asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now announce further measures to help pig producers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure that pigmeat production is maintained at a satisfactory level.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy towards the problems of pig producers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the present state of the pig industry; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the returns presently received by pig farmers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the returns presently received by pig farmers.

Yes, Sir. I shall announce such measures now.

The method of calculating monetary compensatory amounts on our imports of bacon and other pigmeat should be changed. The present method is unfair to producers and processors in the United Kingdom. I have proposed to the EEC Council of Ministers that a fairer method be adopted.

In the meantime, our producers are facing very real difficulties. Sow slaughterings are at a disturbingly high level and the breeding herd is being run down. The risk to our pig supplies is obvious. The Government have therefore decided to introduce a temporary subsidy of 5·5p per kilogram deadweight—50p per score—on pigs certified under terms and conditions similar to those which applied under previous subsidy schemes. These payments will rest on the authority of the Estimates and the confirming Appropriation Act. Supplementary Estimates will be presented in due course and meanwhile, if necessary, recourse will be had to the Contingencies Fund. The necessary administrative arrangements are being made with a view to accepting pigs for certification from Monday 31st January.

I believe that this action will be welcomed by all concerned in the industry as a positive step to help them meet their immediate difficulties.

Although any help is welcome, is it not true that the Minister has fiddled around for far too long on this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Since heavy hog producers are currently losing up to £8 per week, by how much will today's announcement reduce that deficit?

I somehow felt that the hon. Gentleman might be a little light in his expression of gratitude, but he is wrong about timing. The House may recall that in November I had conversations with the then Agriculture Commissioner and raised the point with some force about the change in mcas. As a result, we had a small change in the calculation of 8 per cent. I had hoped that the Commission and the Council of Ministers would have come to a fair method of recalculation in the December round of Council meetings. Unfortunately, that did not happen. Following that, this is the earliest moment at which I could have taken the measures, and I have now taken them. Therefore, I have informed the House of the situation at the earliest possible moment.

The figure of 50p per score—I hope that the House will forgive my talking in terms of scores, because I have yet to get used to kilograms—will mean, on average, a subsidy per pig of £3·50. It has been calculated on what the efficient pig producer should require to make pig production profitable.

Is the Minister aware that we join in welcoming his reply, but does he not agree that it is worrying that this has taken so long to happen and that a great deal of damage has already been done to confidence? Will he give an assurance that this kind of delay and damage to confidence will not be allowed to happen again?

The granting of a direct subsidy in the way I have announced to the House is not without its difficulties. I should much have preferred it if the method of calculation had been in the form which I have constantly made clear in the House and which I intended to obtain—namely, a recalculation of pigmeat mcas, which always seemed to me to be the best way of settling the matter.

Will the Minister make clear the situation in regard to heavy hogs, because this will have serious implications for food manufacturers and in terms of employment in the industry? Is he satisfied that today's announcement will be enough to deal with the heavy hog situation? If he is unable to obtain agreement on mcas, which may depend on his willingness partly to devalue the green pound, will he give an assurance that the subsidy will continue until he does so?

If I may deal first with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, it is rather like giving a copy of "Rayden on Divorce" to a newly-married couple. After all, I have only just introduced the subsidy, so let us wait and see. On the other matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I would inform him that this subsidy is based on the pig producer but will have its effects throughout the production cycle. It will have a significant effect on the preservation of jobs and also, I hope and trust, will be of benefit to the consumer.

We are always grateful for anything we can get from the Minister, but does he not agree that his reply is still unsatisfactory? Therefore, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment—

Oh!

Order. I did not hear that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers in West Gloucestershire will welcome the measures that he has announced today? Is he also aware that they are grateful to him for the consideration he showed when she met a delegation of them at the Ministry earlier this week? Does he accept that there are hopeful signs that feeding costs may be firming up as a result of more stabilisation of grain prices generally, which is an added hopeful sign for the pig industry?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. In return, I may say that I have always believed that British farmers are the most able and intelligent farmers probably in the world, and that high among them are his constituent farmers. Bearing in mind my conversation with them a little while ago when he brought them to see me, they at least will not be totally dissatisfied.

