asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now announce a ban on the export of live food animals for slaughter following publication of the departmental review of this trade on 23rd March.

I am considering representations on the report by officials of the Agriculture Departments and, pending a decision, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has told the Council of EEC Ministers of our concern and asked if it proposes to take any action. The Commission confirmed that new proposals concerning intra-Community trade in live food animals will be put forward shortly.

I acknowledge the Minister's personal concern in this matter, as reflected in his vote against the resumption of this trade in January 1975, but does he understand that a majority of Members of this House and of the public outside these walls can have no confidence at all in either the willingness or the ability of those responsible in the countries where these animals are sent to enforce even existing regulations? If the Minister cannot announce a total ban on this vile trade, may I invite him at least to suspend the issue of further licences until the Government have made up their minds what to do on the basis of the biased departmental report published in March?

I know of my hon. Friend's deep concern about this matter and I take the opportunity to acknowledge his devotion and his ability in this cause. I think that the truth of the matter is that when, as in my case, one's emotions and instincts lead one to a certain conclusion, it demands a greater objectivity when one becomes the Minister. For that reason, when I come to make my decision it will, I hope, be the right decision and it will be made without fear and without favour.

Has the Minister any proof or evidence that any British livestock exporters have broken the welfare code during the past five years?

I do not think that I have any evidence. That is not the problem with which we are dealing. The problem is not in these islands. Our regulations are extremely good and we have tightened them up very well indeed. The problem arises in areas over which we have no control, and there are those who say that, because we have no control, the whole trade should be banned. There are others who say that perhaps we can try to get some control.

rose—

Order. I shall call two more hon. Members from each side on this Question. We shall move faster afterwards.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that some of us are very troubled, because we listened to the comments of his colleagues on the Front Bench—although my right hon. Friend was not there at the time—on the reassurances that we had been given about the EEC and the existing legislation, and we have come to the conclusion that we were conned in the sense that those regulations could not be enforced? We are very troubled when the Minister talks about hearing more proposals from the Common Market. Those that we have now do not stick. Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us have made up our minds that we must ban this offensive trade forthwith?

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. In my turn, I need to see what the Commission is proposing. I do not know what that is at the moment. It matters a great deal, because the proposals might, for example, lead us along a line which gets to the carcase trade. I believe that to be the right approach. The question is whether it is moving fast enough. If it does not move fast enough for our purposes, it will be my duty to try to alter those proposals so that it does.

May I ask the Minister not to dismiss the economic arguments while temporary employment subsidies are being paid to many slaughterhouses throughout this country? Will he, therefore, seek to phase out the export of old ewes and old cows while still allowing the export of calves of rearing stock? Surely this is the way forward.

This is very much one of the aspects that need to be looked at. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we need to achieve something on an interim basis until an eventual solution is arrived at.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Government supporters certainly look at this matter objectively, unlike the National Farmers' Union, which simply adopts the balance sheet approach and considers the economics of it? May I remind my right hon. Friend that 162 Government supporters have signed a motion demanding that this trade should cease and that a further 245 Members of the House have asked for a debate on the subject? Can we not have a debate so that we can express in the Division Lobbies our opposition to this indefensible trade?

The question of a debate is not one for me. I suggest that the objectivity or lack of objectivity of the NFU is perhaps a greater reason why I should be objective.

Why wait for the Commission? Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the distaste in this country springs from the knowledge that it is impossible to ensure that animals will be slaughtered humanely at the final point of destination. If that is so, why does he not take unilateral action by carrying out the pledge of his predecessor, which was to lay an order making it mandatory for the final point of destination to be stated by exporters? The action is in his own hands.

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the trade is bad in the sense that it is not being carried out humanely in other parts of Europe—I think we all agree that it is well carried out in our own country—does it really matter whether the cruelty, if cruelty there is, is inflicted on a British calf, a French calf or an Italian calf? Is not our job to see that the whole trade changes?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he remains satisfied about the future availability and price of refined sugar in the United Kingdom.

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the forecasts made by the press about the increase in price and the shortage of refined sugar? Is he aware, further, that the problems in the refining industry stem from the insane practices attributed to the common agricultural policy of the EEC? Is he aware also that jobs in the north-west are threatened by the dumping of refined white sugar in that area in particular? Will he ensure that the capacity of the British industry is used in order to ensure that sugar supplies and prices remain stable to the British housewife?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his activities and the interest and concern he has shown in defence of the area that he represents. As he has quite rightly said, we are facing the need to keep supply and demand in balance, and, of course, the price is a very impor- tant factor in this. One of the problems is the sugar supply situation.

