asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next attend a meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers of the EEC.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next attend a meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers of the European Economic Community.

There are at present no meetings scheduled.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets his European colleagues and they discuss matters of conservation, I hope that he will impress upon them the early warning fears expressed by Cornish fishermen of the classic signs of over-fishing of the Cornish mackerel stock? Will he discuss with his European colleagues the possibility of establishing a six-mile zone wherein no vessel in excess of 80 feet shall fish?

In my view, the whole of the mackerel fishery needs careful watching. Our industry went into something of a self-denying ordinance. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in this instance we are in the fortunate circumstance of hav- ing no historic rights within the 12-mile zone. I agree that a great deal of thought and care is needed. It is one of the great potential fishery stocks of our country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House that when he lays the additional conservation measures in respect of the South-West mackerel stock he will take into account the needs and requirements of the smaller inshore fisherman based in South-West counties?

That is an extremely important factor. For that reason, there have been consultations between my officials and the various fishing interests concerned with mackerel, especially the small inshore fishermen but including the larger ones. We hoped to get an all-industry view on the whole matter. That has presented some difficulties, because there are differences of view. However, I think that we may be able to arrive at some sort of modus vivendi. I hope that that will be achieved relatively soon.

What are my right hon. Friend's minimum requirements for the conclusion of a satisfactory fishing regime? Is there any indication how far, if at all, our European partners are prepared to move towards meeting those requirements?

In the absence of scheduled fisheries councils, it may be apposite to restate the minimum demands. The demands are an exclusive zone between 0 to 12 miles and a dominant preference between 12 miles to 50 miles. That is a dominant preference in two respects. First, there must be effort limitation, as quotas by themselves are not sufficient. Secondly, it must be dominant in the sense that it would be the United Kingdom that would get the dominant share of the growth. Finally, there must be a proper and more than adequate scientific basis of conservation, which at the moment, in my view, has not yet been put forward by the Commission or any body else apart from ourselves. How far are the other countries prepared to move? I get the signs that there are movements on the part of the other eight. There is no movement on my side on these minimum requirements.

While I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has much at heart the interests of the Mourne Fishery in the coming season, especially with reference to the skiff fishermen, may I ask whether he will give an indication when he expects that an announcement can be made about what they may look forward to this year?

I am much aware of that difficulty and the difficulty of other small herring fishermen around the shores of the United Kingdom. I believe that the season starts in June. I hope that before then we shall be in a position to give an answer, which, personally, I should like to be a satisfactory one. However, I think that that must not be—I think that the right hon. Gentleman will follow me in this respect—at the price of overall lack of conservation of the herring stock.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a proposal now being bandied about in the EEC Commission that there should be a dominant preference given to those boats that fish within 4½ hours' steaming time of their ports? If he is aware of that, what is the Government's reaction? If he is not aware of it, what would his reaction be to such a proposal?

I could give my reaction to a whole lot of matters of which I was totally unaware, but I do not think that the House would be patient enough to listen to me on them.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the other Ministers that, apart from the horrifying disaster that the fishing industry has suffered as a result of our entry into the Common Market, the Cambridge Group report, which came out today, also states that 150,000 jobs have been lost, some in fishing, as a result of our entry, that food prices are up at least by half-a-crown in the pound and that £1,000 million a year is the total cost of our entry, some of that arising in respect of fishing matters as well?

As always, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in introducing an all-embracing question into this rather narrow one. I certainly promise to study carefully the conclusions of Mr. Wynne Godley and his team. I have no doubt that in due course I may even tell the House what my conclusions are on those conclusions.

Getting back to the question of Cornish mackerel, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House by what percentage the annual catch in the West County has been reduced by the conservation measures taken so far? Is he aware that I cannot name a single West Country fisherman who believes that the measures that have been taken are sufficient to preserve the Cornish mackerel stock on a long-term basis?

It is difficult to give the actual percentage off the cuff, and I should probably be wrong if I did. However, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with what information I have. He must appreciate that the cut in mackerel fishing is the result of the self-denying ordinance by the industry of which I spoke. I hope and believe that the industry will have kept to it and that there will be some tangible result.

rose—

Order. I called representatives of five of the different parties on that Question. I shall not be able to do the same on every Question. We shall now move more quickly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the return to growers of vegetable crops for the last five years has proved economic.

The increase in the area under vegetables over the last five years suggests that growers find returns from vegetable production satisfactory.

