asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of glasshouse produce is currently sold from the resources of the United Kingdom.

I should like to explain that my right hon. Friend's absence is due to his being unwell. He has had to cancel his engagements for today, tomorrow and the weekend.

May I say that from the Opposition side of the House we send our best wishes to his right hon. Friend?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's expression of sympathy. He will acknowledge that in practice the reference price system provides us with protection. A great deal of discussion has taken place on Dutch imports. The hon. Member will take some satisfaction from knowing that tomato imports are down sharply.

What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Scottish tomato growers have a future? Will the Minister see whether he can give some kind of fuel subsidy to those growers, so that at least they are on a par with their Dutch counterparts?

The hon. Gentleman is under the misapprehension that the Dutch and other member States are paying an oil subsidy. The Community's guidelines on oil subsidies ended last month. The good weather in Scotland will help to boost the prospects of the industry, because of the demand for lettuce and tomatoes.

When can we expect the Government to produce a long-term policy for the glasshouse sector?

The long-term policy for the glasshouse sector has been clearly enunciated. We see a continuing need for this sector of the industry and we are investing in it through capital grants and through the advisory and research services.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he remains satisfied with the competitive position of the horticulture industry.

Yes, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the horticulture industry is facing increasing problems because of domestically homegrown produce? Is he prepared to take steps to ensure that the horticulture industry is given adequate supplies of water at this time? Is he aware that the land settlement in my constituency faces growing problems with water? Will he ensure that the industry is protected during the drought period?

I know of my hon. Friend's deep interests in these matters. I agree that it is imperative that we should see that basic, vital industries such as horticulture are protected. We shall look at the example my hon. Friend has given about his constituency.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had about horticulture with the Agriculture Ministers of the EEC.

Horticultural crops of direct interest to British growers have not been discussed recently in the Council of Ministers.

A few minutes ago the Minister said that the Dutch glasshouse growers were no longer receiving a subsidy on fuel oil. Is he aware that the anxiety of British growers is somewhat wider, in that they should be able to compete on fair and equal terms in regard to fuel prices generally with Dutch and other growers in the Community? Is he now asserting that that situation exists? If so, will he set out the relevant figures in the Official Report?

The devaluation of sterling has given enormous protection to our industry against Dutch exports. Imports of tomatoes from Holland this year are down 45 per cent. to date.

Is the Minister aware that all that horticulture expects of him is fair competition from Europe? Will he give an assurance that he will see that that happens?

I absolutely agree. The least that our industry has a right to expect is fair competition. But we begin to get into difficult areas if we start to talk about taxation arrangements, labour costs and all the other elements which go into the cost of producing tomatoes and other horticultural crops.

When will the hon. Gentleman be able to comment on the findings of the Strutt Committee and on the part that horticulture can play in future export plans?

The hon. Gentleman raised important points. Prospects for agricultural exports are good, and it is important that the Government should do everything they can to facilitate an expansion of those exports. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman offhand what proportion of the increase we should like to see coming from horticulture, but there is a rôle to be played by that industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his Department's estimates of the size of this year's EEC grain harvest; and if he expects this to be followed by a rise or fall in the price of grain for animal feed and human consumption.

My Department does not make estimates of size of the harvests in the EEC. The drought in France, in particular, has caused uncertainty about the size of this year's harvest, but the Commission is not as yet in a position to make a precise forecast. It is not possible, therefore, to make a firm estimate at this stage of the possible effect on prices in the coming season.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that if there is a shortfall in the European harvest this year there will be an appropriate adjustment of the levy on grain, so that a European shortfall will not lead to further increases in grain and, therefore, bread prices to the housewife?

We shall take that into account. If there were a shortfall in the Community one would look at the prospects of grain from other places. I understand that the prospects in Canada and the Soviet Union are better this year.

Would not the consequences of climatic variation be much better dealt with by market forces and the freedom of importation than by the attempts made within the absurd straitjacket of the common agricultural policy?

