of continental Europe adjacent to the English Channel; and what plans he is making so that Great Britain's rabies-free record can be maintained.

The Governments aim is to prevent the entry of rabies into this country. I do not accept that an outbreak is inevitable, but we have made contingency plans to enable us to stamp out any outbreak which might occur despite all our efforts.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if rabies became established in Britain it would be a direct menace to the health of the nation and be seriously divisive as between those citizens who own animals and those who do not? In those circumstances, will the Government consider setting up a Select Committee to study the whole problem of how to combat this dreadful disease?

The hon. Gentleman's suggestion for the setting up of a Select Committee should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I agree with him that it would be a disaster if rabies became endemic in this country. We introduced yesterday an awareness campaign. We have, first, to make sure that the public know what the danger is and avoid bringing the disease into this country through pets, which is the way it is most likely to happen.

Does not continental experience show that foxes are great carriers of rabies? If the disease ever came to this country, would not the control of foxes be necessary and should not the Department be giving far more financial support, for example, to fox destruction societies, some of which operate in my part of the world? Is the Minister aware that many foxes breed on Forestry Commission land?

I agree that foxes are the main vector of this disease on the Continent, and I am happy to consider the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion. I assure him that we have plans well worked out for taking action in an infected area, should one be designated. In extreme situations, that might involve the killing of the local fox population.

The Opposition support the Minister's latest efforts to deal with the threat of rabies. Is he aware that we believe that the existing penalties are insufficient, and that anyone who attempts to smuggle into the country animals that are likely to introduce rabies should be subject to a prison sentence without the option? Will the Minister please implement that suggestion?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his remarks. The average level of fine has increased significantly since we increased the maxima, but, as I said yesterday, in my view the courts and magistrates are still not taking sufficient advantage of the higher limits.

Would it help if the Government gave greater support to the efforts of the League Against Cruel Sports, which has been active for some time in trying to get fox hunting abolished?

I know of my hon. Friend's continuing deep interest in the question of cruelty to wild animals, but that is a slightly different issue from the one of rabies.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet representatives of the agricultural workers' unions.

My right hon. Friend's next official engagement with representatives of agricultural workers' unions is on 29th June, but, as he said on Monday at the biennial conference of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, he takes every opportunity to consult them.

Will my hon. Friend lend his weight to initiating further discussions with the trade unions on the possibility of extending the abolition of the tied cottage system to Scotland as well as to England and Wales? Will he speak to the Secretary of State for Scotland about this? It will be seen as unjust if farm workers south of the border receive the full benefit of this fair piece of Socialist legislation while Scottish farm workers continue to be treated like medieval serfs.

There is no disagreement between my hon. Friend and me, or between Minister in the Scottish Office and me, that the insecurity caused by the agricultural tied cottage system, whether in England and Wales or Scotland, is unacceptable and inherently unjust. The Scottish Office Ministers with responsibility for agriculture have made clear that the commitment stands in Scotland and that we shall fulfill our pledge. The timing is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Does the Minister accept that the Government have introduced separate legislation for England and Wales because the situation is different from that in Scotland? Will he give some indication of the evidence that exists to justify similar legislation for Scotland?

If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to talk to Scottish farm workers and their families in his constituency and explained precisely what this measure involves I am sure that they would support it. There has been misunderstanding about the Government's plans, particularly in Scotland. Neither farm workers nor farmers have fully appreciated what we have in mind, and I suggest that the Scottish National Farmers' Union should look carefully at the reaction of its counterparts in England and Wales.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am disappointed, but not surprised, at the attitude of the Scottish National Party? Does he agree that the main difference between workers in tied cottages in Scotland and England is that there are many more of them in Scotland? Is he aware that Scottish trade unionists are now coming round to the same view as English trade unionists? I hope that my hon. Friend will continue discussions with the Scottish Office so that this medieval system in Scotland can be abolished.

The fact that the Government have come forward with a practical method of removing this injustice without in any way threatening agricultural efficiency must arouse further interest in the issue in Scotland.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it is his policy to safeguard the interests of the British fishing industry; and whether the reduction in the numbers of trawlers in service since 1st March 1974 is in accordance with Government policy.