Is the Minister aware that the price of potatoes this season has been wholly uneconomic, that the prices of summer vegetables and sprouts have been no more than the level of 1973–74, although since then wages have doubled and the prices of fertiliser and packaging materials have more than doubled? Is he further aware that crops are being ploughed in and men are being laid off? Will he assure the House that the serious losses in this sector of the horticulture industry will properly be taken into account at the next price review?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should seek to make an issue of potato prices this year. Some potato producers, particularly those in the North, did exceptionally well during the last two years as a result of the abnormally high potato prices. The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that potato prices in the United Kingdom have been kept well above Continental levels as a result of our effective system of support.

In view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), will my hon. Friend list the number of counties in which wages have doubled?

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. She has made this point time and again. I agree that there is no evidence that high farm prices lead farmers to pay higher wages to their workers. Higher wages will be achieved only by the efforts of the union of which my hon. Friend is a member.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board.

My right hon. Friend met the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board, the Deputy President of the National Farmers Union and other representatives of potato producers on 10th March to discuss the marketing and support arrangements in 1978–79 and subsequent seasons. Because of the uncertainties about the timing and content of an EEC regime and the future of the import ban on maincrop potatoes, we do not expect to be able to announce detailed arrangements for the 1978–79 marketing season until the summer.

The Minister of State answers this Question in the same way every time that I ask it. Is it not about time that he proposed a more definitive solution, or could it be that the Gov- ernment, with their usual dexterity, will arrange to have no chips with no fish?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that within the Community we have been pressing for answers to some of these questions. The fact remains that we have given assurances about the guarantee. The Potato Marketing Board has issued quotas to producers for the 1978 crop in line with the target determined as a guide to the planted area which, given normal yields, is expected to equate supply to requirements. We are pressing for an early determination of these matters.

Will the Minister of State understand that the Government's attitude to this problem is totally unsatisfactory and that if, because of lack of leadership and of assurances, we find ourselves with a shortage of potatoes and with high prices, the blame will be entirely at the Government's door?

The hon. Gentleman cannot ignore the fact that there is the possibility of an EEC regime. We have been trying to get that determined as soon as possible. There are also uncertainties about the import ban. The Commission has made some observations on this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current size of the national pig breeding herd.

The most recent United Kingdom census for which results are available was taken in December 1977, when the number of sows and gilts in pig was 819,000 head.

Does the Minister agree that the breeding herd, particularly gilts—this is a bad omen for the future—is down and that the pig farmer, of all farmers, is having a difficult time? As the Danes are publicly saying that they want a larger share of the British market—we know the financial advantages that they have—and bearing in mind that this affects the whole industry, from the producer right through to the retailer, what has the Minister to say about the future of the pig farmer and the pig industry?

Get out of the Market.

The fall in the breeding herd has been slightly less than was predicted. If it had not been for the temporary subsidy of £17 million, which my right hon. Friend brought in until he was required to change the policy, the situation would have been much worse. We have been pressing consistently for the Community to look into the revaluation of the MCAs. We think that is the best way to proceed.

Given that confidence is a key factor in trying to achieve a recovery in the size of the pig herd, is the Minister getting any better sense out of the Common Market over the recalculation rather than the revaluation of the MCAs? Surely that is the key to putting the problem right.

My hon. Friend is right. He will know of the steps taken by my right hon. Friend in this direction.

Will the Minister of State urge his right hon. Friend to give stronger support to the French and Italian Ministers on this question of recalculating the MCAs, because it is crucial? How does he face the prospect that, by the end of this year, the Danes will have taken over about 48 per cent. of our market?

The right hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way round. My right hon. Friend has been pressing consistently for over a year to get a resolution on the MCAs. That is now supported by the French. We appreciate this encouragement.

Will the Minister answer the question about the Danish share of the market? Does he agree that by the end of the year the Danes are likely to have 48 per cent. of the bacon market here?

I should not like to make any predictions on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the steps taken so far by my right hon. Friend and realise the slight improvement because of the change in the green pound. These are matters of consumer choice anyway.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much beet was exported from the European Economic Community during 1976–7.

