asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to preserve the maximum amount of good agricultural land in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

In accordance with the planning procedures local planning authorities are required by article 15 (1) of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 to refer to my Department all proposals which could result in the development of 10 or more acres of agricultural land. These references are made only where the proposals do not accord with development plans.

Is the Minister aware that every five years agricultural land covering the equivalent of a county such as Warwickshire goes under concrete, and that more and more we are losing part of the precious heritage of this country? Does the Minister not think that it is time that there was much more co-opera- tion among Government Departments to deal with the massive amount of derelict land which still exists in urban areas, so that it can be used rather than building being carried out on good agricultural land?

It is the Government's policy to minimise the loss of agricultural land. Co-ordinated with that is the policy which encourages authorities and private individuals to make the maximum use for development of land which does not have a high agricultural potential.

May I appeal for shorter supplementary questions so that we may cover more Questions?

Is it not true that since the Second World War between 40,000 and 50,000 acres of agricultural land have been lost every year? Is my hon. Friend aware that in spite of the regulations this trend continues? Does he agree that it seems that we are less careful today than we were just after the Second World War?

We must keep this matter in perspective. The annual rate of loss is under 0·3 per cent. per annum. My hon. Friend will be the first to admit that many of the developments that take up new land are extremely valuable. They enable families which hitherto lived in tenements to occupy houses with gardens.

Given the very proper emphasis on inner city redevelopment, and given population trends, which will show a fall or certainly a stabilisation in the population, may we be assured by the Minister that he will react very strongly against the references that are made to him which fall outside structure plans?

I clearly have to consider each case on its merits, but I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support for the Government's policy on the inner city areas.

Does the Minister agree that preservation of good farmland also means the improvement of existing farmland? Will he therefore reintroduce the lime subsidy, which produced great benefits in terms of productivity and land improvement?

I know that a number of farmers would like the subsidy to be reintroduced. Good farmers, however, will apply lime because they take an interest in their land. Under the farm and horticultural development scheme it is possible to have a programme under which lime is subsidised.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the developments in establishing a sheepmeat régime.

It is too early to express an opinion.

Why do we need a sheep-meat regime? Would it simply not push up the prices to something approaching French levels and mean the virtual disappearance of lamb from the British dinner table? Why are the French not being made to dismantle their illegal system of quotas, rather than being permitted to promote a scheme which would be so damaging to the British consumer and to our traditional supplies?

The "we" about which my hon. Friend asks is a bigger "we" than just those of us in the United Kingdom. It includes New Zealand, for example. The difficulty is that the Commission takes the view that if there were a total free trade, which could or might be the result of the French action in the European Court, there would be high prices in the French market and lower consumer prices here. The temptation would be for producers to sell their lamb in the French market, bringing up the price of lamb in this country. That is the danger that the Commission sees. It needs a great deal of examination. It begs a number of questions. I would have thought that the French market would simply saturate itself at a particular level.

Will the Minister confirm that, approximately, for every 1 per cent. rise in the price there is a 1 per cent. decrease in consumption, which can be very serious indeed? In his discussions and negotiations in Brussels, will he seek to urge that the French Government deal with the problem of their own sheep-meat production, as it is a social prob- lem, with perhaps grants under the less favoured areas scheme?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has more than one point with which I might agree in the course of negotiations. That is why I say that it really is too early to express an opinion. What I would say is that if there is the likelihood—it may be through legal action; I do not know—of our being forced into having some sort of a regime, the regime must, it seems to me, contain a number of elements for the protection of our own people—to protect our own consumers and producers, and to protect New Zealand. For this purpose, I think that one would need a very long transitional period anyway, and one would need to watch it very closely indeed.

Does my right hon. Friend think that Mr. Gundelach's recent assurance is reliable—namely, that the introduction of a Community regime for sheepmeat will not involve curbing British imports of New Zealand lamb and butter?

