asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with representatives of the fishing industry about fishing for blue whiting.

My officials keep in close touch with the industry about the exploitation of the blue whiting fishery.

Is the Minister aware of the great contribution that blue whiting could make to the British fishing industry both industrially and for human consumption? Is he aware that other EEC countries assist their fishing industries in research into the use and catching of blue whiting? Is he aware that just 20 hours-worth of British Steel money would be of inestimable value to the British fishing industry?

Why blue whiting?

I largely agree with the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton). Blue whiting is a species of major importance and one which, in the years ahead, could help to offset the reduction in the United Kingdom of other species that are in shorter supply. On operating aid for blue whiting fishing, no convincing case for direct aid has been made at present but the Ministry and the Government have, in various ways, given significant aid. We have given about £1·4 million in the last four years and there will be a further input in the 1978 season.

Blue whiting may have a role in the future, but will the Minister turn his attention in the present to the immediate problem of mesh net sizes being used by the French, Belgian and Danish fishermen—

That is another question completely. We must have fair play.

All right, Mr. Speaker, may 1 put another question? What is the Minister doing about mesh net sizes—

Order. We are dealing with blue whiting.

I thought that the hon. Member might have referred to the fact that we are undertaking very significant work in research into blue whiting, and the filleting and processing problems in the Torry research station at Aberdeen. On his particular question, I remind him that this is a matter which the Minister and many others are pursuing earnestly in the common fisheries policy review that is now taking place.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in agreeing a new system for calculating monetary compensatory amounts.

The Commission has not submitted formal proposals to change the market rate used for the calculation of monetary compensatory amounts following its report on the European unit of account. It has promised to make proposals for changes in the calculation of the MCAs of some individual products, including pigmeat, in time for decisions to be reached in the context of the prices package.

Is the Minister aware that my farming constituents, particularly those involved in pig production, view this matter with exasperation and bewilderment? Is he further aware that there is unfair competition from the Danes and others who are heavily subsidised through the system? Will he be more forthcoming and give a forecast of when he believes this matter will be resolved?

Not only the hon. Gentleman's constituents but many people throughout the United Kingdom feel this way. As the hon. Member knows, we have been pressing for a proper and reasonable recalculation of the pigmeat and other MCAs which distort competition so much. What makes a slight difference now is that the Commission has promised to put proposals on the table for the first time. Also, we are not alone any more; the French and Italians are with us on this. If I am to make a forecast, I have no doubt that there will be some change—I hope a beneficial one—in the prices package.

Will my right hon. Friend make clear in Brussels that while these proposals are dribbling around large sections of our meat processing industry are being severely mauled by heavily subsidised imports from countries such as Denmark? Will he make clear that unless there is speedy action to alter this iniquitous system, Britain will reserve the right to take its own national action?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on an important point. It is not so much the question of a green pound change, for example, which affects processors, because all that does for them is to put up the price of the raw material. They need a recalculation, and I agree that it is vital that we have one.

Irrespective of any proposals put forward by the Commission, has the right hon. Gentleman worked out how these monetary compensatory amounts should be recalculated, and will he make a statement to the House on what he thinks should be done?

I have on many occasions, and rather boringly, described the pig as a walking cereal, because that is what it is from the point of view of production. I have many times said to the House and, more specifically, to the Council, that in the calculation of MCAs pigs should be regarded in the same way as poultry, namely, as a walking cereal. This has been the French view recently and they have been making it strongly. On the other hand, I must wait to see the Commission's proposals, because if the Commissioner carries out what he has said he will do, there will be a basis for some alleviation.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the MCAs are tied to the calculation of the unit of account itself, and will he tell us what prospects there are of untying the unit of account from the snake and bringing it in line with the basket? Is that a possibility?