Community exports of sugar beet to third countries in 1975–76 were 11,000 tonnes. The corresponding figure for 1976–77 is not yet available from the Community. Community exports of sugar—predominantly from beet—to third countries in 1976–77 were about 1,600,000 tonnes of white sugar and 65,000 tonnes of raw.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern that is felt in the sugar refining industry in the United Kingdom and is he satisfied that the present arrangements will secure the jobs of workers in that industry? For instance, in the Tate and Lyle set-up, workers are concerned that Tate and Lyle is prepared to advance its plans on reorganisation, with a further loss of jobs. Is this not due to the amount of sugar being imported?

I am aware of the concern of my hon. Friend and the approaches that he has made to my right hon. Friend with others on this matter. I am aware that the Tate and Lyle company has raised this possibility in local negotiations with its work force. The plan for the reorganisation of the industry was agreed, as my hon. Friend knows, after intensive discussions between the Government, the company and the workers The company undertook that provided its long-term supplies of sugar from the ACP countries continued at the current levels, it would not contract capacity or employment in the port refineries—except by agreements with the trade unions—at a greater rate than was envisaged in the plan. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be following the progress of those discussions with very close interest.

What effect have those exports of sugar from the Community had on the world market price? What effect has that had, in turn, on the export earnings of the developing countries which produce sugar?

The relevance of the question put by my hon. Friend is the concern that there should be adequate supplies of sugar in this country for processing. The hon. Member will be aware that Tate and Lyle has secured 150,000 tonnes per annum of French raw sugar. The Lomé Agreement has had its effect. The total Community exports, excluding re-exports, were about 1,600,000 tonnes of white sugar and 65,000 tonnes of raw sugar, as I mentioned.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the present surplus of EEC beet sugar constitutes a very grave threat to the ACP countries' future exports of cane sugar to this country and thereby a very great threat to the continued employment of cane sugar workers? Will he urge his right hon. Ministers to accept a considerable cutback in beet sugar quotas throughout the Community?

We are aware of the problem stated by my hon. Friend. It is a matter, within the Community, of equating supply and demand, taking into account the job situation. We have assurances about the national situation with regard to Tate and Lyle and Liverpool in particular. We want to make sure that the assurances which have been given will be pursued.

Does the Minister realise that a large amount of refining is now carried out in British Sugar Corporation factories, particularly, in my constituency, where no sugar at all was previously refined? Will he pay tribute to the extraordinary expansion of the home industry, which has saved imports of sugar into this country, and to the great benefit that this industry is to the countryside?

As I have just said, the problem is one of balancing supply and demand within the Community and outside, and nationally as well. In relation to "Food from Our Own Resources", we have tabled our views about the need for 50 per cent. self-sufficiency by 1980. The White Paper is under review at present and we have to look at the cane sugar side and the beet sugar side in relation to the effect upon the jobs of those concerned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the Chairman of the Food and Drink Industries Council.

My right hon. Friend the Minister meets the Chairman of the Food and Drink Industries Council fairly frequently. No firm date has been set for their next meeting.

When the Minister next mets the Chairman of the Food and Drink Industries Council, will he discuss with him the fact that in the EEC the food manufacturing companies fall within the remit of the Commissioner for Industry? Does he think that that is a good idea? Would it not be better if they fell within the remit of the Commissioner for Agriculture?

I think that we can make too much of this matter. The big decisions in the EEC are taken by the Council of Ministers and at the end of the day there has to be a reconciliation of the various national interests.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the President of the National Farmers Union on the question of assistance to farmers who have suffered loss in the recent floods and storms.

I had meetings with the President of the National Farmers Union on 23rd February and 3rd March, at which we discussed various ways in which farmers who have suffered losses might be helped, including the union's readiness to evolve a method of self-help by the industry and its request for a Government contribution. I am now giving the matter urgent consideration in the light of the information coming forward on the extent of the damage.

Will the Minister say whether consideration is still being given specifically to helping farmers who have lost livestock, whether in the West Country, Scotland or on the East Coast? If so, when will he come to a decision? Cash is urgently needed by certain farmers who will be placed in serious financial circumstances if they do not get help soon.

I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's question and with the farmers concerned. I hope that I shall be able to give the House further information following consideration of the matter before the Easter Recess. I cannot promise that, but I am doing my best. I am very well aware, as is the hon. Gentleman, of the enormous damage that has been suffered, particularly by farmers with livestock.

I thank the Minister and his right hon. Friends for the immediate assistance that they have given to the farming industry during the recent dramatic weather. When he next meets the President of the NFU will he raise with him allegations that on Dartmoor during the winter there has been serious and persistent over-stocking of areas which formerly have never been used for livestock during the winter?