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's claim about the straitjacket. It is the security of supplies that is important. Whether there is a drought or not, supplies are likely to be available to us from outside the Community, if not from inside.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Commissioner's report for 1975 reveals that all food prices in the EEC are substantially higher, apart from one item, than those in the world market? Does he not agree that attempts to renegotiate the CAP from within have proved a failure, and should we not consider ways of negotiating our way out of that situation?

It is difficult for anyone to say that EEC prices are necessarily higher than those in other places. Many other factors have to be taken into account. My hon. Friend will be aware of the help coming in the form of butter subsidies, and of the sugar position last year, and so on. Regarding FEOGA, the contribution that we are paying is less than the amount that we receive. It is difficult to take an overall view of prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of United Kingdom butter production.

The quantity of butter produced in the United Kingdom in the period January to May 1976 is estimated at 51,500 metric tons, compared with 21,800 metric tons produced in the same period in 1975.

Is the Minister aware that last year the British farmer supplied only 9 per cent. of United Kingdom butter requirements and that the rest of the EEC countries supplied 62 per cent.? What steps is he taking to remedy that imbalance and ensure that Britain does not remain the dumping ground for EEC surpluses?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of my right hon. Friend's views on surpluses and the representations he has made in Brussels. United Kingdom butter production was low last year, at 48,000 tonnes. It is expected to double to about 100,000 tonnes this year, leaving a requirement for imports of about 300,000 tonnes, compared with 387,000 tonnes last year. This is an important contribution to import-saving.

Four weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Minister told me that there was no butter mountain in Britain. Is my hon. Friend aware that a week previously The Times had reported that there was a butter mountain in Britain of 1,000 tons and that it has increased since? What will he do about it?

My hon. Friend should get the matter into perspective. The intervention stocks of butter in the United Kingdom stood at 3,250 tonnes at the end of June. Butter was being sold into intervention in the United Kingdom because of the high level of imports from the EEC before the transitional step in March. We do not share my hon. Friend's fears.

Has my hon. Friend seen the draft proposals of Mr. Lardinois, reported this morning? Mr. Lardinois suggests that we deal with milk and milk products by imposing a levy on their production and a levy on imported protein and even the competitive margarine oil. Is not that a crazy way to run a food policy for Britain?

I should not like to comment at this stage. Although there is a surplus of dairy products and milk in the Community, we in this country want to make sure that our production is in keeping with the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".

Will the Minister give us an undertaking that if the Commissioner's proposal to put a levy on milk producers is carried into effect the levy will be offset by a consequent devaluation of the green pound, so that it does not fall upon British producers?

I can give the hon. Gentleman no such undertaking. Whatever changes are proposed within the Community, we must look after the interests of our own producers and consumers. A change in the green pound can affect food prices across the board. We must take that into account when any such moves are proposed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to change the powers and duties of the Milk Marketing Board.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) on 5th May.—[Vol. 910, c. 397–98.]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that other people—namely, the Common Market—have intent in that direction? Will he give an undertaking of the Government's total commitment to retain a statutory milk marketing scheme for all parts of the United Kingdom, and confirm that at the end of the argument the Government will, if need be, use their much-vaunted veto to stop the dismantling of the milk marketing scheme?

I shall bear my hon. Friend's views in mind. There is a great deal of pride in the way in which our Milk Marketing Board and the other boards carry out their functions. Membership of the Community necessitates changes in marketing arrangements for a number of commodities. Our aim is to maintain the functions of the marketing boards, including the MMB, which are essential to the orderly marketing of the products concerned.

Is the Minister aware that the answer we wanted him to give was "No, Sir"?

Is the Minister aware that our milk marketing boards have had a record second to none, stretching back over 44 successful years? Will he impress on his EEC partners that if they could do as good a selling job as the milk marketing hoards of Britain have done there would be no butter or skimmed milk mountains in Europe today?

There is an element of truth in what the hon. Gentleman says. But I wonder what would happen to those boards in the event of the hon. Member's kind of devolution.