First, Mr. Speaker, I am much obliged to you for your temporary deafness. I hope that it will not be of too long duration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the extent of our surprise at his gall in accusing my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) of being a little light in his gratitude? Is he not aware of just how long we have had to wait for action and even words from him on this subject while the pig industry was being virtually destroyed? Will he now tell us what he intends to do about securing an early change in the arrangement for calculating the mcas? Does he agree that he missed a valuable opportunity early on in not agreeing to a slight devaluation of the green pound to bring this about?

The right hon. Gentleman has addressed his mind to this matter in his usual rather picturesque language, but I have a feeling that temporary deafness must be a little catching in the House. On many occasions I have told the House the exact nature of the difficulties. I have always tried to keep the House fully in the picture about the difficulty of recalculating the mcas and why I thought it was the best method. If the right hon. Gentleman says that I have been lacking even in words, he should read the appropriate references in Hansard.

The right hon. Gentleman's final question was to ask me why I did not slightly devalue the green pound. The simple answer is that a slight devaluation of the green pound would be accompanied by an equally slight increase, but of exactly the same amount, in the cost of feeding stuffs for our pig producers, which would mean no gain whatsoever. The gain would come from a recalculation of the mcas or in the method I have set out.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, but is he aware that I, too, am surprised at the gall of the Opposition in daring to criticise when they call all the time for cuts in Government expenditure? By how much will the action that my right hon. Friend has taken today benefit the hard-pressed consumers who have to buy either the pork or bacon that results from the order that he has made?

I do not want to make excessive claims, but the fact is that bacon and pork prices are lower than they have been. The basis of this action is to safeguard supplies for the consumer at the price we are talking about. It would be foolish and, I think, dishonourable of me to claim that it will cause a reduction in the price of these commodities.

I am sure that Welsh pig producers will welcome the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that it is a step in the right direction. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that, as regards the long term, he will consider the situation again at this year's price review?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that you have recovered your hearing, may I give notice that I am still dissatisfied and that I intend to raise the matter at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Luce. Question No. 2.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Will the hon. Gentleman mind waiting until after Questions? We are running very slowly. [Interruption.] I realise that the Minister has not answered. I hope that the House will not mind very much if I do not hear the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) until after the reply.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems that when you hear things and when you do not is completely arbitrary. Some of us have seen the Minister recently, and there have been—

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that he was not called. Does the Minister wish to answer the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) before I hear again?

With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I think that might not be a had courtesy to give to the hon. Gentleman who has made a fair point. As I have said, I think that the correct process is that of recalculation of the mcas. However, I have no doubt that that will now find itself, in view of the time scale, coming into the discussion on other matters.

Mr. Latham.

Shame!

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

May I now raise my point of order, Mr. Speaker? In response to your request, I have deferred it until the end of Questions. May I invite your consideration of what happened on Question No. 1 to the Minister of Agriculture? Hon. Members used the device of giving notice that they wished to raise the matter on the Adjournment. That was done, I think, three times. I understand the difficulty of the Opposition when Back Benchers are called who have not tabled Questions. But when other hon. Members who have not put down Questions are excluded from asking supplementary questions your diplomatic deafness, which was exercised on the first two occasions, gives rise to a sense of resentment if it is apparently used in a discriminatory way to give preference to some Back Benchers. If we are to have a device such as this which enables hon. Members to curtail discussion on a Question, the application of that device should be made in such a way that it does not create dangers and get us into the difficulties that we saw today.

I should inform hon. Members who were not in the House earlier this afternoon that five other Questions were grouped together with Question No. 1. Following my policy of calling those whose Questions are being answered, I endeavoured to try alternately to call hon. Members from either side of the House, and I succeeded in calling some. I understand the hon. Member's frustration, but I hope he is not even hinting at discrimination by me against anyone. Naturally, Mr. Speaker likes to please everyone if he can—just like an hon. Member in his constituency. That is not always possible. However, I shall do my best.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the position of British fishing interests in the light of the latest developments in the EEC negotiations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the interests of inshore fishermen are being adequately safeguarded in the negotiations in which he is currently engaged.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress in renegotiating the common fisheries policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's part in current international negotiations affecting United Kingdom inshore fishing rights.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present position in his discussions on an interim internal fisheries agreement in the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present position in his discussions on an interim internal fisheries agreement in the Community.