Order. May I appeal for shorter questions and answers? Hon. Members should realise that we are usually on Question no. 5 by this time.

May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that, while sugar prices charged to the consumer at home are very high, overseas world sugar prices are at a record low level? What can he do to obtain some of these cheap supplies of overseas sugar and make them available for consumers in Britain?

The hon. Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend and our colleagues have campaigned vigorously within the Community to keep surpluses down and also, of course, that the award this year of the 2 per cent. increase for sugar was below the average. These are factors in the situation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will abandon proposals to prohibit the distribution of farm-bottled milk.

I have nothing to add at this stage to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 12th June. A statement will be made in due course in the light of the consultations which my Department is currently undertaking.

Will the Minister understand that his willingness and that of his right hon. Friend to meet a number of us this week on this issue is much appreciated? Will he confirm that he is considering the representations on this matter with a completely open mind and that there is no question of an automatic ban being introduced in 1980?

Yes, I can confirm that. The Government are considering the whole question of the ban afresh and my right hon. Friend has made it clear that he has an open mind.

Is the Minister aware that the ban on this trade will deprive many individuals, particularly those in rural areas, of really good fresh milk?

I should point out that no such policy is envisaged. Where there was no alternative source of supply, the ban would not be effective. We recognise, however, that the issue goes much wider than this and we are giving careful consideration to all the representations that are being made.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he now proposes to take to prevent the further purchase of land for farming by financial institutions and foreign nationals.

My right hon. Friend the Minister has already asked Lord Northfield and his committee to examine recent trends in agricultural land acquisition and occupancy, which includes the purchase of land by financial institutions and foreign nationals.

I wonder whether we can wait much longer. Is there not an invasion of England's green and pleasant land by the Germans and the Dutch who are buying up land? Is it not just as important to prevent the export of land—the takeover of land—as it is to prevent the takeover and export of objects of art and pictures?

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a point that undoubtedly is causing great concern in the countryside—namely, not only the acquisition of land by overseas nationals but the increasing acquisition of land by large financial institutions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the cost of land before we went into the Common Market was £500 a hectare and that it is now £2,000 a hectare? Is it not true that the question from the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) shows that the idea that a free market in land, goods or capital will give greater prosperity or security to communities is a facile one which does not hold water?

It is certainly true that there has been a sharp increase in land prices. It is also true—I speak here particularly as a Scot—that acquisitions have been made not only by nationals from within the Community but by Arabs and others.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great concern in Scotland's green and pleasant land about the present massive purchases of our land by foreign nationals and by large companies? Does he agree that provision of a public national land register showing clearly who owns the land, how much and for what purposes would help to clarify the debate, and will he encourage his colleagues to institute such a register as a matter of priority?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware of my long-standing concern about the land issue in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands. However, I must point out that my responsibilities in this matter extend only to England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that in February last year I announced a pilot study to examine the feasibility of a full survey of the ownership of agricultural land in England and Wales.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress of negotiations in the EEC towards the adoption of the European unit of account for agricultural purposes.

I have pressed the Council to discuss the Commission report which in principle favoured the introduction of the European unit of account into the common agricultural policy, and I have insisted that no decisions can he taken on the proposal to phase out MCAs until this issue has been resolved.

Does not the Minister agree that the staggering increase in food prices has been due very largely to the Government's mismanagement of our currency? Is he not aware that, unless stern action is taken by the Government to introduce a new unit of account for trading and food across Community borders, this trouble will prolong itself?

Which way did the hon. Gentleman vote?

With regard to the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said, I invite him, in return for my buying him a pound of butter and a pound of steak in the United Kingdom, to buy me a pound of butter and a pound of steak in Germany, because the difference is 44p per pound for butter and £1 for steak. We are dealing with a basket of currencies based upon the "snake", which, effectively, is the German mark. If we were to have a European basket of all the currencies—in other words, bringing the other two-thirds of the production and two-thirds of the population into the calculation—and if the common prices were lowered to those of the three countries with the weakest currencies—the United Kingdom, France and Italy—the difference would be enormous and the prices would go down to a level that would enable the hon. Gentleman to enjoy his butter and his steak in Bonn.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no one who pretends to wish to see the common agricultural policy reformed will have anything to do with the alignment of currencies proposed at Bremen?