If my hon. Friend would give me details of this, it is a matter in which I would be quite interested, particularly in its relevance to the Porchester Committee's views on the way in which we deal with the question of areas in which there has been a national environmental interest. On the specific point that he mentioned, perhaps he will write to me.

Will the Minister bear in mind that fanners are very concerned about being made special cases and given special help which does not concern other people in the South-West who have been in trouble as well, such as shopkeepers, garage owners and so on? What the farmers really need is a little more flexibility in the way of capital grants and other aids to rebuild their buildings. What they are concerned about is being made special cases. That is not what they want.

The hon. Gentleman may find some farmers who are not altogether averse to being made special cases. I was speaking in Kent at a non-political meeting and I met a number of farmers who distinctly wanted to be made special cases—and, indeed, they are. The difficulty is that very often damage to shops, factories or houses is insurable, whereas a lot of damage suffered by farmers is un-insurable.

As the avowed monetarists and non-interventionists of the Conservative Party are asking the Government to bail out some of their constituents, will the Minister give considera- tion to the request that was made two years ago when gales hit the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire border? On that occasion, an industry official visited the site, but nothing was done. If a precedent is to be set in respect of West Dorset, will the Minister guarantee that something will be done for the other places as well?

We can take one simple meteorological fact for granted—that there are weather disasters in the United Kingdom as a whole. Perhaps it is about time—if we can do it and find some basis on which the industry can help itself—for us to look to the future. I should therefore like to deal with the matter for the future rather than go too far into the past.

I understand that the Minister is the landlord of three tenants whose land has been almost totally flooded by salt water. That land will not be capable of having anything planted in it for some three years. Will the Minister undertake that the tenants will not be charged any rent, especially in view of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary a few days before the flooding that they were to have a rent review, which means, as we understand it, a doubling of their rents?

That matter is very much under consideration.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an assurance that no further obstacles will be placed in the way of imports of butter and lamb from New Zealand into the United Kingdom.

I consider it of primary importance that New Zealand should be able to continue to export butter and lamb to this country. I have made—and shall continue to make—our position clear in Community discussion and shall keep in close touch with the New Zealand Government.

As the Rome Treaty is so keen on competition, would it not provide valuable competition with artificially dear Continental food if we imported foodstuffs from New Zealand free of all quotas, levies and other restrictions?

My right hon. Friend is well aware that part of the programme that we have is to liberalise the importation of foodstuffs into the Community, especially from Commonwealth countries but from third countries in general. I must tell my right hon. Friend, however, that this will not be—indeed, it could not be—achieved overnight. It is a long and at times a rather painful process.

Is the Minister aware that the estimated cost of the transportation and handling of one New Zealand carcase of lamb is £8·75 sterling and that this is one of the great impediments to New Zealand trade? Is he aware, further, that New Zealand welcomes an increase in the price of lamb over here since it helps its farmers, who at present receive a very small price?

An increase in the price of lamb or, for that matter, of butter—for which we pressed with the approval of the House last year—to take account of an increase in costs, is perfectly understandable. But my impression from my discussions with my opposite numbers from New Zealand is that they still look upon New Zealand as a country which is willing and able to supply the United Kingdom with the traditional commodities which it always exported to us at a price which the British consumer can afford.

Although I appreciate my right hon. Friend's efforts, does he not feel that those efforts will probably be blocked by the EEC? Are the New Zealanders satisfied with the cavalier fashion in which they have been brushed off? After all, they fought for us in two world wars.

I am not altogether sure that that last basis is one that comes into the hard-headed calculation of Agriculture Ministers. I hope that it will always come into ours. Dealing with my hon. Friend's first point, I hope that the brush-off of which my hon. Friend talks will at least be softened, if not totally avoided, by the fact that New Zealand farmers have the loyalty, friendship and kinship of Her Majesty's Government and the people of this country.

Will the Minister give attention to one aspect of the proposed sheepmeat regime, whereby what is called a safeguard clause might be introduced to allow the Community to stop all imports from, for instance, New Zealand at very short notice? Is that necessary, in view of the serious impact that it may have on New Zealand lamb exports?

It is very good to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. If such a proposal were made, the Government would wish to resist it, because it would be totally wrong, in our view.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is considering taking under the 1976 Hague Agreement to conserve fishing stocks.