The trouble with a Question Time of this sort is that the technical language gets a little difficult for outside people to understand, but there is great merit in what my hon. Friend said. Put another way, if the common price level in the Community were tied to the three weakest currencies, it would have the majority of population and majority of area within its scope. At present, it is tied to the strongest currency and to the smallest area in the Community.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the Leader of the House that the Scrutiny Committee picked out this difficult and important subject for debate as long ago as November? Time has passed. Will he press the Leader of the House, whose interest in these matters is not as great as it might be, for an early debate on a matter which is doing very great damage to our livestock industry?

I have known my right hon. Friend for many years and I have always assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that he had a greater affection for debates in the Chamber than for debates upstairs. That has semed to be his philosophical view. Therefore, I think that he has taken this matter very much into account, but I shall draw it to his attention, as the right hon. Gentleman has raised the point again.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made with his Department's review of the Food and Drugs Acts; and when a consultative document will be published.

The Government's review of the Food and Drugs Acts is making steady progress. It is hoped to publish the consultative document at about the end of the year.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give an assurance that in view of its vital importance to the food industry he consulted the Food and Drinks Industries' Council and the other appropriate bodies at each stage during the review of this legislation?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to have an official meeting with his counterparts in the other EEC member States.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he plans to meet the EEC Commissioner for Agriculture.

I shall attend a meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers next week and I expect that Commissioner Gundelach will also be present.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Can he make any comment on the Commission's latest sheepmeat proposals, with particular reference to New Zealand?

I do not think that the sheepmeat question will be coming up during the discussion of the prices package. I do not think that it possibly can. Therefore, there will be plenty of time to consider it before the proposals are discussed by the Council.

Will my right hon. Friend make clear to the Commissioner that the Government expect not only a modification of, but fundamental changes in, the common agricultural policy and that they will not rest until they achieve these changes?

I had a feeling that we were already starting those changes and that, to some extent, the atmosphere was beginning to change inside the Commission and the Council chamber, to the extent that they were moving much more towards the position that we have advocated many times in the House. How- ever, I agree that the process is only at the beginning and that it has a long way to go.

When my right hon. Friend meets his counterparts, will he draw their attention to the fact that the Australian Prime Minister, who was originally a supporter of the EEC, has now called it a narrow, self-interested trading group, seeking to make the rest of the world dance to its tune, and has pointed out that Australian exports of food to the EEC in the last four years have declined by 80 per cent.? Does my right hon. Friend not think that something should be done for Australia, which, like New Zealand, fought for us in two world wars?

I have never had the slightest doubt that there is as much of an obligation to Australia as to any other of our Commonwealth countries and, because of that, it has always seemed to me that we must consider carefully the Australian complaint that at the time of our entry to the EEC they were told that this would merely mean that they would have to diversify their market, that perhaps that might not be a bad thing and that it would be easy, though they would no longer have the United Kingdom market that they had once had. In fact, their exports went down from 46 per cent. to 6 per cent.

When the Minister next meets his counterparts to coninue discussion of a common fisheries policy, will he bear in mind the importance of this House having the opportunity to know and, if necessary, to debate in advance the many detailed proposals that are being put into a package on the common fisheries policy, which does not consist exclusively of the question of fishing limits?

There is a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman said. As one approaches this problem, one sees how important the details are and how near they come to questions of principle. I shall certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance that at the forthcoming meeting he will hold firmly to his stand on the 50-mile limit? What success, if any, does he forecast will be achieved at the meeting?

I doubt that at this meeting there will be anything more than a series of bilateral discussions, as there were at the last Fisheries Council. I do not think that there has yet been a sufficient meeting of minds to enable one to define a common fisheries policy—at least on the basis that we would like. However, being by nature optimistic, of course I believe that we shall succeed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his review of the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".

The review of the White Paper is both wide-ranging and thorough, and the industry has not yet supplied us with all the relevant evidence. We hope the review will be completed by the early summer, and are giving consideration to the form in which its conclusions should be made public.

As previous forecasts and targets by the Government have turned out to be farcically over-optimistic, why should farmers have any confidence in this latest exercise?