I think that that question goes rather beyond the agricultural remit. But I agree with the right hon. Member that not only does the common agricultural policy need to be reformed but it needs to be fundamentally reformed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if he were to follow the advice frequently given from the Benches opposite of realigning the green pound forthwith, or very quickly, this would induce far too unacceptable a level of inflation in prices to the consumer in this country? Does he also agree that the evidence from Ireland and Italy is that by continual revaluation of their pound and green lira they have over- compensated their farmers for what they really require?

My hon. Friend is right. Entry into the EEC has resulted in an increase of about 10 per cent. in the price of foods in this country.

What about the other 95 per cent.?

The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) was suggesting—and, I believe, is still suggesting, unless he cares to reject it now—that parity between the green currencies should be established over a two to three-year period. That would add another 10 per cent. to the prices.

What about the other 95 per cent?

While we are about it, if the Opposition are really so concerned about the level of food prices and so on, I must point out that there are a large number of counties represented by hon. Members opposite which do not propose to operate the free milk scheme.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to take the opportunity of explaining how he accounts for the rest of the increases in food prices which have taken place since his Government have been in office. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Common Market."] As he has taken the opportunity to dwell upon Conservative policy, may I ask whether he is aware that such modification as I have made from my original statement in the House has been due very largely to the mess and muddle caused by his own economic policy?

I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is considering modifying his policy, because at the time when he was not modifying his policy the same statistics applied—that is, a 10 per cent. increase in food prices, which at that time, he told us, was necessary in the national interest. With regard to the rest of the price increases, the right hon. Gentleman is missing a very important point—namely, the increase in oil prices, the effect on fertilisers and the effect on prices all over the Community. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at prices there, he will see that they, too, have risen.

I know of no greater expert than the right hon. Gentleman at missing points that are inconvenient to him. Does he acknowledge that while he and his friends have been in office, food prices have more than doubled and he has not bothered to explain why?

I thought that I had bothered to explain. The right hon. Gentleman perhaps takes a little longer to understand these points than most other people. The first and most important issue is what could have been foreseen, and was in fact foreseen, by his Government when they took us into the EEC in the first place—namely, a 10 per cent. increase in food prices. What they could not have foreseen, I agree, was the increase in oil prices, which had its effect upon the food prices of all the temperate zones throughout the world.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further reforms he has in mind for the common agricultural policy.

I set out the Government's position on the reform of the CAP in my speech to the House on 21st March.

On a more peaceful, all-party basis, does the Minister recall the resolution of this House, passed with the full-hearted consent of the Opposition in July last year, calling for easier access into the United Kingdom of efficiently produced foodstuffs from outside the EEC, which, I am sure, would reduce the cost of food? What have the Government done about that and what success has been achieved? If little progress has been made, can the Minister explain why?

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on a very important point. It remains very much part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government that there shall be a freer importation of foodstuffs into the Community. I sometimes get the impression that as regards EEC Minissters of Agriculture we, like the Red Queen, have to run merely in order to stand still. We have managed to preserve some importation of beef, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to preserve the importation of butter from New Zealand and, I think, to preserve the importation of lamb from New Zealand. I do not regard that as anywhere near sufficient and I doubt very much whether he does.

Now that the CAP is under review at the highest level in the Council of Ministers, will the Minister ensure that a paper is put in from the British Government extolling the merits of a deficiency payments system to support farm income rather than the end price system at present being adopted in the Common Market?

I accept very fully that the real problem of the common agricultural policy is exactly that question of the creation of surpluses of food in order to put them into store rather than into the mouths of human beings. To the extent that the intervention system as we know it contributes towards that situation, Her Majesty's Government will be stating and have frequently stated exactly where we stand on this matter. We are totally against a system which encourages storage and does not encourage the consumption of food.

Is not the Minister aware that British farmers cannot wait indefinitely for a reform of the CAP? As the benefit of the devaluation of 7½ per cent. has been totally swallowed up, will he, even now, pay some attention to the SNP's proposal that he should move forward to a system whereby there is a devaluation of 1 per cent. per month until we come much nearer parity on food prices with our EEC partners?