Does my hon. Friend accept that even those of us on the Labour Benches who are commonly referred to as Euro-fanatics do not believe that everything in the common agricultural policy is right, and that we too throw our weight behind the determination which I hope exists in my hon. Friend's breast, concealed though that determination may be, to preserve the Milk Marketing Board and persuade our partners to adopt something similar?

My right hon. Friend has given assurances on this matter. We believe that the maintenance of our market and of the pattern of distribution enables the milk boards to maintain a high average return to producers consistent with reasonable consumer prices. We shall bear these points in mind.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the cruelty involved in the system of self cramming of geese to provide pâté de foie gras, he will ban imports from France and other countries produced in this way.

I understand that some research has been done in France to investigate the function of the hypothalamus in controlling the appetite of the goose. So far as I know, this work has not resulted in the development of a production method for pâté de foie gras of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. The question of a ban on imports of pâté produced by such methods does not, therefore, arise.

Whilst I am sorry to deprive some diners of their pleasure, is it not a fact that gavage, the system used in France, means cramming with an electric machine which forces the food through the beak of the strapped goose, and that this is done not only in preparation for winter, when the goose is feeding up, but throughout the year? Why do we condone that and import from France pâté made by a system which we would not tolerate here?

My hon. Friend is right to say that the gavage method is used. It involves a tube being inserted in the goose's beak. We understand my hon. Friend's views. We have always believed that any cruelty to animals in this country is the responsibility of the British Government. We support my hon. Friend's objectives, but we believe that the best way to reduce cruelty in other countries is through international agreement.

Would such a ban as the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) asks for be possible under the rules of the EEC?

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the history of the EEC, he will find that it is amazing what is possible even within the framework of the Treaty of Rome.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no justification for cruelty to animals in order to satiate the bellies of the rich?

I think that what my hon. Friend says is substantially true. Pâté de foie gras is not eaten in large quantities by a substantial section of the British population. I say quite seriously that the attention that hon. Members are drawing to this matter might lead some people to modify their eating habits.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I raised exactly the same question some years ago with the same result that has been obtained by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun)? Is it not time that we took this matter a little more seriously? Although we have no responsibility for the treatment of animals in other countries, at least we can make our views very strongly felt by banning the import of pâté de foie gras to this country.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We must take all these matters seriously. There is a large body of opinion in this country—it is reflected in correspondence to hon. Members—which feels strongly about animal welfare However, we must also consider other matters. If we were to adopt a policy of banning imports on the ground of cruelty, such a ban might apply to certain forms of meat production.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present discrepancy between £ sterling and the green pound.

The gap between the two rates is 22·4 per cent., giving a calculated monetary compensatory amount of 20·9 per cent. for this week.

When will the Government start to explain to the public the consequences of this mismanagement of the pound in terms of rising food prices? How can the Government expect the British farmer to respond to their White Paper if he cannot compete on equal terms with his Continental competitor?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking for. Is he complaining because there is an enormous subsidy on the import of food from the Community, which benefits the British consumer, or is he suggesting that we want to maintain food prices at a low level for the benefit of the consumer?

Will my hon. Friend confirm that consumers welcome the disparity, in that it protects them from the more monstrous craziness of the application of the common agricultural policy? Will he take on board the fact that large sections of the industry do not want an immediate and dramatic revaluation of the green pound? Does he accept that that would mean only a slackening of demand for the things that are being produced?

I am sure that my hon. Friend was not intending to imply that the common agricultural policy has contributed to the recent fall in the market rate for sterling. I agree that in practice we have to be careful from the point of view of the consumer, who is obviously paramount in this matter, as well as from the point of view of industry. If we force up prices too high and too quickly, there will be a sharp effect on demand.

For how much longer does the hon. Gentleman think that other countries in Europe, such as Germany, will be prepared to continue to pay out almost £30 million a month to subsidise food prices in this country?

The hon. Gentleman has raised a point, but let us remember that the subsidies are on exports from Community countries. Some countries are not too unhappy about that. This is a difficult area. We are talking about striking a balance between the consumer and the producer. Even if we were not in the Community, the direct implication of the fall in the value of the pound sterling—I am sure that this is recognised by the hon. Gentleman—would be higher food prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to endorse the recommendation of the Layfield Report that farmland be rated.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to accept the recommendation of the Layfield Committee on the rating of agricultural land.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration his Department has given to the recommendation for the rating of farmland put forward in the Layfield Report.