The Government's commitment has never been in doubt. The industry's circumstances are changing, and its structure cannot be expected to remain static. So far as the current situation off Iceland is concerned, on which I have been having urgent discussions with the industry, we are increasing the scale of our protection effort in the international waters off Iceland. Two more Royal Navy frigates will be on station by Monday, bringing the total to six and my Department will be hiring another civilian defence vessel.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large part of the fishing industry believe that the Government are thought to have a completely ineffective policy? Is it possible for him to take some of his trade union colleagues with him when he goes to Brussels to negotiate? Does he agree that that would lead to our starting on a more realistic level and ending with a better level?

I have just left a meeting with representatives of the industry, and I continually keep in touch with both employers and unions in the industry. I believe that they recognise our difficulties over Iceland. Protection has been increased. There will be another statement today about the common fisheries policy, which I accept to be an urgent matter. We shall be going into very difficult negotiations.

Does not the welcome statement by the Royal Navy that it is prepared to step up protection for fishing, if it is needed, make a load of codswallop of the Icelandic claim that they have won and that we have surrendered? Since our men are back fishing, and losing money, is there any possibility of financial aid to enable them to remain at sea?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks as Chairman of the all-party Fisheries Committee. I am glad to find that the industry, representatives of which I met before I came to the House, approves of our action. The question of aid is something that we shall have to consider.

How can the Minister undertake to guarantee and safeguard the interests of the industry when his colleague at the Foreign Office has put forward proposals that are inherently insufficient and in a context in which it is clear that even those proposals will not be maintained?

I cannot accept that. I am anxious to obtain the best deal for our fishermen.

Is the Minister aware that we welcome the statement that he has just made about Iceland? Is he completely satisfied that the extra protection that he has announced will be adequate in all circumstances? In view of the dumping on our markets of fish caught by foreign fleets, and of the financial losses incurred by our trawlermen, does he think that our fleet, at its present size, can continue to operate?

On the right hon. Gentleman's last question I can tell him that I have had talks with representatives of the industry. I met them the other day, and today and I made a statement about a 48-hour delay, to see whether I could achieve a solution. I have done that, and my announcement was a result of that. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. One must be specific about dumping. Obviously we import fish, and it is important that we have a proper reference price. I was able to get the Norwegian Government to make an adequate voluntary arrangement and I also took up the matter with the EEC countries, who played a part in fixing reference prices. I shall examine any specific case of dumping and take it up with the country concerned.

Is it a fact that Norway is expecting to obtain a 200-mile fishing limit?

I think that we shall too, from what will emerge from the Law of the Sea Conference. No decision has been reached yet. Our aim is to achieve a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that British horticultural growers are competing with continental horticultural growers on free and fair terms of competition.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister confirm that Dutch tomatoes are being im- ported this week at a price that is less than the cost of production in the United Kingdom, when the Dutch continue to enjoy subsidies denied to British producers? When can British growers hope to see a return commensurate with their investment?

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the EEC Commission has succeeded in forcing the Dutch to raise their gas prices, because part of the guidelines regarding oil subsidies to glasshouses was that there should be equalisation of gas and oil prices. As gas accounts for 80 per cent. of their heating costs, that is a significant factor. I am willing to consider the question of Dutch tomatoes coming in at these prices. The hon. Gentleman should remember, however, that the horticulture industry has derived significant additional protection as a result of the devaluation of the pound.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what organisations are available for the policing of fishing and catch quotas in the waters surrounding United Kingdom shores.

The policing of fishing within United Kingdom fishery limits is carried out by the Fisheries Protection Squadron of the Royal Navy and off Scotland by fishery protection vessels of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. Sea fisheries committees have a limited range of functions for inshore fishing off England and Wales. Outside our fishery limits, flag States enforce the conservation measures set by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission in respect of their own nationals. Monitoring and enforcement of United Kingdom quotas is carried out by the fisheries departments.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread evidence from our fishermen of both illegal tackle and unlawful fishing within our existing limits? What steps are the Government taking to make the policing arrangements more effective?

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's concern about enforcement. I accept that there is general concern in many areas about its effectiveness. The hon. Gentleman may remember the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence when he announced that five new offshore vessels are under construction and that arrangements are being made for additional air surveillance to protect fisheries and oil rigs. We are confident that these measures, together with existing measures, will be adequate for the future.

Does the Minister recognise that all experience shows that only national control in an exclusive zone affords efficient policing of fishing methods and quotas? Will the hon. Gentleman see that this is borne in mind in future negotiations in the EEC?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the present arrangements the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission requires that national Governments carry out their obligations to manage the quotas to which they have agreed. If we have a quota system, which is very important for conservation, enforcement is important. I take on board the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter and we shall bear in mind his suggestion in our review of the common fisheries policy.