I rather thought that that proposal had died of old age, but if it is still on the table is answer is "No, Sir". We have the interests of our own people to follow. We have to deal with them. Even the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is modifying his position. Surely it is time the SNP began to think about it, too.

In view of the utter futility of the common agricultural policy and its effect on the British food economy, would my right hon. Friend consider for a start the reform of the CAP so that we have the right to buy our food from the best markets in the world and, conversely, so that individual nations within the EEC have the right to subsidise industries of their own that need subsidising out of their own exchequers?

For many reasons, a freer trade into the Community is right. It does no harm, for example, that a butter—

Bacon.

or bacon—producing nation also imports it. So I agree totally with my hon. Friend. We must get the position more liberalised. I also agree that there needs to be a greater national say than is at present apparent in the common agricultural policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what he attributes the rise in the price of potatoes in spite of the fact that the amount of tons of potatoes produced in the United Kingdom during this past 12 months is the highest for three years.

In each of the first 10 months of the present marketing year, the average retail price of potatoes has been lower than in the equivalent period of both the previous two years. Although new potatoes were, as usual, high-priced when they first became available, the market is now very well supplied.

In spite of what my right hon. Friend said, is he not aware that in February of this year the Potato Marketing Board purchased 546,000 tons of potatoes and is now offering them at £70 a ton retail, having purchased them for £35 a ton from the farms? When will the Minister have some control over the Potato Marketing Board?

If my hon. Friend looks at the figures, he will see that, despite his claims, from August last until March of this year the average retail price of potatoes was less than half that of 1977. Since then the price has remained con- siderably lower. My hon. Friend will also be aware that the need to give producers the confidence to grow potatoes is very important, and the buying-in programme and the guarantee are factors in that situation.

How much of the increase in potato production was in seed potatoes as opposed to ware potatoes? Is the Minister aware of the importance of the seed potato industry and its potential as a valuable export winner? What steps is he taking to increase markets worldwide for our seed potato industry?

As the hon. Member says, the superiority of our seed potato industry is well known, especially the Scottish varieties. These are factors which are borne in mind.

Does not the Minister of State agree that, in spite of the efforts of the Potato Marketing Board, this year has been a disastrous season for growers, who have received a return of about £2 per ton below the guaranteed price? Does that not show that, even with the efforts of the board, it has been a simply hopeless year and that without the board's efforts farmers would have lost a great deal more money?

The hon. Gentleman should be fair and take into account the situation in which potatoes are being produced this year and were produced last year in the absence of a potato regime. We have been pressing the Community for at least a couple of years to try to get the matter settled. I think it is commendable that, when a ban on imports has been questioned by the European Court, we gave a guarantee to the producers last year and this year which has been important for their prospects.

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

When I next attend a meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers on 24th and 25th July.

When my right hon. Friend meets his Common Market counterparts, will he reject utterly any proposals, such as the insane policy just mentioned by the SNP spokesman, for a further massive devaluation of the green pound, which might put more money into the pockets of rich farmers such as the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) but would have a disastrous effect on family budgets by pushing up the price of food to ordinary housewives?

I do not expect to quote the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) when I meet my fellow Ministers in the Agriculture Council on 24th and 25th July, although if it is necessary I shall put my hon. Friend's point to them. It is a point that needs to be made over and over again—perhaps very slowly—to the Opposition, and particularly to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). Parity in green currencies would mean a 10 per cent. increase in the cost of shopping for every family in this country. That is the Opposition's policy and I hope that every Labour Member will make that clear.

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him in the delicate art of misrepresentation, at which he is such an expert. May I ask him, since there is no immediate prospect of his meeting his partners in Brussels, whether he will give the fishing industry some indication of when the damaging stalemate will be finished? May I also ask him for an assurance that there is not, under wraps in Brussels at this moment, an agreement that is just awaiting its finishing touches and of which we know nothing?

With regard to the first point, it is not for me to say whether Hansard has been misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps if he reads his words and those of his hon. Friend he will find all that he needs. [An HON. MEMBER: "As modified."] As modified.

Will my right hon. Friend put it to the gentlemen in Brussels that the EEC is trying to interfere in Britain in an utterly ridiculous and humiliating way—by requiring, for example, that certain meat inspections should be carried out not as they have been satisfactorily done in Britain by environmental health inspectors but by vets?