What the Commissioner was talking about was the GATT binding, which ensures that New Zealand lamb comes into the Community. Effectively, it comes into the United Kingdom, as we know, with a 20 per cent. tariff. The only way, says the Commissioner, in which one could get rid of that—he would say that this is reassurance to New Zealand—would be by offering an alternative. The only alternative that one could reasonably offer the New Zealanders is to take more butter or more cheese, and neither of these does the rest of the Community want.

Is the Minister aware that his statement of objectives, which he produced only in his reply just now, is perfectly acceptable to me? But what worries many people is that once a regime is established there is no need for unanimity in order to change it. This would be a source of very great anxiety both here and in New Zealand. I hope that the Minister will take every opportunity—I am sure that he will—to remind the Commission that the real objective of the European Community is to strengthen the free world, and that this should not be lost sight of. Hon Members may laugh, but there is nothing ridiculous in this. This fine objective should not be lost sight of in rather muddy bargaining.

I think that saving the free world is a little outside my departmental remit at present. I think that it is enough to try to save sheepmeat if I can.

Will the Minister accept, on the subject of saving, that he should consider now, in the negotiations, the fact that the guaranteed price system which has operated so effectively for both consumers and producers in the United Kingdom should not be replaced in negotiations on a Community regime?

The guarantee has played a very strong part and I understand it very well. That is why I said at the beginning that it was too early to express an opinion. There are so many facets to this matter and there is so much that we need to save.

I am encouraged by my right hon. Friend's remarks, but is he aware that I would have much preferred it if he had made a firm statement that he would not agree to a sheepmeat regime in any circumstances? Does he realise that if a sheepmeat regime were introduced it would adversely affect not only our consumers; it would be devastating to New Zealand farmers and to 30 per cent. of the population associated with sheepmeat, and to shippers and insurance people as well?

I have always had very much in mind the interests of New Zealand as well as those of our own produc- ers and consumers. I have said many times in the House that the debt that is owed to New Zealand is not just one of history; it is one of kinship and of principle. We have to see that that debt remains paid.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of farms made available for letting in the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the comparative figure five years earlier.

No information is available on the number of holdings offered for letting in 1972 and 1977, the latest years for which figures on agricultural holdings are available.

I cannot thank the Minister for that reply because it was really a nonevent. However, will he take steps to look into a survey which was conducted very recently in the Border regions, which shows that out of 121 tenancies that expired only four were reoffered to would-be tenants? Will he look at the whole question again and see whether recent legislation on this subject is having a serious impact on the continuance of the valuable role of the tenant farmer in Britain?

The hon. Member must recognise that the legislation that provides for a succession of the sons of tenant farmers has the effect of protecting many tenancies which would otherwise be lost. I also point out that inevitably other considerations, such as fiscal ones, are affecting the availability of land for letting. Indeed, this trend has gone on for a very long time.

Will the Minister take steps to put an early end to the farm amalgamation scheme, a scheme that is now ensuring that what were once viable farms are being added to neighbouring farms, thus reducing the number of holdings that are available for let or purchase?

Clearly, the whole question of the availability of farms for letting, rents, and everything else, is a matter of concern. That is why my right hon. Friend set up the Northfield Committee, which is giving all these issues very deep consideration.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary understand that his first reply gives the impression that he has a blind eye? Is he aware that it is widely known in agriculture that there are now far fewer tenancies? Has he been told of the most helpful initiative that has been taken jointly by the two sides in this problem —the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union—in forming a joint committee to try to deal with the problems of shortages of tenancies? Will the Government give an undertaking that they will give sympathetic attention to whatever conclusion that committee might come to whilst the present Government still happen to be in power?

What I shall not turn my blind eye to is the fact that, prior to our recent legislation, a man might have invested the bulk of his working life, and the earnings from that working life, in a rented farm, only to find that when his father died he had no rights whatsoever to continue farming that farm. I shall resist any attempt being made by the Opposition or anyone else to make the succession legislation the whipping boy for high rents or anything else in the industry.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the returns being achieved by producers in all sectors of the pig industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the pig industry has declined, expressed in numbers of breeding sows, since the Government came to power.