Following that answer and the Question answered earlier by my right hon. Friend, how can we say that it will any longer be the responsibility of the national Government when the Conservative Party has already surrendered that to the common fisheries policy? Secondly, was my right hon. Friend correct in saying that there would be a 200-mile zone for Britain?

I said "economic zone".

My right hon. Friend was correct in that, but with the assumption that somehow we should have greater control within that area for the benefit of our fishermen. That is not so, as I hope my hon. Friend agrees.

I acknowledge the difficulties of reviewing the common fisheries policy in the light of the situation that we inherited. With regard to my hon. Friend's second point, as my right hon. Friend said today—he has said it on many previous occasions—it is the Gov- ernment's view that we should proceed to a 200-mile zone, by agreement. But within that area we must ensure that there is access to a catch that is sufficient to maintain a viable fishing industry.

If the dog's breakfast of a deal proposed by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is carried through, does the Minister realise the practical impossibility of policing a zone that varies from 12 to 50 miles around our shores?

In any arrangements for sharing zones internationally, and for control of one's own waters, there are problems of enforcement. If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman will be well advised to put some of these questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who, I understand, is to make a statement after Question Time.

Does the Minister accept that the only satisfactory form of policing will be by national countries looking after an adequately wide zone of their own waters? Does he also accept that, whether or not the Law of the Sea Conference officially decides on 200 miles, we are in a world of 200-mile limits? It is critically important, whatever the decision in New York, for the common fisheries policy to be renegotiated so that all the members of the Community know where they are.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter. We made clear in the common fisheries policy review that enforcement is a matter not only of Community responsibility but of national responsibility. That is very important.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present uptake of beet contracts for the 1976–77 season.

At 24th April 510,360 acres of sugar beet had been sown. This represents 99·80 per cent. of the contracted acreage for 1976.

Is the Minister aware of the growing concern among unions and employees in the British Sugar Corporation that uneconomic and un-commercial decisions will be forced on it in its expansion programmes, because of political pressures, with consequences for employment in the areas in which its factories are situated, with higher sugar prices for the housewife and a heavier cost to the balance of payments? Will the hon. Gentleman stand firmly behind his own Government's beet targets for the farming industry to 1980, and the corporate plans of the corporation?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the targets set out in the White Paper "Food From Our Own Resources". Speaking from memory, I believe that we aim to be 50 per cent. Self-sufficient by the 1980s. This shows that there is a strong economic case for expanding domestic beet production, but I do not think that this will necessarily harm cane refineries. In the £100 million expansion plan of the British Sugar Corporation, only about £6 million is for additional white refining capacity.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons for the expansion that the Government now want is the reduced import of cane sugar consequent upon our joining the Common Market? Therefore, is there not an obligation on the Government to see that those who may have to lose their jobs as a result are given some support, and that, for example, beet raws are sent to the cane sugar refineries so that redundancies there can be minimised?

We did quite well in the sugar negotiations with the Community a year or so ago. Apart from other things, there was a special sugar import subsidy worth about £36 million.

Why is Parliament being kept in the dark about the failure of the current negotiations between the Common Market and the developing sugar producing countries?

The hon. Gentleman is being unduly and unjustifiably pessimistic about the situation. There is no failure. The talks have been adjourned, and their resumption will be discussed when the Council of Agriculture Ministers meets on 17th–18th May. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to prejudge the outcome, which we must await.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to allow the free import of beef and veal into this country from Australia, Argentina and other beef-producing countries outside the EEC.

The European Commission has produced proposals for a new system of variable import levies of beef, which, if implemented, would allow early resumption of normal trading between the Community and third country beef suppliers. It is intended that the Council of Ministers should reach a decision on these proposals before the summer break.

As the Government are opposed to import controls, would not it be sensible to start by removing altogether what is a virtual ban on the import of an essential food from the main exporting countries of the world?

My right hon. Friend will probably welcome the fact that we are to see a resumption of trade in beef with those countries. But I do not think that we could possibly contemplate a situation in which there was no protection for our home industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost of storing foodstuffs, as required by the CAP, for the latest period for which figures are available.

Total payments for handling and storing commodities sold into intervention in the United Kingdom since 1st February 1973 have amounted to approximately £1·4 million. These payments have largely been reimbursed from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

What is the rate of storage of beef, butter and powdered milk per week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is being stored at the expense of the British housewife? Does not this justify the campaign of those of us who fought against the Common Market?