That is an old point which has arisen again. We are taking up the point in Brussels in so far as it concerns our domestic production—that which is destined for the United Kingdom market. It is a bit different when one comes to meat for export, because not only is the EEC concerned but there are a number of separate countries which insist on veterinary inspection before accepting meat.

Regarding the common agricultural policy, does my memory fail me or was not the right hon. Gentleman a member of the Cabinet of the Government now headed by the Prime Minister—who has just come into the Chamber—who were supposed to have carried out a renegotiation in 1975, which that Government recommended to the country?

If the hon. Gentleman cares to look at the statement issued at the time, he will find that reference was made to a stocktaking of the common agricultural policy, which, I believe, the German Government had promised to initiate. It was in the light of that that the renegotiation took place. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman might care to refresh his memory, as I did only yesterday. He will find in the statement a very clear reference to the fact that we did not find the common agricultural policy quite as good or effective as he and his hon. Friends found it at the time.

Would not "Yes" have been a simple, honest and straightforward answer to my hon. Friend?

No, it would not. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will be busy reading up his own speeches in Hansard and showing where they differ from his present position as modified, but he might find a little time to read also the statement in question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Potato Marketing Board took up 500,000 tons of potatoes in February; and what is the estimated tonnage of these potatoes which will have to be ploughed into the ground.

Because of depressed returns to producers in the first part of the current season, the Potato Marketing Board, with the approval of my right hon. Friend, put a support buying programme into operation. Prices were slow to respond until late in the season, when free stocks were reducing rapidly.

Will my right hon. Friend give the real facts? Does he not agree, first, that the Potato Marketing Board purchased 542,000 tonnes of potatoes in February—of which 240,000 tonnes have rotted—at a cost to the taxpayer of £10 million as a subsidy to the farmer, and secondly, that this forced up the price of potatoes from 3p a pound to 5p a pound? Is it not time that the Potato Marketing Board was wound up as it is merely an adjunct to the National Farmers' Union?

In reply to an earlier Question. I stated that the average retail price of potatoes this year is less than half what it was a year ago. We should keep this matter in perspective. There is a net surplus, as I said, of only 3 per cent. in a crop totalling 6·2 million tonnes. That is a small surplus when we consider all the problems facing the industry—the change in eating patterns since 1976, when there was a very severe drought and potato prices went very high, changes in yield, changes in consumer demand and so on. I think that I and the House would be much more worried if there were a shortage of 3 per cent. instead of a surplus. In all the circumstances, I think that the outcome is very commendable. At the same time, the PMB and the guarantee have an important role to play.

What is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of plantings for the year 1978–79?

I cannot give the figures to the hon. Member at present, but I hope that the plantings will be adequate to ensure that supply and demand are in balance when the time comes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the steps taken by the Council of Ministers to increase consumption of milk and milk products throughout the EEC.

No, Sir.

May I ask the Minister about the EEC school milk scheme and why he has not made it mandatory? Is he aware that many county councils are refusing to join the scheme, apparently because they see it as an open-ended agreement, and that as they do not know how many authorities are joining they do not know how much rate support grant will be given to cover it? Is he aware that the Berkshire county council has estimated that the overheads for the scheme will be 25 per cent. of its total cost in the county, although the Ministry allows in its advice only 4 per cent. to cover those costs?

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I doubt whether he took quite that line of argument when the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition was busy taking the milk away in 1970. If I may say so, his duty is not to tell the House what should be done but to tell his own county council of Berkshire—and while he is about it he might deal with Redbridge, Solihull, Hertfordshire, Hampshire, Kent, Northamptonshire, Salop and Surrey.

Would not the best way to increase consumption of these products be to reduce the price?

That, in effect, is what free school milk means.

On a point of order—

Will the hon. Gentleman wait till after Prime Minister's Questions?

My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is in relation to all the answers that we have so far received, and in view of their totally unsatisfactory nature I give notice that I intend to seek leave to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his speech to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions at Eastbourne on 30th June concerning wages and inflation.

I did so on 6th July.

