asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what part his Department is taking in talks with other Governments concerning the protection of the livelihoods of inshore fishermen working from South Coast harbours.

The Ministry is involved in talks with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other Departments in negotiation with the Community to safeguard the interests of everyone in the fishing industry, including South Coast fishermen.

Does the Minister realise that fishermen all along the South Coast are getting very worried about the failure of both his Department and the Foreign Office in Brussels to fight as hard as is necessary for those fishermen's protection, and that they view with great trepidation the massacre of the fishing fleets that they have seen to the north and wonder whether it will come to them as well?

The hon. Gentleman will recall the meeting that he had with me and my officials on matters of enforcement, and the fact that he has himself been to sea with the enforcement fleet to see what really happens. In further answer to his original Question, my officials have been in touch with the Belgian authorities on various matters affecting that part of the coast, and we are still in touch. In the matters now being discussed here in regard to our Fishery Limits Bill, there may be ways of overcoming some of these problems.

Has the Minister made it absolutely clear in Brussels that all the evidence from the Sussex inshore fishermen is that the Belgians have far exceeded their quota? How can our inshore fishermen possibly have faith in a system which is grossly abused by other countries?

According to my information, there is no evidence of this. According to the latest NEAFC figures, relating to the period January-September last, Belgian fishermen have taken less than the average amount of their quotas for both sole and plaice. We are in close touch with the Belgian authorities to see that enforcement is effective.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the agriculture industry in respect of devolution.

Schedule 7 of the Scotland and Wales Bill provides that some of my Department's functions will be transferred to the Welsh Assembly. Schedule 6 provides for the transfer of a number of similar functions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Scottish Administration. Responsibility for the main aspects of agricultural policy will remain with the United Kingdom Government, since they are too bound up with the management of the national economy, membership of the Community and international agreements to make devolution practicable.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting answer. Can he not be a little more specific and say, for example, what will happen to marketing boards under the devolution proposals? What will happen to the agricultural colleges, particularly in Scotland, under devolution and what will happen to EEC grants? None of these items is clear, either in the devolution Bill or from the Minister's answer.

There is no question of devolving responsibility for the agricultural marketing boards, or of different rates of agricultural grant, under the Community schemes, being payable in Scotland and Wales as compared to England.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the farming industry in Scotland that the best thing that can happen, and that will happen, to it is self-government? Will he inform the industry that one way in which the difficulties of the green pound can be eliminated in Scotland is through the establishment of a strong pound Scots?

No. My understanding is that the NFU for Scotland very much values the fact that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.

What is or has been the official reaction of the Scottish NFU to the Government's proposals for devolution?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has had discussions with the National Farmers' Union for Scotland and I believe that it is reasonably happy with the proposals in the Bill.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much land was lost to agriculture and forestry, respectively, during the last 12 months as a result of urban development.

I assume that the hon. Member is referring to England alone, but I regret that the information is not available in these precise terms. For the five-year period ending June 1975, the latest period for which information is available, it is estimated that nearly 30,700 acres of agricultural land were lost each year to urban, industrial and recreational use excluding mineral workings. Figures for comparable losses of forestry land are not available. This information is taken from the returns in the annual agricultural census.

Is the Minister aware that if we go on squandering our inheritance at this rate, generations to come will curse us for our folly? Is he further aware that a comparatively small county like Warwickshire loses about 5,000 acres a year? Is it not time that there was a real effort to redevelop derelict land?

Yes; I am in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. The Government are very conscious of the need to protect agricultural land. That is why we recently persuaded Parliament to impose a statutory obligation upon local authorities to consult the Ministry of Agriculture about any proposals to develop agricultural land.

Does the Minister realise that in the South-West of England there are proposals to flood hundreds of acres of good agricultural land for a reservoir? Will he watch this position very carefully, as we simply cannot afford to go on wasting agricultural land?

I absolutely agree that there must be no unnecessary loss of agricultural land. It is worth keeping this matter in perspective by reminding ourselves that the total annual loss of land from agriculture is running at about 0·3 per cent. per year, whereas the expected rate of increase in production is about 2½ per cent. But I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman's general observation.