I am currently discussing with the Commission and representatives of the fishermen what further conservation measures may be necessary.

Will the Minister set his sights a little higher and see whether he can achieve a situation whereby natural resources under the bottom of the sea are treated in the same way as those in the sea? Why should the median line be regarded as the natural way of dealing with oil and gas when such a median line concept has never entered into any fishing discussions?

The hon. Member tempts me. The real answer is that the Treaty of Accession, which I would not wish to have signed, in fact produced the exact difficulty about which he speaks. But certainly I am willing to set my sights much higher. This aspect of the fish question was a matter which was given away at the time of the Treaty of Accession and which we hope to get back for our people. The proper conservation of fishstocks is a matter that we can teach the rest of the Community to carry out one way or the other.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the existing measures to conserve herring stocks? If he is not, what further steps does he intend to take?

In general, the answer is "Yes", since there is a ban on herring fishing in the North Sea. There are still discussions going on with the Isle of Man, which is the relevant authority, and with the fishermen in the area about what might be done with regard to the herring stock there.

Since most of the emphasis now is understandably placed on the conservation of fish stocks, will the Minister assure the House that in dealing with this very important subject he has not lost sight of his undertaking, which earned commendation everywhere, to reserve and preserve an exclusive area for English fishermen round our coasts?

I answered a question about that a moment ago, when I was asked what were my minimum demands. I pointed out that they were what they always were and that I was waiting for the other eight to come towards us. I have not moved one inch in that direction myself.

Has not the time come actually to do something? Does not the Minister think that it would be a helpful way of propelling the discussions along to indicate some positive measures that he might take and to give a clear date when he would introduce them?

Probably the right hon. Member was not listening in February when I introduced the national measures that are now in existence. Perhaps, too, he did not hear the reply which I gave originally to his hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James), when I said that discussions were going on with the Commission. This is the point. We may have to take unilateral conservation measures in our own waters—that is a matter that we must consider—but clearly it is better, if we can, to get all the member states to co-operate. To my mind, that is not urgent at the moment, but it is much better to try to get an agreed solution. If it does not happen, we shall consider that course. Among the other outstanding conservation measures is the extension of the Norwegian pout box, with which I agree. But there, the crucial scientific evidence is that that relates to a period from October onwards. So there is time to deal with that. Otherwise there is the herring fishery off the Isle of Man, as I mentioned a moment ago, which requires consultation with the Isle of Man authorities and with the fishing industry, and that dates from August onwards.

I do not want to add to the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in negotiations which are already hard enough, but will he now say when he thinks that it would be reasonable for him actually to introduce specific measures of conservation?

Let me remind the right hon. Member. I said a moment ago that in February—only last month—I had introduced a number of national conservation measures. He must be aware of those measures. They included, to quote an example, the closure of the pout box. They dealt with by-catches, mesh sizes, and so on. Of course, I shall bring forward measures and tell this House about them at the due moment. I still think that it is worthwhile to spend a little time seeing whether those measures can be imposed throughout the waters of all the member States of the Community. I should say that whether we were in the Community or not, because it is more effective to have those measures on a global basis. But I agree with what the right hon. Member hinted at—that the Commission's previous proposals are totally unacceptable, because they are totally negative.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next attend a meeting of the Agriculture Economic Development Council.

My Department is regularly represented by officials at meetings of the Economic Development Committee for Agriculture. I attend the National Economic Development Council when necessary.

Does the Minister accept that the biggest obstacle to farming confidence in the short term is the green pound differential and in the longterm capital taxation? When he does attend a meeting of the agriculture committee will he explain why his Government appear to regard cheap food as a right and cheap anything else as a threat? Will he also explain how the proposed wealth tax will help British agriculture?

I hope that in the next two years, or whenever it is, that will appear in the election manifesto of the hon. Member for Kidderminster. The hon. Member is out of date. The House asked the Government to devalue the green pound by 7½ per cent. some weeks ago. To try to make a parity between the green pound and the actual pound—which is something that the hon. Member would like to do over two or three years—would be to add about 6½ per cent. to the cost of food here.

Can my right hon. Friend make an assessment with the Committee on how the common agriculture policy has had an effect on prices in this country? Will he discuss with EEC Ministers the effect on our dairy industry if we had to adopt the Continental style of milk distribution?