Negotiations on a number of important issues are continuing affecting the future of the CFP. Discussion has so far centred mainly on fishing by non-member countries in the waters of Community States and on conservation measures. Good progress is being achieved on the first of these issues. As regards conservation measures, our object has been to obtain agreement to the urgent introduction of specific measures needed to conserve the fish stocks on which the future of the British industry depends. While we have agreed the temporary standstill in catch and not to introduce new conservation measures on national basis in January, it would be dangerous to allow the present situation in which there is no adequate control on fishing to continue indefinitely.

The four most urgent measures are a ban on herring fishing in the North Sea, a restriction of the area in which Norway pout may be taken at the expense of white fish stocks, a stricter control on by-catches, and a prohibition of the carrying of nets of different mesh sizes on the same voyage. We are informing the Commission that these are the measures which we see as the most urgent. We hope to see them introduced on a Community basis, but if this is not possible we are entitled under The Hague Agreement to introduce them ourselves.

I welcome what the Minister has said as far as he has gone. Is he aware, however, that among British inshore fishermen there is a deep sense of despair that not only the Government but the Community have not up to now fully understood that the quota system has completely broken down, largely due to abuse by other countries, notably Belgium? In the light of the alarming reports in today's Financial Times that there is a difference between the Minister and the Foreign Secretary, and that the Foreign Secretary may be rather weak in the negotiations in Brussels, will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that in the last resort he will be prepared to take unilateral action to conserve British fish stocks?

As for newspaper reports about differences or divergencies between my right hon. Friend and myself, there are differences in the bases of our two Departments, and it is inevitable that there should be. Obviously, my right hon. Friend has to consider the wider aspects of external relations while I consider more technical matters. I suppose it is always possible to say that that is a divergence. I go no further than that, except to say that I agree with what my right hon. Friend said yesterday in his statement.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we stand ready to introduce our own national conservation measures if the Community does not do so. I have said that on many occasions, including on Second Reading on the Fishery Limits Bill.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if on this matter of fisheries he continues to do his job, to stand up for British interests and resist appeasement, from wherever it comes, he will have the overwhelming support of almost every right hon. and hon. Member?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I notice that the House is always very alive and awake even after it has had an all-night sitting.

I thank the Minister for his statement, as far as it went. Is he aware that many of my constituents are particularly concerned about the activities and methods of Russian and East European fishermen off the South Coast? Can he say something about whether the defence cuts announced recently will hamper or reduce the Navy's activities in doing its best to police the waters around our shores?

I suppose that properly I should say that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I am pretty satisfied that our fishery protection measures will be sufficient to deal with the question. I say "pretty satisfied" because we are in a totally new situation and it would be unfair to say how it will all work out while it is still in its early stages, perhaps for a few weeks or a month or two. I warned the House that this was likely to be the case. We shall certainly keep the situation under constant review.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his robust approach to the defence of British interests is appreciated outside as well as inside the House? But will he also tell his fellow Members of the Cabinet that another urgent matter is the entrusting of the enforcement of quotas and limitations on fishing within the British extended waters, by both non-EEC and EEC boats, to licensing by the United Kingdom Government?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. The question of a licensing basis is absolutely vital. It is a matter to which I believe my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs referred yesterday.

Is the Minister aware that we have considerably more belief in his negotiating powers than in those of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Will he insist on effort quotas rather than catch quotas, a matter which is fundamental to the industry? If negotiations with the EEC fail, is he prepared to recommend to his Cabinet colleagues that we should have a unilateral exclusive zone around our coast?

I know that in the first part of his question the hon. Gentleman was trying to be kind, but he will not be able to insert too much of a wedge be-between the negotiating powers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and my own very poor negotiating powers. [Interruption.] I freely admit it. The House always likes one to speak honestly. As for the coastal belt, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, my position and that of the Government remains exactly as it was. I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman on effort limitation, which is still our aim.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the negotiations and the whole atmosphere are completely different from anything that has happened in the past, because for the first time we have a Dane, Mr. Gundelach, negotiating on our behalf? That is contrary to all our history and experience. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend, of all Ministers, be most open about the whole matter and acquaint the House with what is going on as he is doing today? I hope that he will also meet Back Benchers at every possible opportunity, because inside and outside the House there is a feeling of uncertainty. It is a psychological situation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I readily give the assurance that he sought. I have a great deal to learn, and I am not too proud to admit it. Those with fishing constituencies in particular can help me and teach me in the job I am doing.