Is it not a fact that in the area referred to by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) and in the West Midlands generally we get only half the grant that people in other areas get to reclaim derelict land?

My hon. Friend is presumably comparing the position in his area with that in development areas. This is obviously not a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, but I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to introduce to alleviate the financial difficulties facing producers of pigmeat.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the reduction he achieved in November in the MCA's payable by the Commission to the exporters of pigmeat to the United Kingdom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he remains satisfied with the returns presently available to pig farmers.

I recognise the difficulties facing the pigmeat sector and share the concern felt by both pig producers and pigmeat processors about the effect of monetary compensatory amounts on their competitive position. My right hon. Friend has made clear his belief that the interests of this sector will best be served by changing the way in which the monetary compensatory amounts for pigmeat are calculated, and he has put proposals to the Council of Ministers. The recently negotiated reduction of about 8 per cent. in these amounts is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. We shall continue to press for further changes.

Is the Minister aware of the urgency of the situation both in respect of the production of pigmeat and in the pigmeat processing industries? When can we expect action?

The House should first be aware of the advantage of the 8 per cent. that has already been negotiated, which is worth £24 a ton on bacon this week. The MCA applied to bacon is now about £47 a ton below the peak level at the beginning of November. Despite this, we are still not satisfied, and my right hon. Friend is pressing for further urgent action in Brussels.

Is my hon. Friend aware that pig producers in my constituency are in a desperate situation at the present time, in that their revenue only just covers their feeding costs, let alone any other costs? If my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is unable to get any advantage out of the Common Market, will he bear in mind the need for direct assistance, if necessary, to the pig industry?

It is very important that we should not be discouraged and should remember the advances already made. The fact that there has already been a change in the MCA rate is a recognition that there is no necessary link between that and the green pound, and that is a step in the right direction. If there were changes in the green pound it would worsen the feed cost situation, which is one of the factors in the problem. We are certainly taking urgent action to improve the position.

I am still not convinced that the Minister is really aware of the seriousness of the situation. Is it not a fact that pig production is in relatively few hands, unlike other branches of the agriculture industry, and that it is therefore most important that we get quick action on this, otherwise we shall find many pig producers going out of business?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the situation today, although severe, is nowhere near as serious as that which faced the present Administration when it took office in February 1974? Does he agree that, while the Government then took helpful action, helpful action is certainly required today?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. The fact is that United Kingdom bacon production is now about 46 per cent. of our total needs, as compared with 42 per cent. last year. But that is no reason for complacency, and we shall certainly be pressing for urgent action. We seek to ensure that the United Kingdom pigmeat processing industry is allowed to supply its products under fair competition, and this is what we are seeking in Brussels.

Is the Minister aware that his answer betrayed absolutely no sense of urgency? Nothing that he said reflected the concern felt in the country. Is he aware that we seem now to be enjoying—if that is the word—a uniquely chilling combination? First, we are in receipt of massive charity from the Community. Secondly, we are increasing imports, for which we do not want to have to pay. Thirdly, we are ruining our own producers and processors. Is it not a fact that the Danish producer selling here gets between £15 and £20 more for a bacon pig than a home producer gets?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman provides any help for my right hon. Friend when he talks about the massive charity that we are getting from Brussels. My right hon. Friend has made it very clear that in many ways we are having to pay higher costs for food—[Interruption]. The fact is that the Council, by its acceptance of the 8 per cent. change, has accepted in principle the fact that changes can be made without a change in the green pound. We are pressing for further improvements to be made as soon as possible.

In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on reform of the common agricultural policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he intends to make to end or amend the operation of the EEC common agricultural policy.

As stated in the Gracious Speech, the Government will seek further improvements in the operation of the common agricultural policy.

That is all very well, but did the Minister read Hansard of 1st December, when, in answer to one of my questions, the Prime Minister told me that one of the problems in reforming the common agricultural policy was the vested interest of the various countries of the Common Market? As the common agricultural policy must now be one of the longest running farces in Europe, have the Government any positive proposals for its reform? If they have not and cannot overcome these vested interests, would it not be better to have a British national agricultural policy?