Those concerned are well aware—we have stated it often enough—that the real problem is high prices. These are totally linked to the unacceptable structural surpluses, particularly in the dairy industry. It might be nice to have 400,000 tons of butter in store, but peope would prefer to have it on their bread.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive a report on the examination of developments in the livestock export trade since it was resumed in 1975, and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet received the results of the review of the export of live animals for slaughter.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister told the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) on 14th March, the report of the official working group has now been submitted and will be published in full.

Does the Minister appreciate the great public interest in this subject? What is in this report that he is ashamed to publish so that the public and farmers can read it? Can we not make a decision even to publish something for a change?

The hon. Member may not have heard me. I said that the Government are publishing the report in full. We are doing our best to have it printed before the Easter Recess.

Will the Minister bear in mind that any ban for humanitarian purposes on the export of live animals would result in a ban on imports? Then where would we be?

I am not sure that I follow the logic of that question. I assure the hon. Member that all these aspects are considered in the report. There will be time for consideration of it, and the Government will then make a decision.

Will my hon. Friend resist those who try to persuade him that this matter can be controlled by regulations? Does he agree that once consignments of animals have left this country we can never effectively enforce regulations? Does he accept that the only solution is to reintroduce the ban?

I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for many. At the same time, he will appreciate that the Government wish to consider all views on the report before reaching a decision.

Will the Government announce the decision about the export trade at the same time as publishing the report? Alternatively, will they allow public discussion after publication of the report?

I am glad to confirm that we shall allow a short period after publication so that hon. Members and other interested parties can comment on it before the Government reach a decision.

Does my hon. Friend realise that those who have followed this matter and who listened to the advice of the Opposition Front Bench that we should achieve humanitarian measures by legislation have since realised that we were wrong? Does he appreciate that we feel deeply about this matter? Does he agree that it is time that the ban was reintroduced, because it is not possible to enforce regulations once the animals have left our shores?

My hon. Friend has taken an interest in the issue for a long time. I can assure him that his views, and those of others, will be taken into account.

Will the Minister do his utmost to ensure that the report is debated in the House? In the meantime, will he give an assurance that animals are not sent to those countries in which humane slaughter is not practised?

I appreciate the hon. Member's concern. He will recognise that the question when we have a debate is a matter for the Leader of the House.

asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich East (Mr. Cartwright) on 28th February.

Is the Prime Minister aware that Lucas Aerospace is to announce further redundancies in the North-West, thus adding to the serious unemployment in that region? Will he discuss with the TUC the shop stewards' corporate plan, which is a positive step forward, in that it makes imaginative proposals for products for peace and employment? Will he seek to remove the log-jam that is preventing that from taking place?

I shall look into the plan. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to inquire into it. I assume that the firm will be discussing the matter with the trade unions.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the action of a TUC affiliated union—the National Union of Teachers—is causing widespread disruption in our schools? Worse than that, is he aware that large numbers of schoolchildren are being left to run around the streets because they have no schools to go to to learn, and the parents of many are working? Will the Prime Minister invite the TUC to ask the teachers to go back to work so that this matter can be discussed in a more peaceful and quiet atmosphere than is possible with the dangers and stresses in many of our towns and cities today?

I am constantly being invited to pass moral strictures from the Dispatch Box, but I am not sure how much good they do. The teachers have referred this matter to arbitration. When I was a trade unionist and was negotiating, the principle always was that when a matter had been referred to arbitration those involved waited for the verdict of the arbitrators before they took action.

When he next meets the TUC will my right hon. Friend discuss its attitude to the November increase in child benefit rates? Is he aware that there is a strong feeling on the Government Benches that this would be the best and most effective way to provide better support for families with children?

I believe that the TUC has made its view clear. There will be an increase in child benefits in April this year from which every mother will benefit. There will be some offset because of the withdrawal of the child tax benefit, and that process is to be continued until April 1979. I cannot give an answer now because the matter is bound up with other budgetary considerations.

Will the Prime Minister remind the leaders of the TUC that all their members are paying 84 per cent. more in retail prices than they were when he took office?

TUC members are well aware that the Government's policies are having a satisfactory effect in terms of reducing the rate of inflation. If I were to use the figure quoted by the hon. Member I am sure that the TUC members would respond by replying that that is true but that when the Conservatives left office inflation was going up and now it is going down.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 16th March.

This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial collagues and others.