I welcome the first indication that we have had in the House of a more robust attitude towards the negotiations, but will the right hon. Gentleman, while maintaining that attitude, give a categorical assurance that the minimum fall-back he would be willing to accept for conservation purposes and to protect the livelihood of inshore fishermen is an exclusive 12-mile limit around our coast?

The position was clearly stated on 4th May last year by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when he was Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. That statement went a long way beyond the hon. Gentleman's 12 miles.

Without wishing to detract from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, which is accepted and appreciated, may I ask whether he will accept that the great fear of the Cornish inshore industry is that violations of fishing grounds are more likely to be carried out by our so-called European partners than by other people? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman consider for once enlisting the active support of the EEC, with the setting up of a European Communities fisheries protection squadron, in the hope that, thus involved in protection, the other EEC countries will realise our reasons for prohibition?

There needs to be a great deal of protection against not only our EEC colleagues but even our own nationals. We must conserve the stocks of fish in the sovereign waters around our shores. Obviously, if there were an unlimited supply of fish we should need no quotas and no conservation, and anyone could come and take the fish. Unfortunately that is not the case.

The Minister's honesty in saying that he is willing to learn about the fishing situation will be greatly welcomed by the inshore fishermen in Brighton. Will he take an early opportunity of coming to Brighton and the Sussex Coast to meet those men? They will tell him that the quota system will not work and that almost every day large trawlers are taking the fish out of the seas in their area, and that unless that is stopped their livelihood will be ruined.

The invitation is so attractive that I am almost inclined to conceal from the House that I already knew the facts of what the hon. Gentleman was saying.

May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)? Will he accept that catch quotas do not work? They are unenforceable and command nobody's respect, so perhaps he could put that idea away. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman consult whichever of his right hon. Friends is most appropriate on how he will put teeth into whatever policy is arrived at, because the problem of enforcement will now be of a very different order and much more difficult than before?

I fully accept both points made by the right hon. Gentleman. I was fairly early impressed by the basis of effort limitation and think that it is the right way of doing things. It is ludicrous merely to draw pretty lines on a chart, say "These are our sovereign waters" and not deal with the question of enforcement. I hope, however, that the House will be a little sympathetic on this matter. This is so new a basis for us that we must treat this as a kind of test period in which we can see how things work. I hope that they will work out all right.

The House will welcome the ban on fishing for North-East Coast herring, but does the right hon. Gentleman think that he can make the ban effective on the boats of all nations? Is he aware of the present gross overfishing for Shetland herring and West Coast herring by boats of several nations? Does he know that the stocks are not getting into the Minch, where our fishermen traditionally catch them, because of the fantastic effort of those other nationals?

Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that we can make the ban effective. That is the whole point of imposing it. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second question, I hope he understood that I was talking about the first four of the urgent conservation measures. I can think of a number of candidates for a further extension of conservation measures.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any proposals to change the intervention system.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what modifications to the common agricultural policy have been achieved by Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes in the common agricultural policy have been sought by Her Majesty's Government.

I would refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friends to the regular statements to the House by my right hon. Friend after Council meetings. Also, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) on 9th December 1976.

As the CAP has been responsible for so much of the justified ridicule about the Common Market as a whole, is there any good reason why the Common Market itself should not continue even if the CAP were abolished and we had our own national policy? Surely the Common Market could still go on with its very important job of harmonising chestnut puree and smoked eel and gas meters without the CAP.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that much of the CAP is by no means essential to the philosophy and framework of the European Community. In the meantime, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that in the short term we must continue to press for a change in the situation whereby we have continued the costly over-production of commodities such as milk.

While agreeing with other hon. Members who applauded the action taken by the Minister in the negotiations, may I ask my hon. Friend to try to end the CAP altogether with regard to this country and revert to our former system of guaranteed prices to the farmers? Under that system the housewives benefited by low food prices. There is now growing discontent about the effect of the CAP on food prices.

My hon. Friend's point about guaranteed prices has some force. It has to be said, however, that the variable premium that we established for beef in effect represented a return to something near to the older arrangement. It is in practice a deficiency payment or guaranteed price without full-scale intervention. I would certainly accept that we have a long way to go as regards the way in which the central misuse of resources which exists in the Community is a direct consequence of the CAP policy of over-pricing.