It may just be conceivable that one may get a British national policy even inside the common agricultural policy. I said that Her Majesty's Government would be working for improvements, but to ask me to abolish the common agricultural policy is rather to overburden a hard-working Minister.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fight that he is putting up in the EEC in defending the interests of British consumers, but does he realise that there is now widespread discontent about the way in which the common agricultural policy is operating? Will he tell the House something of the discussions that he had with the Trades Union Congress yesterday in reference to the CAP?

I think that the TUC has already made quite a reasonable comment on our very useful discussions. We did not find ourselves totally in disagreement in principle. We were all certain that there should be certain major improvements in the common agricultural policy. I outlined the major ones a few months ago.

I accept that the Minister is doing his best for the consumer, but does he not realise that while he is doing that he is also clobbering several sections of the farming industry? The right hon. Gentleman has just heard about the difficulties in the pig industry. That is not the only industry in difficulty at the moment. While he is bending his mind to improving the CAP—which can be improved, and needs it—will he accept that the various proposals put forward by Commissioner Lardinois for rectifying surpluses should be accepted in principle?

We have had quite a lot of discussion already about the pigmeat industry. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to return to it, I should like to say that I negotiated a very small change in those MCAs; but considerably more than has ever been negotiated before.

As my right hon. Friend is so much more hard-working on this issue than was any of his predecessors on the Opposition Benches, will he tell us a little more precisely about the improvements in the CAP for which the Government are working?

As I said a moment ago, the first thing we must do is stop insane price increases. Secondly, we must put an end to the structural surpluses. Thirdly, we must work to remove from the farm budget social measures, which should be the responsibility of individual Governments.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain what he means by insane price increases? Does he mean to go on from that to say that he is in some way inhibited from seeing producers actually recover the costs of production?

I am glad to have the opportunity to explain. I mean that we spend far too much of the Community's resources on subsidising inefficient foreign farmers when, for example, the efficient British industry, equipped with the most modern machinery—that means investment aids, and not, as in the proposed milk package, banning investment aids for three years—is capable of producing more effectively and more cheaply. If that does not benefit the consumer, I do not know what does.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for an exclusive British fisheries limit.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress of renegotiation of the common fisheries policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the state of his negotiations with the EEC Council of Ministers concerning the internal régime of the common fisheries policy.

The Commission made formal proposals to the Council in September. In important respects these are completely unacceptable. We will continue to press for adequate recognition of United Kingdom interests in the future common fisheries policy, which will again be discussed at a Council meeting devoted to fishery issues on 14th December.

I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, but is he aware that the industry is becoming increasingly concerned at the lack of progress? Will he confirm that in legislation now passing through the House he has the power to impose an exclusive 50-mile British fisheries limit? Does he propose to use those powers?

I am very much aware of and deeply sympathetic with the problems of the fishing industry. I think I carry the hon. Gentleman with me when I say that it is vital to have the necessary powers. As for the 50-mile limit as an exclusive zone, the powers lie within the Bill. When talking about 50 miles, we must not forget that it cannot be 50 miles right the way round, as that would take us into France, overland. There must be a median limit. If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the proposals of 4th May of my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he will see that while the basis of those proposals may not have been a 50-mile limit, throughout, they did protect our own fishing industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the continued dragging out of these negotiations is a source of concern and uncertainty for the whole fishing industry? From his knowledge of the way in which the negotiations are proceeding, is he able to give us an indication of the time scale he has in mind for reaching a successful conclusion in terms of our own interests in this matter? Does he feel that the time may be approaching when we should set a deadline, when we shall expect to have an agreement or shall have to take unilateral action?

I am extremely concerned about the urgency of this matter. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about time. Time is going by and in the meantime we have not settled these negotiations. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) kindly pointed out that there are certain difficulties in respect of the negotiations. We started, for example, with the original Treaty of Accession and the limits laid down within it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do my best, as forcefully as possible, to ensure that the United Kingdom's position is fully understood, realised and taken into account as speedily as possible.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a growing fear on the part of the Cornish inshore fishing industry that there is nothing to preclude either Soviet or East European fishing interests seeking to set up operating companies registered in the United Kingdom, in which event they will be able to fish legally, notwithstanding any British decision on a fishing limit?