I do not think that it does so at all. Intervention worked in this country in many areas of agricultural production under a Labour Government, when I was Minister previously, and it worked under the great Tom Williams. Intervention is not a new concept. What I have tried to explain to some of my hon. Friends is that we do not regard permanent intervention in the beef sector as a correct method of support. For that reason I negotiated a variable premium system with a limited form of intervention, and it will work.

In order to reduce the milk surplus in the EEC, will the right hon. Gentleman try to impress upon his colleagues in the Council of Ministers that this might be a very good time to have a milk-in-schools scheme, across the board, in all EEC countries?

That matter has been considered, but hon. Members must realise that for some countries in the Community—not us; I am thinking specifically of France and Germany—the price award means a cut in real terms.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that intervention has a part to play, but does he agree that it is a very expensive system? Is there not abundant evidence of a good many rackets in intervention—for example, beef carcases that have been slaughtered in this country going to the Continent and being moved from one country to another, eventually going into intervention in a country far away from their origin? Has that situation been considered by the Ministers when they have met? If so, what do they intend to do about it?

Such matters have been considered. Of course, people try various dodges and it is often difficult to trace the person concerned. We are aware that there is a problem, and naturally we are trying to stamp it out.

I revert to the cost of storage. Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the proposed storage scheme for protein will be a charge on the Exchequer or on the consumer? Will he clarify the present position concerning that directive and its costs to the House now?

The protein scheme is now being further considered, as my hon. Friend knows. I cannot give him a specific answer.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present system and procedure of beef intervention is highly unsatisfactory for meat manufacturers? Will he give the House an assurance that he will consider the criticisms that are submitted to him by the industry?

I shall, but I think that the system for beef, with limited intervention, has worked. We had a little difficulty recently and I took immediate action, as I explained earlier The same applied in Northern Ireland, and I took urgent action.

Is it possible for the deposits on proteins to be recovered? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that up to a week or 10 days ago it was not possible for those who put down their deposits to recover them?

I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman specifically. As I have said, this matter is being reconsidered.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the operation of the Slaughterhouses Act 1958.

The 1958 Act was consolidated in the Slaughterhouses Act 1974. Consultation is in progress on the amendment of some of the regulations concerning meat hygiene.

Does the Minister agree that if the regulations laid down in both Acts were observed, such an occurrence as the recent escape of a bullock in Newcastle-upon-Tyne could not occur? Will he take into due account the danger to the public that is involved in such an occurrence and the fearful terror experienced by the animal? Will he seek to persuade local authorities to maintain regular supervision of slaughterhouses?

I can appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the bullock which escaped from the abattoir in Newcastle. He will know more about that than I do, but I understand that the district council is conducting its own inquiry. Therefore, it would be premature for me to make any comment.

In the light of the recent bankruptcy of the abattoir at Bathgate, may I gently inquire of the Government whether they have any evidence that perhaps some of the regulations we are now imposing, albeit that hygiene is necessary, are unduly expensive for the smaller abattoirs?

My hon. Friend has raised a rather big question. I am not at all certain that the regulations could in any way be used as a reason for the bankruptcy of the firm in his constituency. We are always considering these matters, but we must recognise that in many respects relating to hygiene and general standards in our slaughterhouses we are backward relative to the rest of the Community.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that there is a feeling on both sides of the House that slaughterhouses should be better able to deal with the export of carcase meat from this country? Will he consider diverting existing subsidies to the improvement of slaughterhouses so that the improvements would also qualify for Common Market grants? Because Government aid is not now available, they do not qualify for the Common Market grants.

The hon. Gentleman is right. As there is no national grant scheme, it is not possible for the industry to apply for EEC grants. He will be happy to know that we are considering this matter at present.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration his Department has given to schemes for rating agricultural land.

My Department has given evidence about derating of agricultural land to the Committee on Local Government Finance under Mr. Layfield.

Will the Minister press his right hon. Friend to be resolute in preventing his Cabinet colleagues from adopting a specious solution which would add £170 million to farmers' costs and make nonsense of any claim that the Government are expanding agricultural production?

I should not like to hazard a guess as to the value of the rating of agricultural land if re-rated. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Lay-field Report, which I understand is likely to be made public shortly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals his Department has put to the EEC Commission for the reorganisation of the common fisheries policy.