The best answer to that is probably to be found in the Budget. We must bear in mind that we have recently had the best farmers' Budget since the war. My right hon. Friend's breakthrough on tax averaging has received an unqualified welcome from the farming unions.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the variations of agricultural production in recent years have been more reflective of variations in weather than anything else? Does he expect the Conservative Party to promise farmers good weather at the next General Election?

Everyone knows that the main reason for production levels being well below what we believed the industry could achieve was the adverse weather in 1975 and, especially, the exceptional drought of 1976. I agree that it is not possible to lay down specific production targets for individual years, and the White Paper did not do this.

If the Under-Secretary of State and the Government are to honour their objectives in "Food from Our Own Resources", does he agree that his right hon. Friend will have to declare to his colleagues and counterparts in the Council of Agricultural Ministers in Europe that there is a desperate crisis in the pig industry, and that unless there is a recalculation of the MCAs immediately irreparable damage will be done to the industry, which will be damaging to the housewife and consumer in the United Kingdom?

The hon. Gentleman must realise by now that my right hon. Friend is fully seized of the serious situation in the pig industry. He has been repeatedly raising the issue in the Community and modifications have been achieved in recent months in the calculation of the MCAs. The present position is still totally unsatisfactory, and that is why my right hon. Friend emphasised again, earlier this afternoon, that having persuaded the Commission to bring forward proposals we are determined to ensure that these are agreed as part of the prices package.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are to increase production from the land of Britain, especially from the hill and marginal lands, we shall have to spend more money on research? Is he aware that we are spending less money on research on agriculture than on any other industry in Britain? Has he any plans to give more financial aid to the research stations?

I cannot accept that we are spending less money on research in agriculture than on research in any other industry. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that agricultural research and development is enormously important. As the nature of our agriculture industry is one of relatively small units, responsibility for carrying out research lies, to a large extent, with the Government and Government establishments.

Does my hon. Friend agree that two objectives of the White Paper were maximising consumer choice and employment? Therefore, will he do everything that he can to assist today's talks to ensure that work-sharing within the breadmaking industry is undertaken, thereby safeguarding several thousand redundancies that otherwise will take place at Spillers French?

My hon. Friend refers to important negotiations that are taking place in relation to Spillers and he will be aware that the Government have expressed support for a reduction in the working week for bakers in these circumstances.

In redrafting this interesting document, will the hon. Gentleman recall that the major gap in "Food from Our Own Resources" was any reference to how the objectives would be achieved? This time it is incumbent upon the Government to fill that gap.

Surely the way to achieve the objective of increasing agricultural production in the United Kingdom is to provide the right framework of confidence for producers to expand and increase production. Even the right hon. Gentleman might be prepared to acknowledge that the statement last week by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer represents a tremendous advance in this area. It represents an important breakthrough in tax averaging, but in addition there is the increase in the buildings allowance and important additional roll-over provisions on capital gains tax.

I should hate to be unfair. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise this, I should like to say that we salute the rather fragmentary death-bed repentance on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

That grudging comment is a reflection on the stance of Her Majesty's Opposition. It contrasts sharply with the official statements that have been issued by the farming unions.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements have been made for the marketing of potatoes grown during the coming season.

The Government are discussing with the interests concerned the best approach to marketing and support arrangements for the 1978 potato crop, and in particular are considering the new stabilisation and insurance system which the producers' organisations have suggested. In view of the uncertainties about the timing and content of an EEC regime for potatoes and the future of our import ban on main crop potatoes, my right hon. Friend does not expect to be able to announce a decision until the summer.

Is the Minister aware that this is a most unsatisfactory situation? Is he further aware that it costs farmers nearly £600 an acre to produce a good crop of potatoes, and that uncertainty about whether they will be able to sell them, and at what price, may have a serious effect upon our home crop? Will he use all his persuasion to try to get the matter clarified and resolved before the summer, whenever he thinks the summer may be?