Is not the real problem—it is shown in the White Paper and in the production results last year—that the Government are dithering between a national policy and a European agricultural policy? In the long run that is totally unfair to the producer and the consumer. What is needed is for the Government to make up their mind and then to see that we have full parity within the union within two or three years.

I cannot accept that. For example, we believe it is absolutely right that our relatively efficient dairy industry should produce a higher proportion of Community milk output while at the same time expensive and excessive production on the Continent should be curtailed.

Does my hon. Friend remember the debates that we had on the marketing boards, and does he recall that the entire House supported the marketing board system? Would it not help to solve the problem of European agriculture if the CAP adopted many of these systems? Cannot my hon. Friend press that upon his colleagues in the Council?

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I would reassure the House of my right hon. Friend's determination to retain the essential functions of the marketing board for orderly marketing in this country. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that some of our Back Bench colleagues in the European Parliament have been trying to interest their European counterparts in this very issue in order to extend marketing boards to other member States.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what adjustments he now proposes to make in the valuation of the green pound in consultation with his colleagues in the EEC Agriculture Council.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) on 13th January 1977. As was made clear then, the Commission's proposal for a 4·5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound remains on the table but we do not consider now to be an appropriate time to make such a change.

Does not that mean that the change will come perhaps a little later? While appreciating that the interests of consumers have to come first, may I ask whether it is not rather dishonest of the Minister and his right hon. Friend to maintain that they will not make any changes at all when at least a marginal change along these lines to start with, and perhaps something else afterwards, is inevitable? There is a ground swell of legitimate anger in Germany that the overall cost that it is now contributing to the Community has gone up last year from 7 billion to 12 billion deutschemarks.

I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite, and many people outside, would get this matter in perspective. They seem to talk about the green pound and Community aid as though they were charities. The facts are rather different. Is it a charity when the United Kingdom will be paying one-fifth of the whole Community budget this year? It is not a charity when the United Kingdom pays through mcas into the pockets of the European agricultural exporters to help them dispose of their products. It is not charity when we pay money towards facilities from many of which we receive very little benefit. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should look at the matter in perspective and not in a one-sided way.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it would not be in the interests of the British farmer if we were to allow automatic realignments of the green pound? Will he resist strongly any attempt to take this decision out of the hands of the Council of Ministers and make it into machinery that works automatically irrespective of the interests of member States?

My right hon. Friend has taken a robust stand on this, as on other things. We have made clear already the effect of automatic changes. Basically changes, where necessary, should be carefully timed. We have not been doctrinaire. My hon. Friend is right in saying that this is a matter which is many-sided, and it does not always help the farmer because, for example, of the increased cost of feedstuffs when changes are made.

Is the Minister aware that many of us were alarmed when we heard the Miinster call in aid a policy which is providing an increasing market in this country for producers in the remainder of the Community? Is the hon. Gentleman intent on giving away all our home food market to European producers? When will this stop, and how does this line up with the Government's own White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources"?

The hon. Gentleman has either a short memory or bad hearing. I rather thought he was cheering, in a disguised way, the statement made by my right hon. Friend about pigmeat. That is another situation where exporters from abroad, with mca help, can dispose of their products in a way that is not always helpful to our producers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present disparity between the green and market rate of the £ sterling.

The monetary compensatory amount percentage is now 36·9, based on a gap between the representative rate and the market rate used for this purpose of 38·4 per cent.

Having regard to all aspects of the Minister's departmental remit, is he fully satisfied, and, if so, why?

As I explained in reply to the earlier Question, this matter is under review all the time in relation to the situation facing the producer and also the consumer.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that a bigger problem, apart from the revaluation of the green pound, is the total shambles of the common agricultural policy? Is it not towards the sensible reformation of it or its complete abandonment that the Government's main efforts should be directed?

My hon. Friend will recognise that the facility of the green pound is one that we inherited when we entered the Market and that it is very important that we should ensure its use until some other fundamental change can be made, with the interests of the consumer and of the producer in mind.

Does not the Minister agree that the best way of getting rid of this disparity and of ensuring continuity in the supply of food, while at the same time giving some return of confidence to the British producer, would be to allow a devaluation of 1 per cent. per month?