As has already been explained in the reply given to the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) on 1st July, a conclusion on this recommendation in the Layfield Committee's Report will not be reached until after the end of the consultation period announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

What would be the effect on the cost of food if agricultural land were to be rated?

It would obviously depend on the rate at which it was rated —[Interruption.] This is a serious point. The effect would depend on the level at which the rate was fixed per acre of agricultural land. However, the hon. Gentle-main raises a valid question. Obviously such rating would have implications regarding agricultural costs.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Layfield Committee based its conclusions entirely on rating grounds and principles and took no account of the effect on food prices, home agricultural production, or investment in farming? Are those matters not his responsibility, and should he not now make his position clear?

Obviously these are important matters, and are of concern to this Ministry. We are now entering into a period of consultation. All interested parties have been invited to put forward their views. It would be quite wrong for this Ministry, or any other, to pre-empt this consultation process.

Does my hon. Friend realise that farming land includes grouse moors? Is he aware that next month there will be advertisements offering a week's grouse shooting for £600? Why should land that is being used for profit in that manner be excluded from rating when every other industry and private person in the country pays rates?

My right hon. Friend has raised a fair point, to the extent that the actual rates paid by the estates are very small in relation to the sort of figures that he has quoted.

Would not the hon. Gentleman be doing his job better if he were to make an unequivocal statement here and now that productive land should not be rated? If he did so he would increase the confidence of farmers for the future. Will he do that now?

I have already explained the position. I hope that even Opposition Members will acknowledge that there is now great confidence in the agriculture industry. I am talking about the longterm prospects. Obviously the drought is a serious but temporary matter. The position of the milk-producing sector and other important sectors of the agriculture industry has not been better for a very long time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current EEC subsidy per ton on bacon imports to this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions he will make to save British pig producers and processors from the ill effects resulting from the present discrepancy between pound sterling and the green pound.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the state of the pig industry.

The United Kingdom accession and monetary compensatory amounts payable on bacon imports are currently, together, equivalent to £228·18 per tonne. Pig producers have enjoyed a substained period of firm prices and the national herd is expanding, but I recognise that the curing and processing industry is particularly concerned about the effects of these compensating payments. My right hon. Friend will be meeting representatives of the industry shortly to discuss the situation.

Faced with MCA payments that give a substantial subsidy to Danish and Dutch competitors, will the Minister give an assurance that he will seek to devalue the green pound in the pig sector, so as to improve returns for British pig farmers?

As I said in reply to an earlier question, the decision to change the value of the green pound is a delicate one. One has to take into account the interests of consumers, producers and processors. It is a matter that the Government keep constantly under review. In view of the importance of curbing inflation and the level of agricultural support that my right hon. Friend announced on 8th March, I do not believe that a change at this time is justified.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that devaluation of the green pound for the pig sector would give relief? Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and Mr. Lardinois have both asked for devaluation? Why does the hon. Gentleman insist on disadvantaging the home producing sector?

I am sure that Mr. Lardinois and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) are equally sensitive to the need for this country to deal with inflation. There is no alternative to the present policy of the Government, whereby we have to restrain prices as well as wages and incomes. I believe that my right hon. Friend has done a good job in keeping a balance between the interests of all those concerned.

If an attempt is made to force a revaluation of sterling, with the adverse effects mentioned by the Minister, may we be assured that he will use his veto?

That is a matter we shall bear in mind, but in the circumstances, that would be extreme action to take. The Community has shown a great degree of sensitivity to the problems, and we are not anxious to make too many changes. We have, indeed, made four changes in the last two years.

Does the Minister accept that, contrary to earlier assertions, there is no confidence in the pig industry at present because, apart from its difficulties over imported products, it is frustrated by having to pay a levy on imported proteins, while it can find no use for skimmed milk powder? What does he intend to do about the situation?