I freely confess to the House that that is a proposition to which I was not directing my mind. I thought it would be difficult enough to get us into a situation in which we would be able to deal with the Eastern European countries by themselves, but I shall look into the matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the chairman of the Opposition's Fisheries Committee stated at the time of accession that he was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements made for the fishing industry? Is he also aware that I and my colleagues from Hull have an amendment tabled for tomorrow's Bill that will provide for a 50-mile limit around the country, making provision for the median line to which my right hon. Friend referred? Does he appreciate that the best demonstration he could give the British fishing industry of the Government's intentions would be to clasp our amendment to his bosom?

I was aware of my hon. Friend's first point. I listened closely to the splendid reassurances that were given when we were debating the issue. On his second point, I think it would be of advantage if my hon. Friend were again to look at what my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State said on 4th May. If he studies it carefully, he will find that there is not all that much difference between us.

I welcome the firmness of the Minister's statement about the urgency of this matter and hope that he will remain firm, but will he make it clear that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome that entitles members of the EEC to fish up to one another's shore s? Is he in concert with the Irish, who have made their position clear and who equally have a deep interest in maintaining a 50-mile limit?

On inshore fishing, the Irish problem and our own problem are very much related. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Treaty of Rome. What worried me was the Treaty of Accession.

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that around the country there is a great deal of feeling, especially in fishing communities, that he does not fully understand the fears of those communities? Is he aware that they fear that he does not fully understand their position in the course of these negotiations? Does he understand that there is even greater fear that having established an exclusive zone within the 200-mile limit it will then be impossible to police it as he has not yet fully got down to the important matter of policing? Does he understand that it is no use having an exclusive zone unless we can enforce it?

I deal first with the hon. Gentleman's last point. I am sorry that he missed the Second Reading of the Fishery Limits Bill. Had he been present he might have had some reassurance. On his first point, I hope that the fishing communities understand that I share and understand their fears. Indeed, I understood their fears at the time of the Treaty of Accession.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to remove the present restrictions on imports of beef into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC.

The European Commission has announced that it envisages lifting on 1st April 1977 the safeguard clause under which imports of beef into the EEC are at present restricted. The Council of Ministers is discussing the new arrangements under which imports will be allowed, once the safeguard clause has been lifted.

Is my hon. Friend aware that large supplies of beef are now available in Australia, Argentina, Brazil and elsewhere, which could be sold to British housewives at not much more than half the present price, and that nothing stands in the way of this except the extreme protectionism of the EEC? Is not this, indeed, an example of an insane price increase?

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to supplies of beef that exist in Australia. Australia has suffered from the closure to her of the Community market, together with the Japanese and American markets. We hope that the liberal import arrangements for which we are pressing will enable Australian beef to come into the Community after 1st April.

In any steps that the hon. Gentleman is disposed to take, will he act in the interests of our farmers and ensure that the British beef farmer is not totally undermined by cheap imports? The future of the country depends on our farmers producing more of the food that we require from our own resources, which is the title of his Government's own document.

A supplementary question of that kind comes ill from the hon. Gentleman. It was the present Labour Government who, in renegotiating the CAP, secured the variable premium for farmers, for which they continue to be grateful, and my right hon. Friend is determined to maintain it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take in the light of the report on "Land for Agriculture" recently published by the Centre for Agricultural Strategy.

This is a useful report, which is already arousing interest and stimulating discussion. My Department is studying it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of Lord Rothschild's comment in introducing this report, that it frightened him to see what we were doing with agricultural land—a commodity as valuable as North Sea oil? Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about the way that we continue to give up thousands of acres of good agricultural land each year to other uses when non-agricultural land is equally available? Will the hon. Gentleman therefore continue to pursue the suggestion made in the report—not just for consultation with local authorities but that his Ministry should assume full executive responsibility for the transference of agricultural land to other uses, which would strengthen the hands of agriculture against other planners?