I have already replied to a Question about automatice revaluation. The timing is fundamental to this, and we should make changes in the value of the green pound only in relation to the national interest. Incidentally, a 4½ per cent. devaluation along the lines proposed at present by the Commission would add another 1 per cent. to food prices. It is very important that we keep in mind the policy of monetary restraint at present.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will reverse his decision to permit the retail sale of animal medicines on the "Farmers' List" under Part III of the Medicines Act in the light of representations made to him by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.

No, Sir. We believe that the best course is to implement the "Farmers' List" proposals and proceed thereafter with a detailed review of the retail sale requirements appropriate to the different products on the list.

Why is the Minister ignoring the considered views of the BVA, which is an expert body and which considers that these particular medicines are unsafe for general sale? Does the hon. Gentleman hold its views in complete contempt?

Of course we do not hold its views in contempt. We shall be taking its views fully into account when we consider these products one by one. The hon. Lady will recognise that there is a wide range of views throughout the industry generally, and among producers of these products, as to the right way to sell them.

My hon. Friend will know of my special interest in pharmaceutical matters. Will he agree to meet a joint deputation, if this can be arranged, of the veterinarians and the pharmacists? Will he undertake that safety will be the overriding consideration in his mind and that of his right hon. Friend?

Yes indeed. We have already met representatives of the pharmacists and the veterinarians. I shall be happy to meet them again if my hon. Friend so wishes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce Her Majesty's Government's plans for the port cane sugar refining industry.

As my hon. Friend knows, I shall be visiting the refinery in his constituency tomorrow. I have been pressing forward discussions with the refiners, the unions representing their workers, and other interested parties, and I hope in the near future to be able to make a full statement.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and, in advance, for the visit which he will be paying tomorrow to the refinery in my constituency. Is he aware that the length of time that the Government have taken to reach a decision has caused uncertainty and that this is a very long-delayed exercise consequent upon our joining the Common Market? Has there been co-operation from my right hon. Friend's colleagues on the Council in appreciating the problems that our joining the Common Market has had on employment in the port cane sugar refining industry?

There has been a good appreciation of the situation in this country in the port cane sugar refining industry. The problem that we have to face here is how we can preserve employment in areas like my hon. Friend's constituency which will inevitably be affected, and perhaps would have been affected regardless of our joining the Common Market, by the increasing importance of beet sugar. I hope that the uncertainty which my hon. Friend talked about is much less than it was. Certainly I am determined to do my best to arrive at a conclusion which will safeguard the jobs of as many as possible of my hon. Friend's constituents and all the others concerned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the new EEC Commissioner for Agriculture.

I have met Mr. Gundelach on a number of occasions in the last few weeks, most recently on 12th January. I expect to be seeing him again next week.

Will the Minister say to what extent his desire to have the mcas recalculated is being inhibited by his refusal to look at devaluation of the green pound?

I had better explain this again. The basis of the recalculation of mcas, which is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, and what I should like to see as much as he would, has nothing to do with the green pound. If one devalues the green pound, one also puts up the costs of feeding stuffs, so there is no benefit. The Commission itself recognised this in November of last year. Of course, if we went to a devaluation of 36 per cent. there would be a difference—everyone knows that—but no one in this House would contemplate that for a moment. The recalculation of mcas in November of last year was done by the Commission. It was all that it had power to do, and it recognised the truth of what I have been saying.

When my right hon. Friend sees the Commissioner for Agriculture, will he remind him that the late President de Gaulle said that the CAP would be a crippling blow to the British economy? Will my right hon. Friend try to get rid of it as soon as possible so that we have a national system of agriculture?

I shall not only remind him of it. If my hon. Friend likes and if I can get a proper translation, I shall say it in French.

asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to make any further Cabinet changes.

The hon. Member may assume that I do not intend to make any changes in ministerial appointments or responsibilities unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.

That was an extraordinarily hypothetical answer. Is the Prime Minister really satisfied with the way in which the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is discharging his responsibilities in relation to bread, and, if so, why?

My right hon. Friend made a very bold effort to try to meet the views of the Opposition about reducing prices. He should be stimulated in these matters and not discouraged by the Opposition's criticism.