I agree that the position is unsatisfactory. We are well aware of the situation. I have been made aware of it not least by the farmers in my constituency who are in touch with me. We recognise the real problems that they face. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Potato Marketing Board has already given some guidance to the industry on the 1978 crop, especially on the target acreage, to avoid a surplus. There is no doubt that Her Majesty's Government have pressed the Commission as hard as possible to try to achieve a resolution of the matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that although we want early answers to the questions that we are facing, we want to get the right answers. That is important if producers are to have confidence to produce and, at the same time, consumers are to have reasonable prices.

Does my right hon. Friend remember the correspondence that I had with him recently on the problem of farmers pulling up potatoes that were not moved sufficiently fast and were found to be rotting in the bags? Will he explain to the House that that is the responsibility of the Potato Marketing Board? Has he drawn its attention to the problem, so that next year we shall not have any complaints from farmers such as those that I received?

We are sensitive to the problem that my hon. Friend mentioned. That is why we are sensitive about the need to keep in perspective the uptake of the Potato Marketing Board.

Does the Minister realise that this Question is linked with the previous Question about "Food from Our Own Resources"? Why is that? It is because of the uncertainty that arises from the Government in not telling British agriculture what they really want. What do they want in food production? What do they want in marketing? The Government must stop this uncertainty and bring forward proposals.

If the hon. Gentleman is fair, he will accept that the uncertainty is due entirely to the fact that the transitional stages in the EEC have not yet been resolved. We have been pressing hard for the resolution of these problems for the very reasons that he stated. We have said that the guarantee for the 1977 crop will be honoured. Guidelines have been laid down by the Potato Marketing Board. We are doing our best with the Community to resolve the situation as speedily as we can.

Will my right hon. Friend try to make it clear to Opposition Members that we have no choice and that the ambivalent attitude of the Commission towards the Potato Marketing Board is evidence that it does not want the Board to be reorganised in an orderly fashion? Will he also tell Opposition Members that it is putting a punitive tax on early potatoes from our traditional suppliers to make it impossible for the housewives to buy them at reasonable prices?

My hon. Friend has certainly stated a few true factors in relation to this matter. I think that both she and the House will realise that the import ban that we have imposed on main crop potatoes is still in force and that the matter is still being looked at by the Commission and the European Court. Until that matter is resolved, we cannot say with certainty what the future will be.

As the farmers who grow potatoes are emerging from a season in which their total returns have been more than 10 per cent. lower than the guaranteed price for the previous year, and as there is no price guarantee for the year to come and no firm idea of what the state of the market base will be, what does the right hon. Gentleman think will be the effect on lower plantings this year and the possibility of much higher prices for potatoes later in the year? Will he understand that the Opposition feel that the Government should have shown much more vigour in avoiding this very difficult situation?

There is no lack of vigour on the part of the Government in pressing this matter. The reason for the uncertainty is entirely in the hands of the Community. With our present support arrangements, we have to balance the needs of the Market with the interests of the producers. We want to make sure that the producer gets a fair return, or he will not produce, and, if the price is too high, the consumer will not buy. Those two matters must be kept in focus. However, it is a matter for the Community, not for us.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the report of the official working group on the export of live animals for food.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the report of the official working group on the export of live food animals.

My right hon. Friend the Minister expects to make a statement in the House in due course, when all those with an interest in this subject have had the opportunity to study the report and to form their views.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this report clearly puts far too much emphasis on the profitability of the trade and not enough on the welfare of animals? Does he agree that the major conclusion—that the majority of animals are not subject to stress or left for long periods without food and water—shows an indefensible level of complacency?

My hon. Friend has made some points which we shall have to take into account. But I think that he will recognise that the Government are considering this report and will not reach any conclusions until they have had the views of interested parties, including hon. Members.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if a tiny fraction of the compassion shown by all EEC Governments to farmers were to be given to farm animals being exported in this cruel way this trade would not exist? Does he also agree that more and more people in this country are demanding the ending of this trade, including workers who will lose jobs in abattoirs and in food processing, which is work which should be in this country, not abroad?

I have to acknowledge that some progress has been made in the Community generally on animal welfare. But I accept that, as my hon. Friend said, there is great concern in this country on this question. That is why my right hon. Friend called for this review and why we are giving careful consideration to all the points made, including those made by my hon. Friend.