The EEC Commission has submitted to the Council two working documents containing its suggestions for the development of the common fisheries policy in the light of likely changes in international law. Her Majesty's Government have indicated their readiness to accept these as a basis of discussion while making it clear that they would not fully meet the needs of the United Kingdom industry. The Commission's suggestions will be discussed further by the Council in the near future.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government, having already surrendered the initiative, will accept nothing less than an exclusive coastal band of 50 miles for our own fishermen? Will he confirm that earlier this week British negotiators established this requirement for all our coastal waters, including those off Devon and Cornwall?

I reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we have in any way failed to do our duty in the negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has been making our position quite clear in Brussels, and he will be making a statement shortly. He has said that we want to ensure that any variations of the limits have regard to historical and regional factors. When I was in the South-West two weeks ago I heard the representations of our fishermen, and our case will be deployed effectively in Brussels by all the Ministers concerned.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6th May.

There was a Cabinet meeting this morning and I shall be holding further meetings during the day, including one with the Commonwealth Secretary-General. This evening I shall be attending a dinner given by President Geisel of Brazil.

Will the Prime Minister find time to tell middle managers, senior salesmen and some skilled workers why, having seen their standard of living fall substantially in 1975, their differentials are to be squeezed still further under the Government's new policy? Why has it not been possible to translate the words of sympathy in the Chancellor's Budget speech into practical action for these people? Why do the Government insist on clobbering sections of society upon whom our economic recovery substantially depends?

Send for Lord Barber. That is the answer.

I think that the middle management of this country, who have a great deal to do with ensuring our prosperity, understand rather better than the hon. Gentleman the needs of the present situation. No doubt they have taken into account, as the hon. Gentleman has not, that in the tax reliefs that are being given there is greater total relief for them than, naturally, there is for those with lower incomes. I am sure that Conservative Members will convey this in their weekend speeches, but they should point out to middle management, as the TUC leaders are pointing out to their followers, that a fall in our standard of life this year is an essential part of overcoming the inflationary problem. Or am I to understand that everybody is to be included except those whom the hon. Gentleman affects to represent?

Will my right hon. Friend have in mind that this week is the fiftieth anniversary of the General Strike of 1926, which grew out of a solidarity with the miners against wage cuts? Although this is not an exact historical parallel, will my right hon. Friend have in mind that workers, although having great sympathy with the difficulties of the Government, will be in no mood to take a lop-sided sacrificial position? They will expect to see a vigorous prosecution of Labour's Socialist policies.

Yes. The element of a voluntary wage agreement includes a concern by the TUC, and by most people in the country, that the social conditions which we expressed in the name of the social contract should be carried out. We accept our responsibilities under that.

Reverting to the Prime Minister's meeting with the Commonwealth Secretary-General, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he discussed with him the effect that the IMF gold sales will have on poor countries, particularly in the Commonwealth? Is he aware, for instance, that this scheme to sell gold from the IMF gold hoard was to help poor countries? What are the Government doing about the very great delay which is taking place?

I have not yet discussed the matter, because the meeting is due to take place in about 40 minutes' time. I shall try to brief myself on this point before I see the Commonwealth Secretary-General.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic policy at Cardiff on 9th April.

asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic policy at Cardiff on 9th April.

I did so on 9th April.

Has the Prime Minister studied the article by his son-in-law in this morning's edition of The Times, in which he states that whatever the short-term advantages of the Government's package, in the longer term there is no hope of reconciling full employment with stable prices unless the Government cut public spending by £3,000 million this year? As the Prime Minister presumably would not accuse his own son-in-law of lack of patriotism, will he at least clearly understand why the rapture on the Opposition side of the House is so modified?

The Government's views on the question of public expenditure are well known. Clearly public expenditure must be kept within bounds—as we have done by our recent decisions. There is a question that appeals to all of us on the Government side of the House—and, I hope, to some on the Opposition side—namely, that there must be priorities in public expenditure. That is what we are actively endeavouring to ensure in the policies that we are following.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the statement that he has just made—that public expenditure must remain within bounds? What on earth does he mean by that, when the country is now faced with mounting unemployment and we all know that the only way in which the Government will get a quick return to a full employment strategy is by making much more of our public resources available for this purpose?

No, Sir; I do not know that, and I do not agree with that analysis.

As the Prime Minister has referred to the trade unions' co-operative attitude over pay policy, does he agree that the current pay settlement is at risk while the Government are continuing to borrow £1 out of every £5 that they spend.