In April 1974 the United Kingdom breeding herd was 899,000 but was declining sharply and the Government introduced a temporary producer subsidy. Following a recovery in the herd in 1976 a further decline set in last year. The Government introduced a temporary subsidy and has secured improvements in the basis of calculation of pigmeat MCAs. In April the breeding herd was 830,000 and no longer declining.

May I press the Minister to give an absolute assurance that in his view the pig breeding herd will not decline again this year? Is he aware of the hardship felt in the heavy hog sector of the industry?

On the second part of that question, I am afraid that it is noticeable that even when there is an upsurge in the other part of the industry, the heavy pig sector seems never quite to benefit as much. This needs a good deal of looking into. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Peter Mills.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had not finished; I was just pausing for breath.

Whatever the Minister says, he must realise that the record of the Socialists in this area is bad. Before the end of July, he must make repeated efforts to get the situation right in Brussels, not only for the pig producers but also for the many thousands of people who work in the processing industry. He cannot be content with his record on this.

I am tempted to ignore your instructions, Mr. Speaker, and speak for rather a long time, but I shall control myself. I took the precaution of looking at the record of two Labour Governments —one in Denmark and one in Germany. I found that the pig herds had increased considerably there—by an average of about 13 per cent. I then looked at two countries with Conservative Governments —France and Italy—and found that the pig herds there had declined. So this is not altogether a matter of political control. I sympathise with hon. Members who do not listen to what their hon. Friend says. He put the emphasis on Socialist Governments, not just this Government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "This one.") Then there is no need to use the word "Socialist".

Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that people working in the bacon curing and pigmeat manufacturing sector realise perfectly well that he is doing a good job on their behalf and that they expect nothing from the Conservative Party, because it is so besotted with the EEC? Will my right hon. Friend take into account the real worries of people in the curing and manufacturing industry? Many jobs have been lost, and unless we can get agreements on MCAs, more will be lost in future.

That is precisely the point —my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have dealt with the question of the producers. The processors are a different cup of tea. That is why we have been pressing for a change in the calculation of the pigmeat coefficients. That will help the processors much more. I have been shocked to find that the Commission, having promised me that this would be urgently studied, has not brought it forward. My hon. Friend raised this point during the last meeting of the Agriculture Council. I think that he received an assurance from the Commissioner that it would be brought forward very quickly.

With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman said just now, will he take a substantially more aggressive approach towards the reopening of this review of the monetary compensatory amounts? The uncertainty to which this will lead in the industry is far from acceptable. Will he say exactly what he proposes to do on this matter?

That, of course, is precisely what I have done. I am in a slight quandary. I have sometimes had my knuckles rapped for taking an aggressive attitude. I have been told that all I have to do is smile happily at the Danes for them to give me everything I want. In fact, they give me everything they want. We intend to press this until we get a reasonable solution, but I must warn the hon. Gentleman that it will not be as good as either he or I would wish.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects next to meet EEC Ministers of Agriculture.

I shall meet them at an informal meeting of the Agriculture Council to be held in Denmark next week.

When my right hon. Friend goes to that informal meeting, will he formally raise the question of the remarkably disparity in, and what seems to many of us the ludricrous disposal of, the Commission's funds for agriculture? For example, £120 million a year is spent on research and investment and £9 million on the food aid programme for the Third World—while storage costs for sugar, skim milk, butter, beef and veal are now running at no less than £900 million a year. Will he raise this matter and express our disgust at the strange behaviour of these people, who are irritating and annoying millions throughout the Community?

I have several times pointed out in the Council that the figure for storage of, I think, £960 million a year—anyway, it is in the budget—is an absolute disgrace to the Community. However, the only way in which it can be tackled is by seeing that the institutional prices come down in real terms, to such an extent that we no longer have the surpluses. When that happens, we shall indeed be on the way to something like a sensible policy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of disposal of the surpluses, most of which are unnecessary, is now £2,425 million a year? How much longer can respectable politicians, and indeed respectable farmers, go on tolerating that?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is a point that I have made many times. Whatever farmers may think or may have said in the past, I do not think that it is in their interests. Nor do they get the benefit of those storage costs. The benefit often goes to the middle man and the trader, or is simply used as a means of dumping products in competition, for example, with New Zealand or Australia.