Will the Prime Minister try to ensure the inclusion of someone in his Cabinet who is sensitive to the needs of manufacturing industry? Is he aware that, whatever may have been the case for phasing out the regional employment premium, its sudden cancellation caused total havoc with forward pricing and contractual arrangements in manufacturing industries in the development areas?

The total number of measures taken concerning manufacturing industry do not, I think, warrant the general condemnation implied by the right hon. Gentleman. There is great sensitivity, as I try to show constantly at Question Time and in my meetings with the CBI—which, incidentally, take place regularly and are not held simply now and again—about these matters.

As regards the regional employment premium, I know about the impact of it and I have heard about some of its effects. But it had become so small in relation to the total wage bill to be much less significant than when it was first introduced.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the person of his economic adviser he already has someone in the Cabinet who is sensitive to the problems of manufacturing industry and that, moreover, we would regret to see any change in the very constructive rôle that he is playing in the Meriden negotiations?

I know that I have often had occasion to thank my right hon. Friend for the services which he has given in a great many directions. I have no hesitation in saying that he is worth every penny that we pay him.

May I take it from the Prime Minister's first reply that in his new capacity as economic supremo, therefore, he stands four square behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose first objective is now to reduce the level of income tax, rather than behind some other members of his party who seem to want to increase public expenditure?

The Government's policy in relation to both public expenditure and taxation is very clear. I am not so sure about the attitude of the Opposition on matters of public expenditure. Despite their protestations at the Dispatch Box, they do not seem to reproduce them in Committees upstairs.

Apparently the Prime Minister's answer to my question is that he does not stand four square behind the Chancellor in his first objective of reducing income tax.

I was saying that it is not simply for the right hon. Lady to make these protestations about cuts in public expenditure at the Dispatch Box, but also to see that what happens elsewhere in this House is in accordance with her public protestations here. As she knows, that is not happepning in the Committees of the House.

As for rates of taxation for next year, I fear that I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

asked the Prime Minister if, following his statement of 21st December, Official Report, column 465, he intends to give evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure concerning the nature of the Questions he is willing to answer during Prime Minister's Question Time.

asked the Prime Minister what proposals he has for improving Prime Minister's Parliamentary Question Time in the light of his remarks on 21st December 1976.

The Government referred Questions to the Prime Minister to the Sessional Procedure Committee on 12th January. During the Christmas Recess I made a detailed study of the development of Prime Minister's Question Time since 1945, hoping to find ways of improving the procedure, but I could not do so. I am therefore ready to await any conclusions that the Select Committee may reach.

Will the Prime Minister try answering the question for a start? Will he cast his mind back to 21st December? Does he remember that on that occasion he introduced and discussed at length the subject of the National Association for Freedom, for which he has no ministerial responsibility, yet he still refuses to say whether the Marxist speech of his fellow-travelling Energy Minister represents Government policy?

The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) illustrates one conclusion which I had long since come to—that, apart from the merits of the answers, the effectiveness of Question Time depends on the good sense of the questioner.

If we could clear the procedural jungle on the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Question Time so that it was possible to deploy Questions in a more straightforward and sensible way, would the Prime Minister live up to his side of the bargain to uplift the value of Parliamentary Question Time by occasionally answering the question?

It is very difficult sometimes to give sensible answers to daft questions. As regards the future, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) and I share a feeling about this matter. It is one which has gone to the Select Committee on Procedure. I read what happened last time in 1971–72 when the Committee did not seem to come up with anything. However, I promise the House that I shall try hard if I get sensible questions.

Will my right hon. Friend be just a little more generous? In view of the consistently poor quality of questions from the Opposition, will he make available to them on an adviser basis some of the services which are available at Downing Street in order to get more sensible Questions put on the Order Paper?

That is one way of doing it. Another way would be to see that whichever authority supplies the syndicates of hon. Members with questions also supplies them with answers.

It is your job to give the answers.

asked the Prime Minister what his engagements are for Thursday 20th January.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20th January 1977.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for Thursday 20th January.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his engagements for 20th January 1977.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 20th January 1977.

This morning I chaired a meeting of the Cabinet, and I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

In view of the considerable public discussion about the rôle of the United Kingdom in relation to countries which abuse human rights, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of his engagement at Question Time to express his views? Does he agree that we are more likely to influence other countries in the way we want through a policy of contact rather than through a policy of boycott and isolation?