When the Prime Minister meets his ministerial colleagues will he congratulate the Secretary of State for Employment on the excellent statement that he made to the House yesterday? Will he express to him the appreciation of those who represent areas that rely on the textile, clothing and footwear industries, which will benefit from the job release scheme? Although we express our anxiety about the continuing high level of unemployment, we also express our appreciation of the prodigious efforts that the Government are making.

Give him a little job.

If my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not take care, I shall offer him one. I think that the House as a whole, whatever views it takes about individual matters, will conclude, as it did yesterday, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has devised a number of very important schemes, some more valuable than others, which are having a substantial effect on preventing people from simply going on the dole. Taking the TES as a classic case, one should note that in the North-West and in the clothing and footwear industries it has made a remarkable difference to the workers.

Will the Prime Minister today, before his visit to Scotland, elaborate on his statement in the Glasgow Herald this morning, which indicates that 6,500 jobs are to go to Glasgow via the Ministries of Defence and Overseas Development? Will he give us a firm time for this and indicate how many of the staff will be recruited locally?

The hon. Lady is right to say that a substantial number of jobs will be going from England to Scotland because of regional dispersal policy. I remind her that if Scotland were independent it is doubtful whether the same process would take place.

Will my right hon. Friend, whilst accepting my congratulations on the TES, note the growing concern about unemployment in the North-West and in manufacturing industries particularly? Does this not point to the need for planning agreements, and should we not make them compulsory?

I believe that planning agreements would have a valuable effect in bringing workers into a full knowledge of the proposals and plans of the industries in which they work and in allowing them to make comments on the plans and, in certain circumstances, to influence decisions. However, I cannot say that that would have the result of reducing unemployment. It is worth noting that at present unemployment is going down. It has fallen for five months in succession and I believe that that trend may well continue. I believe, too, that the number of vacancies is going up. Unemployment is still far too high, and that is one reason why I am pursuing contacts with leaders throughout the Western world to see whether we can get concerted action to overcome the problem of the more than 16 million people now out of work in OECD countries.

Is it not an extraordinary state of affairs when the Prime Minister can be congratulated by his Back Benchers on achieving a state of unemployment of 1·4 million, with another 400,000 people having to be subsidised in jobs—a potential total of 1·9 million unemployed under a Government who talked about "Back to Work with Labour"?

Hear, hear.

I do not think that that is a matter for congratulation, but those who cheer that statement should reflect on what the levels of unemployment would be if subsidies were abolished, if grants were done away with, and if the whole policy of the Conservative Party of cutting public expenditure even more were carried out. We should be talking then about 3 million unemployed.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 16th March.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).

Will the Prime Minister explain to the House his Government's cowardly and craven failure to instruct the Permanent Representative at the United Nations, Mr. Ivor Richard, to veto the Security Council resolution on Rhodesia last Monday?

That has been explained, but I shall try to instruct the hon. Gentleman again. We believe that the Anglo-American plan offers the best opportunity of bringing in the Patriotic Front, which, as the Leader of the Opposition said recently, is important, and will be the best way of solving this problem. We do not believe that the present plan as it stands and as it has been conceived internally is likely to achieve that end. For that reason, therefore, although we think it is an important step forward, we did not think it right to veto it in the Security Council and we are continuing to work to bring the parties together.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on the Labour Benches welcome his initiative on the world economy, but does he agree that we need a wide-ranging package to tackle the very difficult problems of international growth, international trade, international monetary stability and international liquidity?

For about 18 months I have been endeavouring to get other world leaders to see the necessity for common action in this area, and I believe that there are now growing signs of a desire to take common action. It is my ambition to see whether we can construct a plan which would be based on the approaches of all countries in time for the July Summit in Bonn. The world needs not only the series of measures that my hon. Friend has described but a feeling that the world's major economies are taking a grip on the problems, so that confidence can grow. There is a necessity for that, I believe, especially in the United States and in some countries on the Continent.

Why does the Prime Minister always blame the world economy for this country's faults? Is he not aware that most of our competitors have done far better than we have in terms of growth productivity and unemployment, and with far lower taxes than we have? Would it not be better to remedy the faults in his own economic policy in this country than to look overseas for our salvation?

I try to do both—that is to say, I never fail to point out the need for higher productivity in this country, or the need for greater efficiency and aggression in our salesmanship overseas. But the right hon. Lady should not try to extract the mote from my eye before she extracts the beam from her own. There is a substantial international dimension to the problem of world trade and world prosperity, and I hope that one day she will recognise that.