Does the Prime Minister recall that in that speech he spoke of Socialism in action? Where does he rank the doubling of prices in the Government's achievements, and why does he resolutely refuse to forecast inflation beyond the end of this calendar year?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. What I said I thought was Socialism in action was when the wage earners of this country voluntarily accepted restraint on their wages, in order that the pensioners of this country could have an increase that was far bigger than the increase in wages because it was related to price increases. That is my definition of Socialism in action—when the strong stand back to help the weak.

Is the Prime Minister aware that any calls for wage moderation are bound to be unpopular but that the response that he has received from Sidney Weighell and other trade union leaders proves that his courageous and very brave stand demanding wage moderation will have a constructive response from the trade unions? The Opposition are bound to oppose it because they are constantly seeking popularity.

The Government's proposals as to what can best be afforded in the way of increased earnings in order to maintain our standards of life will, I hope, be published tomorrow, and, subject to the will of the House and the Lord President's announcement on business, I hope that we can have a full debate on the matter next week. Then, perhaps, we shall learn the attitude of the Opposition.

Now that we know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is work- ing on the assumption that on his policies unemployment will rise to 1·7 million, will the Prime Minister say whether he is working on the same assumption or a different one?

That is not correct. The figures that are included in order to estimate what public expenditure is likely to be over the next three or four years are not forecasts of unemployment. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is very swift this afternoon. They are assumptions that can be altered by policy changes. Indeed, since that figure was published last autumn and sent to the Government Actuary, it has already been twice revised downwards and the new figures have also been published. These variables are so great that they give a spurious precision to any idea that one can attempt to forecast unemployment two or three years ahead.

Does not the Prime Minister recall what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said during the last election campaign, when all his speeches were euphoric—that any party which contemplated unemployment at a level of 1½ million was a party unfit to govern? Is it not time that he took his own medicine?

Yes, Sir, I think that it is true that a level of 1·5 million is unacceptable to everybody in this country. What I also know is that if the policies that have been put forward from the Opposition Dispatch Box were carried out, taking away grants and subsidies as well as other measures, there is no doubt that unemployment in this country would be very much higher than it is.

Will my right hon. Friend take heart from the opinion poll today showing that there is a three-to-one majority in support of his economic policies? Is this not a clear indication that the public can distinguish between a concerned approach, such as my right hon. Friend has, and the kind of callow carping that we get from the Opposition?

I do not know whether it is callow carping or an opportunistic attempt to take advantage of every grievance that exists. Whichever way it is, it contrasts with the steady policy that the Government are following in this matter. That is why there is continuing support for the Government.

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

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

Now that the Scotland Bill is going through its penultimate stages, may I ask the Prime Minister to take time off today to give us a precise date for the referendum on the Scottish Assembly? Is he aware that the SNP will press him all the way on this matter?

Was the hon. Gentleman saying that he would press the Government or support the Government? I did not quite catch it.

Can I tell the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker—

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman quickly put his supplementary question again so that the Prime Minister can hear it?

Will the Prime Minister give a precise date for the holding of a referendum on the Scottish Assembly?

I was hoping to hear from the hon. Gentleman that I was to get some support from the Scottish National Party, which would be a change considering the number of times that it has voted with the Conservatives with the aim of utterly destroying the Bill which would give Scotland an Assembly. Of course we shall give urgent consideration to fixing the date of a referendum as soon as the Bill is through. Orders will have to be laid, as I understand it, which will need the consent of both Houses before we can move to that stage.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Secretary of State for Education and Science and with officials of the education authority in Kingston-upon-Thames the interesting referendum conducted among parents by that education authority about secondary education which showed a desire for reorganisation to a non-selective system? Will he find ways and means of ensuring that these democratically expressed wishes are carried into effect as soon as possible?

I am interested to hear of that conclusion. It bears out the policy of the Government—namely, that the people of this country, and parents in particular, want a system of comprehensive education. I am glad to say that since we assumed office the number of children enjoying comprehensive education has increased from 60 to 80 per cent. At the same time, the number of pupils per class has declined and the number of school teachers has increased.

As it is the Government's policy to encourage early retirement, and as the Prime Minister has now passed retirement age by two years, may I ask whether his engagements for today include a visit to the Palace to inform Her Majesty when he intends to retire and whether he will suggest as his replacement his ageing Leader of the House or the electrifying Secretary of State for Energy?

Order. Perhaps I ought to declare an interest here.