Am I right in saying that the members who comprise this committe are all employed in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Would it not have given much greater confidence to the vast number of people outside and across the Floor of the House who consider this a very grave matter if some outside people had been included? Will the Minister give an undertaking that this matter will be debated in the near future and that he will be prepared to tell the House about the proposals for the transport of animals in Europe after August?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's observations. It was not so long since we had the O'Brien Committee, which was an outside committee along the lines indicated by the hon. Gentleman. This was a review carried out by Ministry civil servants who took into account all the evidence which was submitted to them. That report has now been published. I think that hon. Members will welcome that as a good example of open government. Ministers are not committed to the conclusions in that report, but they will reach their decisions as a result of the report and the comments which they receive on it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress made towards the equalisation of the costs of fuel used by glasshouse growers in the United Kingdom and other countries in the EEC.

The cost of oil to British growers does not differ greatly from the cost of that used in other EEC countries, although Dutch growers still derive some benefit from their onshore resources of natural gas. The Dutch Government are already engaged on a programme of equalisation of gas and oil prices and full equalisation should be achieved in just under a year's time.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Dutch producers have enjoyed, are enjoying and will continue to enjoy, unless something is done about it, lower prices for their fuel than British producers will have to put up with for the oil equivalent? In these circumstances, is it not high time that some unilateral action was taken to end this unfair competition and to give our efficient producers the opportunity of being able to sell their products on a level with the Dutch?

No one has been a more persistent campaigner in this area than my hon. Friend. It is a reflection of his efforts and those of the British Government that we have achieved a situation where the Commission has communicated with the Dutch Government and that they have embarked on this equalisation programme. By 1st April next year they will have equalised their gas and oil prices, which is what my hon. Friend is seeking.

How can the Minister make such a statement? Is he aware that the NFU has produced evidence that gas in Holland costs 9·2p per therm and that gas in the United Kingdom costs 17·7p per therm? Even related to oil prices, there is a big difference. Will he take a personal interest, get the facts clearly in mind, and do something about it?

We are taking a very great interest in this matter. We have achieved a policy of equalisation of gas and oil prices. Hon. Members must accept that gas is much cheaper in Holland, because it is an onshore source. Notwithstanding that, the price has been increased to bring it into line with that of oil.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of staff employed in his Department at the latest available date.

14,799 on 1st March 1978, but some 660 were transferred to the Welsh Office on 1st April.

Is the Minister aware that, in view of the latest Common Market regulations, farmers now have to keep log books for all journeys within even 25 miles of their farms? As farmers in my constituency do not have the kind of staff whom the Minister employs, will he use his best endeavours to ensure that the time of farmers is spent more constructively and profitably than keeping black books about short journeys from field to field?

There are quite a number of directives and regulations that would interest me and that I ought to keep an eye on, but that might not leave me much time to do anything else. It was recently pointed out to me that, whereas the Ten Commandments occupied under 200 words and the Declaration of Independence under 500 words, the Common Market directive on duck eggs occupied 120,000 words.

On the subject of jobs, will my right hon. Friend see what further steps he can take to save jobs in the baking industry following the Spillers dispute?

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary touched on this point. It is a matter in which there is great concern, in particular in my hon. Friend's constituency, where there is a grave danger of loss of work. As a result, I have made contact with the employers, who are meeting the Bakers' Union today, and asked for their assurance that they are prepared to agree to a five-day working week. I have that assurance. That at least will be a start. Other prospects may open up. Certainly both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I will do everything that we can.

Will the Minister let the House know what his views are on the suggestion for ADAS that it might broaden the sphere of its operation to include marketing functions? Will this not lead to an increase in civil servants and duplication of service and be yet a further burden on the taxpayer?