To give a complete answer to that question, I would want to reflect longer. The general position is that contact is good. I believe that it is good between Government and Government and between individuals, but there are always particular cases which arise out of these principles. As far as human rights are concerned, I have made clear many times since the signing of the Helsinki Agreement that there are various ways to approach other signatories of the agreement. One is by way of Government, though this should not necessarily be publicised or appear to be a gesture. The other way is by the expression of general public opinion on these matters, for which the Government take no responsibility. Both methods are right ways to pursue the objective that everyone throughout the whole civilised world can live in peace and dignity and under the rule of law.

Will the Prime Minister take time to look at a Question which I put down last week asking him to instruct Ministers and officials not to patronise Trust Houses Forte hotels while they refuse to accept the recognition of trade unions and there are people on the picket lines in many towns and cities throughout the country? Is it not the height of hypocrisy that when the Tory Party leadership is trying to woo the trade unions—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you enlighten the House as to what on earth this supplementary question has to do with the original Question?

If I tried to tell hon. Members that about supplementary questions, I would do nothing else.

The Question got through the Table Office last week, therefore it must be in order. As I was saying, is it not the height of hypocrisy that, at a time when the Tory Party leadership is trying to woo the trade unions, one of the consultants involved in the Trust Houses Forte hotel business, advising it on employment matters, is none other than the Tory Shadow Employment Minister, who last October was telling members of the Tory Party Conference to join trade unions?

I am not acquainted with the details of the Trust Houses Forte dispute, but I hope that everyone on both sides of the House, including the Shadow Employment Minister, will urge Trust Houses Forte to accept trade union recognition for its members. That is essential for good relations in industry. As regards where people should stay, I do not wish to issue any instructions on this matter.

Since the Prime Minister is becoming increasingly proud of his regular meetings with the CBI, would he say unequivocally, so that we all know, that he accepts the CBI's case for lower marginal rates of personal taxation on middle management?

There is little doubt that middle management feels that it has been very harshly treated over recent years, and a feeling of dissatisfaction of this sort clearly must be taken into account. The hon. Member, however, does not really expect me to anticipate the Budget.

Will the Prime Minister reflect on the answer he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) when he said that it was his aim to see that our people live in peace and dignity and under the rule of law? Will he bear in mind the conduct of the Secretary of State for Employment over the operation of the closed shop, notably in British Rail, where more than 31 employees, many with a lifetime of service, have been dismissed, in direct conflict with the three principles which the Prime Minister enunciated?

I think that the Opposition are in some difficulty over the closed shop. Having read the statement in their new policy document, I think they will find this very difficult to carry out. They should keep up to date, especially as only yesterday a new chapter was inaugurated between the Conservative Party and the trade union movement. Hon. Members should remember that.

Answer the question.

Will the Prime Minister take five minutes this afternoon to convey to the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party the satisfaction of Opposition Members about the fact that it has confirmed the appointment of Mr. Andy Bevan, and has thus hung a red albatross around the party's neck for the next General Election?

This is not a matter for me. That question illustrates yet again the level to which Question Time has sunk.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, referring back to the earlier answer he gave about the plight of people who are not able to express views in their own countries and who do not have the freedom to move away from them, the heinous crimes committed in some countries with extreme Right-wing Governments? Will he also bear in mind the need to ensure that, although we carry on trade and have contacts with them, these countries are aware all the time of our views of their behaviour in relation to human rights?

My hon. Friend expresses it exactly. In the case of South Africa, for example, we have made it quite clear that we accept the United Nations decisions on these matters in relation to the supply of arms. However, we have maintained the flow of trade between our two countries. I would say that relations between us are cool; they certainly do not have the degree of warmth or intimacy that we have with a number of other countries. This is true of all countries whatever part of the political spectrum they inhabit.

Will my right hon. Friend go so far as to express the regret which most hon. Members feel at the arrest of so many of the signatories of Charter '77 in Czechoslovakia, many of whom are Socialists, trade unionists and civil rights workers?

I have no hesitation in doing that. It was, after all, the Labour Government in 1968 who called the House back from recess at a time of events which merited condemnation by the whole of the British people. That was our position then and it is still our position.