I believe that the first report of the Centre for Agricultural Strategy is an important and valuable contribution to the consideration of this very important issue. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are looking at its conclusions carefully and that, in addition, we shall take into account the conclusions of the Agriculture Economic Development Committee Land Use Group.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress of implementation of the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources."

The Government stand firmly by the objectives set out in the White Paper, and we are determined to maintain the basis for further expansion in line with it.

To assist Britain's agriculture and in the light of some of the right hon. Gentleman's answers today, will he confirm that he and all his colleagues in the Ministry are fully behind and in full interior concert in supporting, the decision of the British people to remain in the Common Market?

The hon. Gentleman speaks of the decision of the British people to remain in the Common Market. I notice that the Question is about the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" which, of course, was written before the renegotiation took place and, as the White Paper itself said, was capable of being operated in either circumstance.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to press strongly for the sort of expansion envisaged in "Food from Our Own Resources" and resist any attempt from our partners in the EEC to damage our own expansion? It is in this way that we can protect the interests not only of the farming community but of the consumer from the highly damaging and totally unrealistic milk and fisheries policies of the EEC.

My hon. Friend, as always, puts her finger on the important point. In the present discussions on the milk action programme in Brussels I am asked to concede that such measures shall be taken as will make an effective 10 per cent. cut in dairy production throughout the Community, willy-nilly, but there are large areas of the Community which are thoroughly inefficient in dairy farming, where it should be scrapped. There are areas—our own, in particular—where the dairy industry should expand. If we expand our dairy industry by the most up-to-date and modern methods it benefits the consumer, because he gets its products cheaper.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that instead of getting an expansion of production he will shortly get a contraction unless he does something about the green pound? Does he appreciate that many farmers are contemplating putting their farms on a care-and-maintenance basis until the Government come to their senses? Will he at last see the sense of the proposal that I made to him months ago, that he should revalue the green pound by 1 per cent. a month?

I do not want to be patronising, but the hon. Gentleman could usefully spend his time examining, first, what the green pound is all about and, secondly, what has happened to milk production. Last month, there was an increase, effectively, of 2p a gallon to the producer, which was made without the operation of the green pound.

We are very glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman is still able to speak so favourably of the document "Food from Our Own Resources", but will he reassure the House by saying how he proposes to catch up with the target laid down in Table 2 of that paper, because we have fallen far behind the target set? What specific measures has he in mind?

I shall not go into a long theological argument with the right hon. Gentleman about the use of the word "target". In fact, it is not a target; it is a projection. It arose because it was worked out with the industry itself, as one which was realistically capable of expansion. In the past few years, we have had, first, a bad drought and, secondly, the worst drought for 500 years. The drought was bound to have its effect. In fact, "Food from Our Own Resources" refers to

"taking one year with another."

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current level of cereals imports; and what percentage this is of total home usage.

From August 1975 to July 1976 the total amount of cereals imported into the United Kingdom was 8·423 million tonnes. This represented 39 per cent. of our total cereals usage.

Is that an area in which the Minister intends to implement "Food from Our Own Resources"?

Yes. The hon. Gentleman is right. He may have read page 9 of the document where we say:

"The immediate prospect for higher output may therefore be mainly in feed grains, while research, development and other practical measures to raise the proportion of homegrown wheat in the bread grist should be pressed forward."

Will my hon. Friend tell the House the amount of money, in levies and taxes, imposed on the quantity of imported cereals that he quoted?

My hon. Friend may be interested to know that imports from third countries pay a levy—less the ACA—and receive a subsidy in the form of an MCA. The net effect of this can vary. But when world cereal prices are high the MCA can often cancel out the levy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's target for planting over the next five years in both the public and private sectors.

I assume the hon. Member is referring to forestry. The Forestry Commission aims to sustain a planting and replanting programme of up to 55,000 acres a year in Great Britain which is in line with the conclusions of the recent forestry policy review. The Government provide grants for private forestry but the level of plantings is a matter for decision by individual owners.