Has my right hon. Friend had any advice, help, suggestions, hints or ideas from the Opposition about what they would do or how they would help? It might be helpful to get some liaison here, if they have any suggestions.

I have had some advice and hints from the Opposition. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) told me—I must get this absolutely accurate because I had my knuckles rapped the last time I said it—that they were prepared to advocate the parity of the green currencies over the next two or three years—a parity which, for Europe as a whole, would mean an increase in food prices of about 10 per cent.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the more deplorable consequences of his Government's policy will be the increasing difficulty which attaches to the parity which we hoped could have been achieved within two or three years? The subsequent decline in the strength of the pound and the lack of any confidence abroad in this Government's rigid policies have made that much more difficult.

I do not know what difficulty the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. We are talking at the moment about the hints and advice that he has given me. I have never heard him retract that advice. If he wants to retract it now, I shall he delighted to hear him say so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount of Irish beef imported since 1st January 1978 to the nearest convenient date; and what was the comparative figure for the corresponding periods in 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977.

United Kingdom imports of beef and veal from the Irish Republic between 1st January and 30th April in the five years from 1974 to 1978 were 22,000, 36,000, 18,000, 34,000 and 42,000 tonnes, respectively.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern in the agricultural community about the increase in imports of Irish beef and veal, which come in at a price helped by Ireland's devaluation of the green pound to a greater extent than ours was? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that our farmers are especially concerned about what may happen this autumn, and will he give an assurance that if there is a larger increase in the import of Irish beef this autumn he will take swift and urgent action to deal with it?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should look at the position in full perspective and consider it generally. He will be aware that imports from all sources so far this year are lower than for the same period last year. Imports from Ireland are higher, but the United Kingdom market in recent months has nevertheless remained firm.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the total estimated net balance of payments cost to the United Kingdom of being forced to buy our food supplies within the Common Market rather than from lower-price world sources is £300 million this year, and this is but one component of the vast net cost of Britain's membership of the Common Market? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that at least this Government recognise their responsibilities?

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman sure that he is asking his supplementary question on the right Question?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I thought that it was one which he could have asked on any Question.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the steps taken by my right hon. Fried with regard to surpluses in trying to get more reasonable levels and also ensuring that the most efficient producer of a commodity produces the food which we need. Home production of beef and veal was down in 1977 by about 37.000 tonnes on the year before, and I think that my hon. Friend will therefore realise that imports were necessary to top up our own home market.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans next to meet representatives of the National Farmers' Union.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to meet the president of the National Farmers' Union.

I am planning to meet the president and representatives of the National Farmers' Union next month, but a date has still to be fixed.

When the Minister meets the president of the National Farmers' Union will he give him a categorical assurance that the Government have no intention of nationalising agricultural land?

I am meeting the president of the National Farmers' Union and representatives of the union at his request. It will be for the president to ask what he will. If the hon. Gentleman has any influence with him, he will, no doubt, see that that item is put on the agenda.

With respect, I must ask the Minister to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer). There has been mention recently in the agricultural Press that the Labour Party is about to come forward with proposals for the nationalisation of land, and wilder and more extreme elements are even hinting that the Minister may have some sympathy with these ideas. I ask him to reassure the House.

I do not think that this has anything to do with what I tell the president of the National Farmers' Union, unless he asks me, but I shall certainly answer the question, irrelevant though it may be. The answer is simple. The Government have no plans to nationalise agricultural land, because it was not in the Labour Party manifesto at the last election.

When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of the NFU, will he ask them to tell him of the latest state of affairs in the bacon curing industry? Will he discuss with them the serious unemployment plight in that industry, due to the Common Market policy of allowing import subsidies on Danish bacon, and, further, will he discuss the fact that there have already been many thousands of redundancies and that we are now threatened with the closure of many firms? Will he tell the EEC that we must act unilaterally to save this industry?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the bacon processors and with those employed in that sector of the industry. In part, the trouble is that, while producer prices have recently been going up—as they have been—that, and the effect of the wrongly calculated Danish MCA's, has caught the processors between an upper and a nether milestone. I think that the change in the MCA rate of about 8 per cent.—£20 a tonne—which, I think I am right in saying, is to come in next week, will make some difference. Whether, therefore, the president of the National Farmers' Union will raise the matter with me, I do not know.