No, Sir. I do not think that that analysis is correct, either. I look to neither the extreme Right nor the extreme Left in order to get a fair appreciation of these matters. What is happening at present is that Government expenditure, which is, of course, to a large extent—

Inflationary.

That was not quite what I was about to say. I was about to say that it is based on the need to provide the necessary social infrastructure upon which our industrial system can depend. Because of that, I think it would be foolish to talk about large-scale cuts in public expenditure. What is much more important is that we should increase the rate of gross domestic production so that we can finance these needs out of the increase.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when he is considering economic policy—and much has been said this week about the TUC and its responsibilities—he ought also to take into account the demands of the TUC for selective import controls, which would give a boost to employment in Britain?

I have discovered in about six weeks—or is it five weeks?—that there is no limit to the number of repetitive replies that a Prime Minister is expected to make.

I am talking about action.

I shall try once again. The Government have no ideological objection to selective import controls if they will rescue an industry from a situation in which it would be closed down, when in other circumstances it could be viable. However, in the case of general import controls, to which my hon. Friend did not refer, we do not believe that this is the best way to expand world trade, especially as Britain is such a large trader.

Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome the fact that both he and the TUC have now recognised that the economic policies on which he fought the last two General Elections have proved disastrous for Britain? When will he learn the second lesson of the last two years—that borrowing must be cut and incentives must be restored if we are to stop getting poorer and start getting richer?

I find those remarks a little hard to take, when I remember that we came to power in the middle of a three-clay working week, which was brought about by the total incapacity of the Conservative Party to understand how industrial relations in Britain should be run, although the Conservatives were warned time after time, both publicly and privately, of their folly and of the catastrophe to which their policies would lead them. We reversed that policy. That is why, for two years running, we have secured the strongest bastion of all against inflation—that is a voluntary pay policy. [Interruption.] The House has got very bad tempered since the days when I used to listen to replies. I do not complain, but I must say that I should have thought that on the whole it was better to listen to answers.

If the Prime Minister is so complacent, will he take the advice of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and name the day for a General Election now? June is a very good month for the Tories, as doubtless he will recollect.

I can well understand that the Leader of the Opposition prefers to divert attention from the reality of the situation. This country has this week won a battle against inflation, but we have not yet won the war. I hope that the right hon. Lady will cease to think about General Elections until that war is won.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont), in his supplementary question, referred to my right hon. Friend's relative. I hope that that habit will be deplored. Most hon. Members have relatives who play independent rôles in public life. I suggest that it is an infringement of their liberty, as well as of ours, to refer to them. If this habit is not against the rules of the House, it is certainly to be deplored and, I hope, avoided.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. It is not the normal custom for us to refer to each other's families here—and it is just as well.

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

I have at present no plans to do so.

Will the Prime Minister reconsider that reply and take the opportunity to meet some of my constituents who at present work at Hawker Siddeley Aviation in Hatfield and who will lose their jobs next month unless the Government choose to pledge their support for the HS146 project? Will he take this opportunity to reassure aircraft workers that the civil airframe industry has a future under the present Government and that the HS146, in particular, will go ahead?

I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said. I know that the company has recently proposed an increased programme of work on the HS146 project. I assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State for Industry is urgently seeking the further information needed in order to decide whether an increase in public expenditure can be justified. As soon as he has the relevant information, a final decision will be taken in the light of all the representations that my hon. Friend herself has made. She has been most energetic on behalf of this project, and on behalf of her constituents in the area.

As there are many aircraft workers in Hatfield, will the Prime Minister take an early opportunity to read a book that is being published today, called "Concorde—The Inside Story", in which there are some extraordinary allegations about the cancellation of the TSR2 and the HS154, which will have affected the constituents of the hon. Lady, in that the allegations seem to suggest that the American Government put pressure on the British Government, who consequently cancelled those two aeroplanes? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many aircraft workers have remained concerned about the TSR2, and will he look into this matter?

I do not think that I shall read the book. I see so many sensational allegations every week that I really try to concentrate on the essentials. I have a recollection of the events of 1964 and 1965—which are pretty clear in my mind, although I have not checked the details—and my recollection is that there is absolutely no truth in this report. However, I shall be very glad to look into it further.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he were to abandon his attempt to nationalise the aircraft industry and were to use the public moneys to be allocated to that, he would have enough to support the HS146 without any increase in public expenditure?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there is a need for priorities in this matter. He will soon become a Socialist if he carries on in this way. As for priorities, it is a matter for the Government and the House to make the choice, and we shall do so.