Does the Minister accept that there has been a dramatic fall in private planting since the introduction of capital transfer tax? This has most serious long-term implications for our balance of payments. Would he tell the House whether his Department is arguing in favour of relief from this tax with the Treasury working party?

Certainly I agree that there has been a drop in the number of private plantings in the past year, but it is difficult to be certain to what extent this is attributable to capital transfer tax. The industry has been depressed overall. There is an inter-departmental review group looking at the whole question of taxation, grants and amenities in relation to forestry. We hope to have its recommendations before the end of the year.

Will the Minister accept that the cost of importing timber and timber products is very considerable and is likely to rise? Will he agree that the amount of planting—whether it be in the private or public sector—in the next 10 to 15 years must be higher than the total for the past two years?

I agree that it is in the national interest that there should be an increase in planting in this country.

Will the Minister tell the House what steps he is taking to find out whether private sector plantings are influenced by capital transfer tax?

There is a tendency for the Opposition to ignore the very significant concession incorporated in the 1975 Finance Act that is specifically designed to help private woodland owners. However, we are looking again at this whole question of taxation in relation to private forestry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will be taking to encourage the expansion of the United Kingdom's existing fishing fleet.

The future shape of the United Kingdom's fishing fleet will depend on the outcome of common fisheries policy and other discussions.

Does the Minister agree that in any event the British trawler fleet will have to diversify its fishing grounds, in particular, fishing for blue whiting at far greater depths? Will he take steps to advise and assist trawlermen in building new trawlers or adapting existing ones to deal with the increased technological problems involved?

The hon. Member will appreciate that it has been very difficult for some time to anticipate the future shape of the industry, and this matter is being urgently pursued in the EEC Commission. As far as the reapraisal of the future of the industry is concerned, the hon. Member has touched on another important point—the use of species such as blue whiting, which are much more plentiful, and the effective marketing and processing of these to ensure that they are made attractive to the consumer. My Ministry is pursuing these matters.

Does the Minister recognise that the maintenance, let alone the expansion, of the fishing industry depends on conservation, and that conservation can only be effectively secured by exclusive control?

Conservation is a very important matter, which, fortunately, every country accepts. We are pursuing these matters in Brussels. As for exclusive control, this is a mattter which we hope will be resolved in the near future.

Does the Minister agree that the two most important factors in the expansion of any industry are capital investment and the working conditions of the men inside the industry? Will he tell the House and the unions involved what he is doing about the decasualisation of the deep-sea fishing industry?

I recall the useful contribution which my hon. Friend made in the discussions upstairs yesterday on the two schemes, when we discussed further grants and loans aid to the industry. I reminded him that urgent consultations are taking place with the industry and the trade unions on these important matters. I stressed also the importance of working conditions for those in the industry. That is why we are pursuing talks with the trawler industry and its employees.

Will the Minister tell us what representations his Department is making to the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that the 200-mile limit is adequately patrolled?

I do not recall whether the hon. Member was present last Friday when we debated the Fishery Limits Bill. During that debate this matter was discussed in some detail, and assurances were given that we have in mind increased enforcement of measures, both at sea and in the air. I accept the importance of this matter.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 9th December.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Will the Prime Minister find some time in his very busy day to study the vexed question of the Opposition's policy on devolution? Will he give us the latest tally of Opposition spokesmen who have resigned? Some of us find it very difficult to keep up with it. In view of the debate next week, can the Prime Minister tell us which is the official Opposition—that led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) or that led by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)?

We are not impressed.

As far as I know, there have been only two resignations from the Opposition Front Bench. At least, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) have one thing in common—neither the one who has resigned nor the one who has taken his place is in favour of the official Tory Party policy. I cannot really add to the present knowledge of the House, except to say that I believe that in addition to those who have resigned there are a number of walking wounded still on the Opposition Front Bench.

Is the Prime Minister trying to deflect attention from one of his more important duties, namely, the repaying of the loan that he borrowed six months ago, which is due to be paid back today? Will he confirm that the loan has been repaid on time? Will he tell us exactly how much of the standby credit was used and paid, and the source of the repayment.