When the Minister meets Sir Henry Plumb, will he explain to him why it is now impossible for a young man to find a farm to rent, and will he further explain that, although nearly half the front page of the annual June return deals with the change in the occupancy of farms, his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary still does not know how many farms are let each year? Will the right hon. Gentleman refute the idea that the Ministry does not know, since it does know?

I greatly doubt that the opportunity will be given to me to discuss that with the president of the National Farmers' Union. But I should say that he and his union have given their evidence to the Northfield inquiry. The first sentence of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question expressed precisely why, a year ago, I set up the Northfield inquiry to find out exactly what has happened in the acquisition and ownership of agricultural land. Nobody knows, save for whatever evidence has already been accumulated by the Northfield Committee.

Will my right hon. Friend take special note of any representations which may be made on behalf of producer-retailers of milk and on the sale of untreated milk? Will he adopt a flexible approach to this problem, since there are isolated pockets in this country where no doorstep delivery will take place if these people are forced out of business?

I want to be as flexible as I can on this matter and I have tried to meet the point which I take my hon. Friend to make. I did it by extending the necessary consultations until the end of next month. I wish to put the position absolutely fairly to the House and the industry. If I, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, am aware, as I am, that there have been about 384—I think that that is the figure —cases of disease as a result of untreated milk, I am clearly under a duty to examine the matter and say what I ought to do. I have asked for all the evidence I can get. I hope that doctors, farmers and consumers will get in touch with me. That is precisely why I extended the period for the consultations.

I hope that when the Minister meets the president of the NFU part of his discussions will be concerned with horticulture. In particular, will he talk to Sir Henry about the problems of Stratford market, which are uppermost in the minds of many hon. Members who have visited that market in recent weeks?

I believe that if the hon. Gentleman—he is my Member of Parliament, although he rarely, if ever, gets my vote—were to write to me about that, I might be well briefed to talk to Sir Henry on the matter even if he does not raise it with me.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations concerning reciprocal fishing rights with third countries.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will introduce conservation measures under the Fisheries Limits Act 1976.

I shall be making a statement about the outcome of this week's Fisheries Council after Question Time.

We look forward with interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, but may I put to him a question which is not directly concerned with the EEC? There are reports that Argentina has granted West Germany and Japan permission to fish in the waters off the Falkland Islands. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, that area has been looked to as a possible British resource. What has he to say on the subject?

The point that the hon. Gentleman raises about the exploitation of the South Atlantic waters around the Falkland Islands was raised in the fisheries debate last week, and I then said that the Government were considering the advisability and technical appreciation of the advantages. I shall look into the reports which the hon. Gentleman has just drawn to my attention. During the course of this week, I confess, my eyes have been on a slightly different form of 200-mile limit, but I shall certainly look into the matter and consider whether there is anything I need to do.

Since we have been overtaken by events in the past 24 hours, will the Minister tell the House whether, having failed to achieve agreement during his June meetings, he has the firm intention to reach a successful conclusion in July?

There is always the possibility of a successful conclusion to a fishing agreement provided that our partners in Europe, the majority of whom do not fish in our waters anyway, realise four things. The first is that fishing, to us as an island people, is something that is of far more importance than it is to any of them. Secondly, our partners must recognise that the conservation of stocks of fish is vital if we are to have a viable fishing industry. Thirdly, it must be recognised that, as a coastal State, we must have the means of enforcing the quotas which other members of the Community so glibly throw around the table. Fourthly, it must be recognised that we —as the coastal State which has brought in the largest share of waters containing fish for which Community fishermen as well as ourselves fish—are entitled to a preferential share of that fish.

rose—

Order. There will be an opportunity for questions following the Minister's statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the prices to the consumer of fruit and vegetables; and what plans he has for avoiding large increases in price after these products leave the farm gate.