In view of my right hon. Friend's well-known concern for the low-paid and his earlier statement about helping the weak, may I ask whether he will be having any discussions today with the Lord Privy Seal or the Minister of State, Civil Service Department about the industrial civil servant, who is very lowly paid? Is he aware that a married man with two children—an employee of the Government on the lower band—can qualify for family income supplement? Is this not a matter which the Government should be considering?

The Lord Privy Seal is ready, through his officials or, indeed, directly, to meet the unions concerned on these matters, but there must be agreement this year to accept the guidelines that the Government laid down 12 months ago in relation to pay increases. Any rearrangement that can be made within that level can, of course, be agreed, but we cannot agree to exceptions. We have fought too hard a battle to give way at this stage.

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

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford).

Will the Prime Minister take more time today to reconsider the answer he gave just now in relation to the referendum? It is quite obvious that the Government have not made up their minds and are backsliding. Will he kindly give the House the date of the referendum for which the Scottish people are waiting?

It is a very odd form of backsliding to have to introduce a guillotine and to keep the House sitting late at night in order to get the Bill so that the people of Scotland can take their own decision.

That is not an answer.

It was not a question.

In considering the referendum which the SNP is so keen about will the Prime Minister consider including a question asking whether the Scottish people would like the devaluation of the green pound on the lines suggested by the SNP this afternoon, which would mean another 75p on the cost of the family shopping basket by the end of the year?

I am sure that that question, if put, would get a resounding "No" from the canny and thrifty Scots. That is why the SNP is losing ground so fast nowadays.

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

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford).

When the Prime Minister was talking about the estimated 1·7 million unemployed next year, he said that the figure had been revised downwards twice. Could he now say what, in the Government's opinion, is the latest expected unemployment figure for next year? Could he give as free an assurance as he has given about the rate of inflation about the expected rate of unemployment, and could he say how dependent that unemployment figure is on a 5 per cent. rate of wage increases in phase 4?

I cannot give the answers to all those questions, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the revised assumptions, which are, I understand, technically different from forecasts, were published in May of this year, so I suppose the Opposition will have seen them by now. As to whether the assumptions are dependable, that is a fact on which no one can comment, because—

Give us the numbers.

The hon. Gentleman did not ask the supplementary question—a number of differing factors make up the level of unemployment, as the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) knows. If, for example, world trade improves—as I trust it will, following our discussions at Bonn last weekend—that in itself will have a favourable influence, and there are other matters of this sort.

Has my right hon. Friend given any further thought to the deplorable sentences imposed on Soviet dissidents? Does he not agree that it would, even in these circumstances, be totally wrong for us to lessen our efforts to achieve detente? Would it not also be desirable that we should be far more consistent in our denunciation of the abuses of human rights in places like Iran, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, about which so many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are silent?

The Government and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made their views known to the Soviet Government about the sentences that have been passed. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary, in the interests of world peace, to pursue the prospects of getting agreements both on a comprehensive test ban treaty and on strategic arms limitation talks. Nor do I rule out, as some seem to do, direct contacts between Soviet citizens and organisations and our own citizens and organisations. I believe it is valuable, provided that we make clear to Soviet organisations what our position is, as I assume the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday when she met the Soviet Ambassador. If she was not contaminated, I do not believe anybody else need be.

Since the Prime Minister may be presumed to be interested in the advance warnings which are available of the sort of catastrophe which arise from advanced forms of Socialism, is there any possibility of his having an early conversation with his opposite number, the Prime Minister of Sweden, to discuss with him the appalling financial consequences for that Government of the present attempts to salvage the shipbuilding industry?

It is a Tory Government.

As far as I can remember, the Swedish shipbuilding industry prospered when there was a Socialist Government and has come to grief now that there is a Conservative Government. I think the same would be true in this country.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to today's Questions, may I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that forestry is not an unimportant responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? We had a forestry Question, Question No. 12, in the name of the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), but in the course of 40 minutes we were able only to reach Agriculture Question No. 10.

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. He will remember that I appealed more than once for shorter questions and answers. But every time I moved on from a Question today there were a large number of hon. Members still standing. I am sorry that we did not reach forestry.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the number of times that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) rose to ask agricultural questions, is not this a case of Peyton rebuking sin?

Not exactly. The right hon. Gentleman took the place of somebody else who would have been called on the Opposition side.