Yes. The right hon. Lady will be rather disappointed to hear that the loan is being repaid exactly on time. It will, of course, be taken from reserves and replaced in due course by the IMF loan on a longer-term basis. As to the other matters which the right hon. Lady has raised, these figures will be published in due course.

That is not good enough. The Prime Minister says that the loan has been repaid, but how much was it?

That figure will be published in due course, and once again I think that the right hon. Lady will be disappointed to find that it is smaller than she hopes.

Getting back to the subject of devolution, as the Prime Minister has a comparatively light day will he send an answer to the Shetland Islands Council in response to its excellent letter on this subject? Will he let us know what his answer will be? [Interruption.]

In reply to shouted comments from the Opposition that I should know the figure for the loan, of course I know it. But I am afraid that hon. Members opposite will have to contain their impatience. I always thought that there was a tradition of individual hon. Members asking questions, and not a Greek chorus. Of course they would much prefer it to be a Greek tragedy.— [Interruption.] In reply to seated supplementary questions, there are fixed dates for publishing this kind of information. These dates will be adhered to, and hon. Members should know that those are not the sort of questions which are likely to prompt an answer.

Since the Opposition do not want to discuss devolution today, will the Prime Minister fit into his engagements an opportunity to chat with Lord Goodman and ask him how he can define Eton College as a beneficiary of charitable status?

I was not really thinking of discussing this matter with Lord Goodman, because there are many other issues, especially on devolution, which engage my attention at present. However, I know that the question of devolution, which will engage the House for some time, can be added as one more policy on which the Opposition are completely at sixes and sevens.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the Governor of the Bank of England.

asked the Prime Minister when he next expects to meet the Governor of the Bank of England.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the Governor of the Bank of England.

asked the Prime Minister if he will meet the Governor of the Bank of England.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the Governor of the Bank of England.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

Will the Prime Minister assure the House that before the Letter of Intent is given to the IMF he will consult the Governor of the Bank of England about it and will publish it in this House? Is that not particularly pertinent, bearing in mind that it was only 31 years ago this month that the Prime Minister nearly lost the Bank of England fringe benefit of the IMF for this country, when he voted against its establishment?

No. My recollection is better than the hon. Gentleman's history. What I, with a number of other hon. Members, including a number of Conservatives, voted against at that time were the conditions that were exacted. Some of us are still in the House. I always thought that those conditions were quite wrong. I do not like to say "I told you so", but I think that it was wrong that the condition should have been exacted that we should return to the doctrine of convertibility of exchanges within two years at the end of the war. That was a basic reason why most of us voted the way we did, and those events are well within our recollection.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government are now in breach of Schedule 5 of the Industry Act 1975, which lays upon the Government the obligation to publish by 20th November forecasts of the national economy? Is this not another deplorable example of the Government's failure to tell the country the truth about the economy? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that this situation is rectified before the forthcoming economic package is revealed?

I am not aware of the date on which the forecast has to be published. That is a matter for the Chancellor. I am not a catch-all for questions to everyone else. I am most indulgent about some of the questions I am prepared to answer. Since, on the whole, they give me the opportunity to educate Conservative Members, I sometimes do not mind answering them.

Will my right hon. Friend clear up the confusion that has been caused by the rumours circulating throughout the banking community and in the City that on two recent occasions he has given assurances to that community that there will be no nationalisation of the clearing banks by either this Government or the next Labour Government? Will he now clear up this matter and say whether he is looking at any alternatives to those contained in the document circulated by the Labour Party?

My hon. Friend should not be in any confusion about this. He was present when I read a statement to the National Executive Committee at Blackpool. He commented on it at the time, so he knows exactly what the position is—[interruption.] My relations with the National Executive Committee are nothing to do with the Opposition.

Tell us; tell the House of Commons.

As for the future of the City and the banking industry, the committee that is to be established under my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) will, I am sure investigate all these matters. A strong team is being assembled. If the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) is not careful, I shall not put his name forward for it.