Prices of fresh fruit and vegetables are determined largely by supply and demand, but the Price Commission monitors both prices and margins in this sector. Its most recent report shows that retail prices of the main fruit and vegetables were down 22 per cent. in April compared with a year earlier; the average retail price of all food rose by 6·3 per cent. over the same period. The Government have no plans to introduce controls in this sector.

Is the Minister aware that his reply will be regarded as complete nonsense by the average housewife, who knows that the price of food and vegetables in past weeks has been escalating? Is the Minister further aware that it is known that these price increases are not going to the producer but are benefiting those somewhere in the middle?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear every detail in my reply. The figures that I quoted were to April. The hon. Member is right to say that there have been significant increases in the prices of some vegetables of late, but I believe that these are largely seasonal, due to the late spring.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about negotiations with the Government of Iceland on the subject of fishing rights.

No negotiations have taken place since a joint EEC Commission/Presidency team visited Reykjavik in June last year.

In view of what has happened this week will the Minister assure us that we shall now negotiate bilateral agreements with Iceland and the Faroes so that the British fishing industry is able to fish in the waters it requires?

I remember that during the passage through this House of the Fishery Limits Act the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked me "Why are you letting Mr. Gundelach negotiate for you?" I said that it was because I thought that it was only fair to let him have his head since he was negotiating for a number of countries and it seemed that if we were negotiating separately we might not get such a good deal. As I look back on a year of total futility over the Iceland negotiations I think that I would want to look at my words again to see to what extent I would like to revise them in June 1978.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the profit margins being achieved by the United Kingdom bacon curing industry.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks).

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his lack of sympathy and his insufferable complacency with regard to the pigmeat industry gives that industry no confidence that he is pressing its case as hard as he should in Brussels?

I am a little astonished by that remark. When I introduced the pig subsidy last year, when I had to fight the various sections that I did have to fight inside the Community because of that, and when I had to try to get the pig-meat MCAs recalculated, "complacent" was not exactly the word being used by the Opposition or by people in Europe. If the hon. Gentleman means that we have to keep fighting for a recalculation of pig-meat MCAs, I agree. He is perfectly correct, and we shall do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the food processing industry finds itself between the upper millstone of the MCAs and the nether millstone of the Price Commission, which often has no knowledge of or sympathy with the problems of the industry? Is he aware that the likely consequence of this process will be the grinding out of an efficient British industry and its replacement by foreign supplies?

The lower millstone in this instance—to preserve the analogy—is the British producer, rightly so. He deserves a fair return for his products. The upper millstone, as the right hon. Gentleman correctly says, is the wrongly-calculated system of MCAs. This, at least, is one small matter on which he and I have had some agreement this afternoon.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if we were allowed to import grain at world prices from our traditional suppliers many of the problems of the pig producer would disappear?

I have to deal with matters as they are. I try to do the best I can in those circumstances and I shall continue to try to do so.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagement for Thursday 22nd June.

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 colleagues and others.

Has the Prime Minister time today to answer a question unconnected with statistical entrails? May I put it to him that whether phase 3 ultimately succeeds or fails, it has definitely failed with regard to differentials and the skilled labour force? Is he aware that in this and in his other policies he has let down a large number of his own supporters? Does he agree that the only hope that those people have lies with the policies that will be put forward by the next Conservative Government?

I hope that the skilled workers will not have to wait as long as all that. It is true that when there are rigid systems of pay policy dif- ferentials suffer, as they have done on this occasion. I hope that in the succeeding rounds—in the yearly pay bargaining —this position can be improved. We must recognise skill as far as possible.

May I ask the Prime Minister, if not today, at any early date, to enter into negotiations with the trade union movement and the CBI over the practicability of introducing a 35-hour week throughout Great Britain, as a means both of increasing leisure hours and of significantly reducing unemployment, which, by common consent is far too high?