I challenge the hon. Gentleman's assertion that there is no confidence in the pig industry. He may be aware of the warning given by the NFU a month or so ago to the effect that overproduction could be bad for all the interests concerned. One has to model supply in relation to demand and in terms of prices obtainable in the market.

What is the import levy on bacon imports from non-EEC countries, such as Poland?

That is a question of which I should like notice.

Is the Minister aware that we are shocked at his complacency? Does he realise that at this moment the bacon industry is losing an enormous amount of money? Will he look again at the possibility of having a special devaluation of the green pound in the pig sector—otherwise, before long he will not have a bacon industry at all?

In regard to the bacon industry, I have yet to hear rasher statements than those made by the hon. Gentleman. According to the census taken in April last, there was an increase in the United Kingdom pig breeding herd of 4 per cent. compared with April a year earlier. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the change in average prices. The warning of the NFU should be heeded. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that it is not possible for a change in the green pound to be selective.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assumptions he has made in determining the variable width of fishing zones exclusive to United Kingdom fishermen.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food where he intends that the zone exclusive to United Kingdom fishermen should be as little as 12 miles wide.

The extent of our exclusive fishing zones is a matter for negotiation with our EEC partners. We are determined to obtain a solution that meets the needs of our fishing industry.

Is the Minister aware that when he visited the inshore fishermen on the Sussex coast they felt that he understood their case, and indeed they took to him as an individual and were grateful for the time he gave to them? However, is he also aware that those same men now feel betrayed—and that this feeling applies to the inshore fishing fleet not only in Sussex but in every other part of the country? Its members feel that they are in a desperate situation, and want to know what action the Minister intends to take to help the inshore fishing fleet.

I appreciate the compliments paid to me by the hon. Gentleman. I found the two dozen visits that I made to the fishing industry extremely helpful, and I am glad to hear that they were appreciated by the fishermen. I must emphasise that the interests of the inshore and deep sea fishermen are linked. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that consultations are now taking place with the industry.

Is the Minister aware that last evening the charming editor of the Icelandic newspaper Morgunbladid telephoned me asking about legislation being prepared in Whitehall on these limits. Will he give me an answer on that topic, since I could not answer such a question last night? Furthermore has he seen the map that I now have in my hand, published last week in the Scotsman? That map is alleged to be the basis of discussions concerning a 50, 35 or 12-mile limit off the coasts of the United Kingdom. Will he comment on that map?

I would not like to answer as to the truth or otherwise of Press and media speculation. I am aware of the map published in the Scotsman. I also notice that in some newspapers there has been talk of a retreat. The fact is, as we have said, that we have been looking at key areas beyond the 12 miles limit and have found that many are within 35 and all are within 50 miles. That remains our position. What matters is not just the limits but the availability of the catch, species, and marketing prospects. At the end of the day we want to make sure that our industry has the kind of access that will enable it to be viable.

Is the Minister aware that the failure of the Tory Government in the original negotiations to secure a decent agreement, and the failure of the Labour Government even to put the topic of fishing on the agenda in the renegotiations, has meant a complete sell-out? If the limits suggested in the Scotsman have any bearing on the Govment's position, it will be regarded as the grossest betrayal and will be bitterly opposed in Scotland.

I am well aware of the failure of the Conservative Government to negotiate a fishing policy to help us in the future. The fact remains that in the present situation other Community members may take the view that they can fish up to our shores. This is a difficult position to retrieve. The way in which the Government are now proceeding has general support and, indeed, is being received with toleration and cooperation in the Community. When the hon. Gentleman talks about failure of Labour policies he should remember that we have not by any means yet finished our negotiations.

Will the Minister stop talking such humbug about the original negotiations on a common fishing policy having failed? If he persists, he must say why the Labour Government did not negotiate the subject when they first came into power.

I am sure that the House appreciates that the Government conducted a wide range of negotiations and put the situation to the country in a referendum—[Interruption.] The fact remains that the country has accepted continued membership of the EEC. We are now having to retrieve a situation left to us by the Conservative Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect of the current drought on estimated EEC production of maize, barley and wheat in 1976, and on the intervention stocks of beef.