As the Prime Minister has had some months to consider his application to the IMF for further loans, would he be able to tell the Governor of the Bank of England, even if he could not tell this House, whether it has been the unanimity of his Cabinet or the division within it that has prevented his getting the Letter of Credit prepared by 9th December—that is, today—when, as he has already said, he was due to pay back money which this Government had earlier borrowed?

There is no particular connection between the Letter of Intent for the IMF and the repayment of the credits that we have had. There is therefore no reason why the two should coincide. This is not a matter that I would discuss with the Governor of the Bank of England, but if I did I think I should get more sense out of him than I should out of the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Select Committee Report on the Bank of England which was published yesterday, saying that charges for fringe benefits provided for staff of the Bank of England should be brought more into line with the levels charged to the general public?

This is a Report of a Select Committee of the House, and the Bank of England will want to take seriously what is said. I agree that some of the conditions that have no doubt been negotiated with the staff seem to be on the generous side, but the Government will have to prepare their view on the matter and publish a White Paper in due course. Before that happens I dare say that the Bank of England will want to consider what the Select Committee said.

When the Prime Minister meets the Governor of the Bank of England, will he discuss with him the interesting observations of the Director General of NEDO the other day about the contribution to our economic failure that has been made by our party political structure, with what he described as

"its obsessive concern with short-term pressures and its destructive concepts of adversary politics."?

No. I shall not discuss that with the Governor of the Bank of England. I may discuss it with the Director General of NEDO, who, I think, seems to be straying a little beyond what is his proper concern at present.

asked the Prime Minister when he last met the CBI.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council gave on my behalf to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 30th November.

Did the Prime Minister, when he last met the CBI, tell it that he did not propose to carry out his obligations under the Industry Act over the disclosure of information and that when asked about it in the House he would reply in a cavalier fashion, showing that he was not concerned about maintaining his obligations under the law to give the disclosure required by the Act?

The answer to all parts of that question is "No, Sir".

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that probably not too many members of the CBI live in bedsitters? Does he agree that many of the people who do live in bedsitters vote Labour? Will he confirm that many of those in bedsitters who vote Labour and who are members of the Labour Party have not been lucky enough to be rewarded by that Labour Party to the extent of finding themselves with a seaside bungalow, a country cottage and a town house? Does he agree that if there are any infiltrators into the Labour Party, some of them are in the House of Lords, put there by the former Prime Minister, and that they never vote Labour when they get the chance?

I do not know whether that is a Roland for an Oliver, or a Skinner for a Taylor. I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful question, which I am sure has given a great deal of comfort elsewhere. I suggest that we have some talks about this privately. [Interruption.] We will not meet in a bedsitters, but in the House of Commons—[Interruption.] We will not meet in the House of Lords. I do not think that my hon. Friend would go there anyway.—[Interruption.] He would not go there, because he is a man of principle. Therefore, I suggest to him that we should have discussions on these matters, which are of concern to all members of the Labour Party and must be thrashed out but which only give a certain amount of childish glee to the Opposition when they are raised in this House.

In view of the CBI's great interest in public expenditure, will the Prime Minister express his total support for the Chancellor's proposals to cut public expenditure, rather than leave him twisting in the wind while the Cabinet gossips to the newspapers?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed next Wednesday, when he hears the statement.

In the context of industrial development, will the Prime Minister inform the CBI and people in Scotland what proportion of the revenues from Scotland's oil has already been mortgaged to the IMF?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will get a reply.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that earlier this week the CBI, in typical fashion, came forward with begging bowl in mailed fist to ask my right hon. Friend simultaneously somehow not to introduce major deflation but, on the other hand, to introduce major public spending cuts? Will he take the advice of Labour Members and, indeed, of the Labour Party, and bring about not the deflation of major spending cuts but changes of policy which will result in increases in production and investment, and again not profit those who have no interest in the real future of this country?

I take note of my hon. Friend's views. The Cabinet has reached its conclusion on the matter and it will be published in due course. What my hon. Friend said has been the subject of considerable discussion. One reason why I have not hurried these discussions to a conclusion is that they are of great importance. They go beyond even our own party interests. [Interruption.] I do not expect the Opposition to be serious about anything on these matters. I am talking not about the Opposition, but about the country generally.