There are a number of matters on the role of ADAS that still need to be clarified and a number of suggestions of which the hon. Gentleman may be aware. I say two things about ADAS. First, every farmer I meet tells me how worthwhile the organisation is. Secondly, every farmer I meet bitterly regrets my Conservative predecessor's cutting of the organisation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of grain has been imported into the United Kingdom from EEC countries during the last 12 months; and what would have been the saving to the United Kingdom balance of payments had this grain been imported from other sources, free of EEC levies.

Total United Kingdom imports of cereals originating in the member countries of the EEC for the 12 months ending February 1978 amounted to 2·8 million tonnes. As there is no single world price for any cereal, and because prices differ according to quality and variety, it is impossible reliably to estimate the balance of payments saving which would have ensued had alternative supplies to this grain been imported, free of EEC levies, from third countries.

Does the Minister agree that that answer is singularly unsatisfactory, as it does not tell us the truth about these imports? According to other information that I have received, the cost, in terms of EEC levies, of the current importation of unmilled cereals from the EEC by compulsion is about £195 million a year. Those grains are coming in at prices to the British taxpayer and British consumer which are double the average of the available unmilled cereal prices in the rest of the world.

The reply may be unsatisfactory on the basis of my hon. Friend's Question—I think that it would be helpful if we could assess what the differences are—but he should appreciate that variable levies are designed to protect our producers within the Community and to provide some form of stability and confidence. We had these objectives before. I make two points about our policy. We are seeking to obtain reasonable prices within the Community, and therefore lower prices. We also want to help liberalisation of trade with third countries.

Does the Minister regard the markedly increased import of sugar from EEC countries in the last year as desirable? Will he assure the House that the output of home beet growers will be preserved, and also the special position, in this country, of Commonwealth producers?

The hon. Gentleman has misread the Question, which refers to grain. However, if it is helpful to him I shall write to him on the question that he wishes to ask.

As the EEC Commission's own agricultural board shows that these import levies on wheat, maize and barley are all running at about 100 per cent., is it not obvious that this must be adding to the cost of food in this country?

I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the reply that I have given, which is that one has to protect our own producers. At the same time, the two points that I have already made will, if we can make progress on them, make a substantial contribution to saving and to liberalisation, which is another factor.

As the Minister of State has told us that we imported 2·8 million tonnes in the past year, would it not give a fairer and complete picture if he were to refer also to the exports of grain from this country? Am I not right in thinking that we exported almost 1 million tonnes in the first three months of this year alone?

These are factors which have to be taken into account, but the main Question was about the cost of grain coming into the country through the levy system.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations with regard to the recalculation of pig-meat monetary compensatory amounts.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in persuading the Council of Ministers to agree to changes in the manner in which pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts are calculated.

The Commission has promised to make proposals for revising the calculation of pigmeat MCAs in time for them to be considered in the context of the price package.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we have been hearing for three years the same tune, that the MCAs are to be recalculated? Now that we are seeing the £ sterling plummeting again, does it not underline the wisdom of the Opposition's case for revaluing the green pound as being the only way, in the long term, that we shall save the pig industry?

It has absolutely nothing to do with the green pound as it is at the moment. Had there been, as the Tory Party suggested, a simultaneous devaluation of the green pound in pig-meat and in cereals the result would have been disastrous. The real question is that of recalculating the MCAs. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should be very careful about the Opposition's views on the green pound. Parity—which the Conservative Party is talking about—over the next two or three years means an increase of 6p to 6½p in the pound in the shopping basket.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the subsidy on Danish bacon sides imported into this country has increased from £192 per tonne, just after the 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound, to £280 now? Is this classical piece of unfair competition the result of the Government's agricultural policy or its economic policy?

It is the result of the need for a recalculation of the MCAs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not listen. If one had adopted the Opposition's view at that time the cereal price would also have increased.

Will my right hon. Friend cease using the Dispatch Box to try to educate Opposition Members? Will he now conduct a seminar for them, so that they can get it clear in their minds that it is a question not just of the green pound but of the monetary compensatory amounts? Will he conduct the long educative meetings elsewhere than in the Chamber, so that we can have more sensible questions asked?