It is too soon to say what effect the drought will have on these commodities. However, the Council of Ministers recently decided as an exceptional measure to permit up to 10,000 tonnes of cow beef to be purchased into intervention in France before the end of July in view of the severe shortage of fodder in that country. Similar restricted measures have also been agreed in respect of Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

Does the Minister agree that the present situation demonstrates the absurdity of the policy envisaging a self-sufficiency of food for Western Europe, because we thereby become vulnerable to serious fluctuations in weather conditions, which cause danger to food supplies and water? Apparently, not content with creating a butter mountain, Mr. Lardinois is now proposing to put levies on vegetable oils, thus preventing access to margarine and creating a surplus in that commodity as well.

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's view that the Community is not particularly useful to us. However, drought is not a matter that is particularly associated with the Community. What matters is the security of our supplies. On that score, if drought affects our crops, the access we have to other countries will be of great assistance to us.

The Minister will be aware of the situation in regard to the price of wheat and barley. What estimate has he made of the effect of those prices on the cost of living, and the extent to which it is likely to affect the Government's anti-inflation policy?

It is difficult at this stage to say what the yield will be within the Community and outside it. Those are factors that will have some bearing on prices generally.

In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), the Minister implied that we may have to import food grains next year, should the drought continue. In that case, will there not be levies on those grains, and will not those grains be more expensive than they otherwise would have been? Does that not illustrate that the CAP is not suited to the consumers of this country?

I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The price depends on the availability of grains outside the Community. All forecasting on this matter is hypothetical at this stage.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the radiation standards set by his Department with regard to effluent discharged by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. into the Irish Sea a few miles off the the coast at Windscale.

Yes, Sir. The authorisations, which are granted jointly by my right hon. Friends the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, for the discharges from Windscale Conform fully to the recommendations of the International Commission for Radiological Protection which have been endorsed by the Medical Research Council.

Will the Minister assure the House that the standards set for this form of low-level nuclear waste are sufficiently strict to ensure that there is no threat to human health, either now or in the future? Will he tell the House why officials from the Fisheries Radiobiological Laboratory were not prepared to meet the team from the Granada Television World in Action Programme, who investigated this matter recently?

I think that the producers of the Granada programme are well aware of the reasons for the laboratory's non-participation.

Will the Minister make it quite clear to the House that in the Granada film access was granted to Windscale to those making the film, but when the programme went out none of the views of British Nuclear Fuels played a part in the production? Notwithstanding the allegations by an American scientist about the dangers to the public, none of the work done by that scientist bears any resemblance to the work done at Windscale, or the position in Cumbria.

Yes. The fact is that the programme did cause some concern, and I have looked very carefully at the position with our own scientists. I assure the House that we keep this matter continually under review.

There is growing concern among environmentalists about the dumping of all types of radioactive materials into the sea. Is it not time for a complete review of the standards? Should the Government not look ahead to the next 100 or even 500 years, and not let the problem go until it is too late to solve it?

I can reassure the hon. Member by saying that the White Paper on this matter, which was produced some time ago, is under review at the moment and may be updated. The matter is not left dormant; it is reviewed in the light of current events.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures are followed to ensure that food policies adopted by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection are compatible with those of his own Department.

There is regular and close consultation between Ministers and officials from the two Departments on food and drink policy matters of mutual interest and concern.

I thank the Minister for that reasonable reply. Is it not a fact that the high rate of taxation prevailing in this country, the still fairly high rate of inflation, and price restraint place tremendous burdens on the food manufacturing industry? Is the Minister not aware that this situation does not allow the food industry to retain sufficient profits or make sufficient profits for the big investment necessary if it is to remain the most efficient food manufacturing industry in the world?

I am sure that the hon. Member will recognise that the food industry has been helped by the agreement with the TUC on combating inflation. I hope that we can count on the hon. Member's support.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has recently received calling for the continuation of the Potato Marketing Board, as at present established.