These matters will, of course, be for discussion with the trade union movement, but I do not think we should assume that there is an easy solution to our problems through adopting a 35-hour week unless a number of other factors go with it. Two factors, for example, would be the need to ensure that unit costs of production do not increase. The second would be to ensure that our European competitors—since we have to sell our goods abroad—would be following the same policy. Apart from that, I think that there is a good case for considering reductions in working hours, provided that they do not just result in more overtime payments.

Now that school leavers are coming on to the employment register in ever larger numbers, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is still determined to go ahead with his 2½ per cent. extra tax on jobs?

As the right hon. Lady knows, the necessity for this surcharge arose from the amendments for which she voted. It was no part of the Government's original strategy to introduce this tax. We asked the House to reject the amendments which altered the balance of the Budget. However, we have to face the consequences. As to whether we go ahead, the amendments will be put forward when we debate the Finance Bill. The House will have to debate these matters in the usual way. I am sure that the right hon. Lady appreciates that.

There seems to be some doubt whether the Prime Minister will go ahead with this. Does that mean that he is prepared to listen to the CBI and the small businesses when they tell him that such a tax would knock jobs, exports and small businesses?

I wish the right hon. Lady had thought of all these things before she voted for the amendments. I would not need to stand here defending this impost if the Opposition had not unbalanced the Budget by their votes. As it is, we have had to find the best way possible—

The worst way.

—to restore the revenue that the Opposition have lost through their votes. I shall listen to any representations that are made. I must say that when I meet the CBI its members do not bay and shout at me as do Tory Members.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 22nd June.

In view of the impending sharp increases next month in youth unemployment, because of the number of school leavers joining the register, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's choice of a 2½ per cent. increase in employers' national insurance contributions is positively the worst choice that he could have made as far as the employment prospects of these young people are concerned? How will the Prime Minister justify this inflationary tax on jobs to his fellow heads of Government at the July Summit?

If we had really thought that it was the worst choice, I promise the hon. Gentleman that we would not have made it. There is a matter for a difference of opinion here. Because we are seeking to fight inflation, I was myself very opposed to raising value added tax, which was another alternative and which would have had a much more immediate effect than the national insurance surcharge will have, since it would have come into force immediately. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] It is no use hon. Members saying "Ah". We are about to engage in discussions with the trade union movement on what is to happen to pay next year.

During the course of the day, will my right hon. Friend make arrangements to meet the TUC and CBI in order to make very clear that the Conservative Party's interference with the Chancellor's Budget will mean that very well-off people will get more in tax relief than the amounts which some workers are asking for in order to meet the marginal costs in the rising standard of living? This will create a severe and sour atmosphere in industrial relations, and the CBI should state quite clearly where it stands and whether it will aid and abet the Conservative Opposition in their efforts to sour industrial relations.

There is a way out of this dilemma, if the Opposition will undertake to vote for amendments which will return income tax to the position where it was. Then we need not proceed with this national insurance surcharge. Which do they want?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will establish a Department of Marine Affairs.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's suggestion, but he may assume that I do not intend to make any changes in departmental organisation or responsibilities unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.

When so many of our urgent political problems associated with the sea—problems relating to fishing, tanker disasters, oil development and hydrography—involve so many Government Departments and agencies, would they not be dealt with more effectively within a single new Department?

It is a matter of judgment. I have considered the matter very carefully. In 1976, we made a thorough review of it. The fact that these activities extend so widely over a number of Departments means that they require co-ordination, which is done by the Lord Privy Seal at present. I am not yet persuaded that setting up yet another Ministry would add to the co-ordination, but I want to keep an open mind. If it seemed necessary to bring them together I would not hesitate to do so.

Without necessarily setting up a new Department, will the Prime Minister look again at the chain of responsibility for dealing with pollution at sea to see whether there should be one senior Minister in ultimate control? What proposals are the Government making internationally to avoid the sort of disaster that overtook the "Amoco Cadiz"?

The Lord Privy Seal has an overall responsibility for coordination where a number of Departments are involved, but basically, of course, this matter falls to the Department of Trade, which is now responsible for our marine interests generally.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone creates a new situation and that the structure of government needs to be revised so that we as a nation can take advantage of the enormous riches below the sea bed which this possibility gives to us?