At the next meeting of the Council, will the right hon. Gentleman combine with the French and Italian Ministers to bring pressure upon the coalition of the German and Danish Ministers in this matter? For far too long reasonable arguments have been stalled.

But progress has been made, because the Commission, in answer to us—it is true that the French and Italians are now backing us on this, which I welcome—has promised to bring forward its proposals. I share with the right hon. Gentleman the view that it is time that this matter was brought to a conclusion.

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

I met representatives of the TUC on 28th February. Further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the TUC that the one good feature of the secret Conservative report on confrontation with the unions is that it apparently gives the short shrift that it deserves to the belief of the Leader of the Opposition that a referendum would be a useful weapon in the Tory armoury? Is it not disturbing that the Conservative Party is apparently thinking in terms of confrontation when our own experience over the past four years shows that co-operation with the unions is not only possible but is very beneficial to the whole country?

Unless and until the Opposition decide to publish this document, I have no particular knowledge of it. However, if it is true that it is pointing in the opposite direction, namely, that there should be no confrontation, it is high time that the Conservative Party revised its whole approach to trade unions. The great misfortune of British politics is that the Conservative Party seems to have come to the conclusion that it cannot beat the trade unions, but its distaste for them is such that it cannot co-operate with them, either.

Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us are dismayed by the reception given yesterday to Mr. Weighell and Mr. Jackson at the Scottish Trades Union conference? Will he make it clear in future meetings with the TUC that the Government are determined to stick to a fourth phase of pay policy, preferably by agreement with the trade unions?

I am not yet in a position to discuss what happens when the present phase of pay policy is over. I note that Mr. Weighell and Mr. Jackson are in the public sector. In this sector the Government have a special responsibility and must take a view about pay. The comments that have been made—by Mr. Basnett, for example—emanate mostly from trade union leaders in the public sector. We should discuss these matters with them, but it would be wrong at this stage to do anything except to try to win through on the current pay round. Then we should be able, as we are now increasingly able, to present the trade union movement with the statement that inflation is going down, and will stay well in single figures, and that much will depend upon our being able to maintain it in single figures during 1979.

When he next meets the TUC will my right hon. Friend discuss the implications of his "Buy British" speech at Huddersfield, with special regard to the news that British Airways wish to buy foreign aircraft? Will he make sure that the TUC and trade unionists are reassured by the fact that the Government will be influencing British Airways over this matter?

In reply to the general point, I, with my colleagues, have been giving a good deal of attention to the subject of "buying British". Although I am strongly in favour of that concept I must emphasise that the British goods must be in the shops and elsewhere if they are to be bought. Therefore, perhaps we should start with the relationship between suppliers and those who sell the goods. I hope to have more to say about that matter later.

When the Prime Minister meets the TUC, will he discuss the increasing shortage of young people coming forward for training in engineering skills? The Budget has done nothing to provide incentives for young people or anybody else to take up skilled training? Is this not related to our low level of productivity? When will he do something about the situation?

I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman make that comment, because I understood that the Engineering Training Board was carrying out a very good job and maintaining the level of training and engineering during this recession at a higher level than had been maintained earlier. However, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I shall examine the matter further.

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

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould).

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC will he further remind it of the firm and courageous support given by the Government to British Leyland, which makes such an important contribution to the nation's economy, balance of payments and employment? Will he contrast the Government's attitude with the irresponsible and hypocritical equivocation of the Opposition who, despite their weasel words of support, voted against the provision of finance on a sufficient scale as to ensure the success of this vital national asset?

I welcomed my hon. Friend's informed speech on this subject when we debated the order relating to British Leyland. It was in marked contrast to some of the other speeches that we have heard.

Did the Prime Minister have an opportunity to read the full report in The Times about the relationship between the TUC and the major parties? If he did, did he take in the remark from a senior Whitehall source, contained at the end of that report, that the TUC could probably count on a better relationship with Tory Ministers, since Labour Ministers treated it with contempt?