I am aware of general support for the continuation of the Potato Marketing Board from farmers and traders, together with a recognition that the present functions of the board may need considering in the light of any changes in our arrangements at the end of transition, and any which may result from the proposed EEC regime for potatoes.

Is the Minister aware that many farmers in my constituency are deeply concerned about this matter? Will he give an assurance that he will argue the case for the retention of the Potato Marketing Board without compromise?

I have emphasised the value that we place on the present marketing arrangements. These are under review within the Community, and I have emphasised that we shall not be happy to see any changes that will be detrimental to the interests of the producers or the consumers.

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

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the Prime Minister aware that if he did visit Talysarn and many other slate quarrying villages, he would be forcibly impressed by the suffering from silicosis and other lung diseases? The practical situation facing these people puts them in a special category, because the former quarrying companies have gone defunct and the workers cannot get justice in the courts of law. Would the Prime Minister look at this situation again, in the same way as he has looked at the position of coal miners, who have been helped considerably by the Government?

I know the villages concerned, and many years ago I lived in that area. I have great understanding of the problem. Silicosis is a grave disease. A great deal of research has been done on it in my former constituency of Penarth. In logic, there is very little reason why remedy should be limited to coal miners, as such, but I think we should await the report of the Pearson Committee and see whether it brings forward any proposal on the matter of physical disability. When it has reported, we can consider future action.

Irrespective of the Pearson Committee report, there is an urgent need to look at the incidence of silicosis among foundry workers. Having opened the door to a proper scheme of compensation by the National Coal Board for miners suffering from pneumoconiosis, I believe that the scheme should be extended to cover people who work in foundries.

The same considerations apply to foundry workers as to slate quarry workers. It is my understanding that the Pearson Committee intends to review this matter, and I think that we should await the proposals that it will bring forward.

Although the Prime Minister may not be visiting Talysarn, will he take an early opportunity to announce, here or elsewhere, his proposed cuts in public expenditure? In that respect, is he aware that in spite of the huffing and puffing from members of his Left wing, they will make the best of Lobby fodder?

At Talysarn there is a considerable programme of current derelict land clearance, to the tune of £320,000, which I hope will help the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) and his constituents. They have been discussing additional expenditure for this and other matters.

To get back to the more serious aspect, as the Prime Minister knows, the latest news arriving from the Isle of Man miners' conference is on the question of the retiring age being lowered. One of the main causes of pneumoconiosis and associated diseases is the fact that miners have to work up to 50 years in appalling conditions. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the National Union of Mineworkers in what it said on this matter this morning, or does it conflict with the pay policy? Will he give this matter his attention?

The question of earlier retirement for coal miners should be considered very seriously, because of the special conditions under which they labour. To introduce such a scheme now probably would conflict with the existing pay policy, but that is no reason why we should not consider any proposals that the NUM puts forward, particularly if it regards this as a matter to which it attaches priority. However, I could not give any guarantees this afternoon about implementing such proposals.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the agenda of the Western economic summit meeting in Puerto Rico.

I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 29th June.

Is it not a fact that when the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues went to Puerto Rico for the summit they were given what amounted to a six months' stay of execution by their international counterparts? Is it not also a fact that, whatever may have been on the agenda of the Puerto Rico meeting, the dominant factor on the Government's agenda must be the need to bring forward planned cuts in public expenditure for 1977–78, and to do so soon enough, so that when the Chancellor has to go back to the IMF at some time before November he has domestic policies of which our international creditors can approve?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not a fact. On the second part, I note the almost masochistic desire of the Opposition to be flogged into having less public expenditure, as though this were something utterly desirable, when, by all accounts, and judging from questions put to me this afternoon, it has been shown that additional public expenditure would meet very desirable social needs. If the Government have to regulate the amount of public expenditure, the hon. Gentleman should not take a delight in that; he should help us to work in order to get more public expenditure in due course.

In his statement—[Interruption.]—the Prime Minister summed up the summit in the two words "co-operation" and "inter-dependence". Since we all recognise how dependent we are on others to give credit, will he give the House and British industry a clear target date by which he hopes we shall return to single-digit inflation?