My previous answer covered that. I am not persuaded that it needs a new Ministry to do this. When the 200-mile zone looked as though it were being extended, I reviewed the whole matter and gave an answer in the House, saying what steps were being taken to ensure that there was proper co-ordination so that we could make certain that our interests were properly safeguarded.

Has the Prime Minister yet studied the Health and Safety Report on the terrifying risks of death and injury to which my constituents are exposed, including risks arising from the possible interaction of accidents to liquid gas, oil and chemical carriers and land-based hazardous installations? Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the lunatic proposal of that report that despite these risks oil refinery development on Canvey should be increased? Will he, therefore, take responsibility for these matters out of the hands of Departments which have hitherto been indifferent to the plight of Canvey and entrust them to a new Department?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, but I do not think that the establishment of a new Department of Marine Affairs would be likely to solve these problems. Perhaps he had better table a Question to the appropriate Minister.

asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to take any further personal initiatives in the field of family policy, following his recent speech on this subject.

I have at present no general comments to add to my recent speeches on the importance of family life, but Ministers, in developing the broad range of their economic and social policies, will pay particular attention to the contribution that improved provisions for the family and protection of the family can make to a healthy community.

When the Prime Minister next speaks about family policy, will he remind his audience that when the Conservative Government left office the standard rate of income tax for working wives and working husbands was 30 per cent., and that the first thing the incoming Labour Government did was to raise it to 35 per cent.?

All these facts are well known. The hon. Gentleman never fails to seize the opportunity to put them on record. But, to give a balanced picture, I should remind the audience, at the same time, of the considerable improvement in child benefits, which will go up to £3 in November and £4 in April; I should remind it that social security benefits have been substantially improved; I should remind it that there has been a larger increase in the married man's allowance than for the single person; I should remind it of the levelling up of the personal allowances for single parents; I should remind it that we have reintroduced free school milk. I should remind it that we have expanded the health visitor service; I should remind it of the improvement in nursery education. When I had done that, I think that it would have a balanced view of the whole picture.

When my right hon. Friend gives that long list of reminders, will he consider also reminding his audience of the broken Conservative pledges to increase family allowances in the past? More constructively, when considering initiatives in family policy, will my right hon. Friend look particularly at the needs of the under-fives and consider whether there could not be better co-ordination between the Departments involved in order to improve services for pre-school children?

There is a great deal that should unite the parties on this matter, and I should regret it if it became a matter of politicisation. The Campbell Adamson report and study set up under the Leverhulme Trust will be of great value. The debate introduced by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) in March, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), is worth reading by all of us, and there is a great deal that we should seek to preserve in the family in trying to put the family forward and amplifying its status in society—and that has nothing to do with politics.

As this is mental handicap week, may I, in a non-party spirit, ask the Prime Minister to do his best to encourage all concerned, especially the Secretary of State for Social Services, in the efforts being made to get the older handicapped people out of large institutions and into living a more feasib!. life in the community?

I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that suggestion. I shall convey it to my right hon. Friend and see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gets a reply to it.

In the light of my right hon. Friend's probable reluctance to set up a separate Ministry to deal with these affairs, could he indicate to which Ministry he will wish to allocate further responsibilities for the development of his policy on the family?

Again, this is a matter of co-ordination, because, as I have indicated, the question of families, their responsibilities and activities, stretch over a number of Ministries. We cannot look to any single Minister to be responsible. It is a matter for the Cabinet and for Government coordination generally.

In view of the Prime Minister's reference to the increase in child benefits, will he look particularly at the case of those lone parents who are totally dependent on supplementary benefits, and are less likely to benefit from the increases than those who are dependent on unemployment benefit and maternity allowances?

I understand the problem, but the Supplementary Benefits Commission must take into account income from all sources, and if child benefits are to be substantially increased, as they are, supplementary benefits must have regard to that. My right hon. Friend is looking into this problem, but I can give no undertaking.