I saw that remark as reported. I thought that if that was typical of former civil servants' opinions, on which they advised the previous Administration, it was a jolly good job that those civil servants had now retired.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the relevant union leaders in the National Health Service the consequences of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who suggested the establishment of two Health Services, one private and one public—the public one dealing with all the less glamorous facilities, such as geriatric and mental health, and the other, presumably, with rich women wanting abortions?

I would consider discussing this matter with the TUC, but I have no doubt, without discussing it with its members, what their views would be, namely, that there should be one Health Service in this country and that good health is not something that should be denied to anybody because of poverty.

Does the Prime Minister agree that although he is discussing problems of pay, the real problem in this country is low output, and that one of the limiting factors in the way of increasing output is likely to be an insufficiency of skilled labour? One of the reasons for that is that the differentials are not sufficient to give proper rewards for skill and extra responsibility? Will he discuss the matter with the TUC and tell the House what are his proposals to restore those differentials and give the TUC the freedom to negotiate to see that differentials are restored?

I agree with some part of the right hon. Lady's comments, although instead of saying that the problem is due to low output, I would say that it is more due to low productivity and that we need a higher level of productivity if we are to have a high wage economy.

The Prime Minister is ducking the main question. He will not get sufficient people training for extra skills until the differentials are restored. Is he aware that skillcentres have vacancies for those who wish to take up engineering skills—vacancies that are not being filled by our workers are going instead to foreigners? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does he agree that until he restores differentials, the retraining programme will not be taken up by the unemployed for whom those places are meant?

I do not think that I would object to skillcentre vacancies that are otherwise not required going to foreigners, and I hope that the right hon. Lady would not do so. All our past experience shows that those trained in British factories who then return to their own countries tend to order from British firms and increase our future exports. On the subject of differentials, the right hon. Lady shows her incomplete understanding of the way in which bargaining systems work. It is not for me to restore differentials; that is a matter for negotiation between trade unions and employers.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 20th April.

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

Will my right hon. Friend be speaking to President Carter today to congratulate him on his highly imaginative energy conservation programme? In view of the limited nature of our own North Sea treasures, is it not time that we had a similar programme here?

I shall not be speaking to President Carter today, but I am sure that he would not mind my telling the House that I spoke to him on this matter on Monday last. We had a very interesting conversation. I repeated the view that I have expressed to him privately—I know that he will not mind my saying it publicly—that I believe that the passage of the energy Bill by Congress would do more to strengthen the dollar, in the short term, than would any other single action by the United States. I hope that Congress will pass that Bill, if it is not improper for me to say so. I believe that it would strengthen world confidence and world output.

The Prime Minister will be aware that since 1st April 1975 the pay of the Armed Forces has now fallen more than 30 per cent. behind average industrial earnings.

Because they have such a lousy shop steward.

Does he agree that it would be wholly wrong for members of the Armed Forces to be penalised over the next 12 months merely because they had been badly treated over the past 24 months? Will he now confirm that he realises that if he were to give a pay increase of less than 30 per cent. he would be perpetuating an already grave injustice?

I note the hon. Member's views. I hope to make a statement on this subject next week. All these matters will be taken into account before then.

Will my right hon. Friend contact President Carter today to verify newspaper reports that the American Administration are rather concerned about the growth of racialism in this country, prompted by the leading figure on the Opposition Benches, because he believes that this detracts from the moral superiority of the West?

I discuss matters of substance, not the Opposition, with the President of the United States.

Has the Prime Minister had time today to reflect upon the major change to the Wales Bill that was made last night by the House, with the unexpected help of the Conservatives? Is the Prime Minister aware that this change, according to "Erskine May", means that if the Bill becomes an Act it will become operative immediately without a referendum? What proposals has he to make in view of this situation?

I thought that this was very interesting. I went into it with some care and I believe that the hon. Member's interpretation is right. What the Conservative Party—which is opposed to devolution—has voted for is that the Bill should come into force immediately that Royal Assent is given without a referendum being held. The Opposition then have the infernal impudence to suggest that the Bill is a shambles. I agree. They made it a shambles.