I think that the House will allow me to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his election yesterday to the leadership of his party. I assure him that there will be very few occasions when he will receive cheers from all parties in the House at the same time, so he had better make the most of it this afternoon. On behalf of all of us, I wish him at least an enjoyable tenure of office.

As the Prime Minister now has a breathing space in which to take the necessary economic measures, is he aware that on the Opposition side we were pleased with what he said yesterday about the need for greater profits and a profitable private enterprise sector? Is he further aware, however, that within a few hours of his meeting the Secretary of State for Energy was advocating further measures of nationalisation? Will the Prime Minister therefore repudiate the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his own new-found commitment to the free enterprise sector, by dropping both the Secretary of State and the nationalisation measures now before the House?

I assure the right hon. Lady that none of this was discussed at Puerto Rico. If I were to meet my colleagues again I am sure that they would take the view that was taken by the CBI representatives yesterday, that the Government's policies, taken as a whole, offer the best opportunity for this country to escape from the economic thraldom in which it has been held. The fact that the CBI and the TUC together were willing to make this joint settlement should be welcomed on all sides of the House.

I was asking the Prime Minister not so much what he said but what he proposed to do in support of what he said. Is he aware that we can only conclude that when he is with the CBI he is content to appear in capitalist clothes, but that when it comes to taking action in the House of Commons he is only too willing to be pushed into more Marxist measures?

The right hon. Lady does not seem yet to have understood that this was not a meeting with the CBI; it was a meeting of the NEDC, and a joint conclusion was reached by all the parties there, which was why they all appeared at the Press conference—a pretty-well unprecedented move. As for my Marxist clothes, I am willing to fill in an application for membership of the Tribune Group, but I somehow think that it would not have me.

They do not have to be Marxists.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that regardless of his Marxism, his neo-Marxism or his non-Marxism, he would have been greatly strengthened both in Puerto Rico and at his meeting with the NEDC yesterday had the Opposition Front Bench taken the view about pay policy which the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) advocated so eloquently yesterday?

It would be foolish to neglect the good elements of Marxism, which have been absorbed into a great deal of political thinking and which, oddly enough, permeate all parties. Personally, I have not yet been utterly convinced by the doctrine as a whole. It is certainly true that some of my hon. Friends in the Tribune Group would qualify more as Left-wing Liberals than as Marxists.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC and the CBI.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI and the TUC.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC and the CBI.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 27th May.

If some members of the TUC and some Labour Members below the Gangway should revolt against the forthcoming cuts in public expenditure, will the Prime Minister unequivocally welcome support from the Opposition side of the House, from wherever it may come, and will he ensure that the decision of Parliament, whatever it may be, is upheld by the Government?

I lead the Labour Party and the Labour Government. It will be upon Labour votes that I shall depend in any policies that I place before this House.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm rumours circulating this afternoon that a subsidiary of Lonrho is to be advanced considerable funds to acquire Brentford Nylons? If that is so, how can my right hon. Friend reconcile it with the recent publication of a report dealing with highly disturbing matters concerning that company, and the fact that this afternoon it is indicating bumper profits?

I cannot answer that question without notice. I have not heard those rumours.

Since the Prime Minister is so fond of praising the TUC for the sacrifice it has allegedly made in accepting stage 2 of the Government's incomes policy, will he tell us precisely what sacrifice the unionised 45 per cent. of the national work force is making that the non-unionised 55 per cent. is not making? Is it not the case that the trade unions have deliberately framed the policy so that, by and large, their members will suffer relatively less and the rest of the work force, including middle management, will suffer relatively more?

I do not think that any of that is true, and the hon. Gentleman is not helping by putting about that kind of allegation. The TUC has made a pay agreement voluntarily among its members, which is unexampled and has received far more praise from foreign countries—who are more objective—than from the Opposition Benches. Because of that agreement, we are on the way to single-figure inflation and our industry and exports have better chances than they have had for many years.