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

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects next to meet his European Community ministerial colleagues.

I shall attend the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers on 12 February.

Can the Minister confirm that for the United Kingdom dairy sector the combination of the suggested co-responsibility levy on additional milk products, taken with the inadequate proposed green pound devaluation, could mean the total erosion of the profitability of British dairy farmers? Does he agree that that would be disastrous for that sector of the industry and would have adverse effects upon the structure of the British countryside?

The Commission's proposals for a green pound devaluation is a separate matter. The co-responsibility levy is highly discriminatory against United Kingdom dairy farmers. It conflicts entirely with the doctrine in which the whole House believes—that those who do not create the surplus in a commodity should be entitled to expand their production efficiently.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Ministers will he continue to support a general price freeze on agriculture products? If necessary, will he use the veto? Will he continue to defend the interests of the British housewife and never mind the Eurofanatics on the Opposition Benches?

I am more worried about the Euro-fanatics round the table in Brussels. But I can assure my hon. Friend that not only shall we maintain to the final degree a freeze on common prices this year—which might involve the use of the veto, although I hope that it will not—but we intend to do so until the structural surpluses have been eliminated.

In the context of those negotiations, would it not be a good idea to return to the theme of keeping down the intervention part of the agriculture budget and increasing the guidance payments to persuade inefficient farmers to leave the sector?

Although I understand why inefficient farmers have to be compensated there is no reason why that cost should be added to the price of foodstuffs throughout the Community. That is a national concern and should be so considered.

When my right hon. Friend next meets his fellow Agriculture Ministers in Europe, will he remind them that the price of butter in the EEC is almost four times the price that it is on world markets? Will he therefore press hard that the best way to get rid of the huge butter surplus is to reduce the price of butter to housewives throughout the EEC, including Britain?

Yes, and I have pointed this out on a number of occasions, and as recently as last Tuesday. Whatever they may say, in practice the German housewives who queued up to go on butter ship trips agreed with me.

First, will the right hon. Gentleman give his full support to the French and Italians in seeking to get the proposed devaluation of the green currencies moving without delay? Secondly, is he aware of the warm agreement with what he said about the co-responsibility levy? It would be quite intolerable if the Germans, who are contributing the lion's share to this surplus, were allowed to be exempted from the rather fierce measures that are proposed, while our dairy farmers feel their full force.

On the second point, I welcome the support of those on the Conservative Benches and of the right hon. Gentleman in particular. It is vital that people should understand that. But the right hon. Gentleman is a little wrong about the devaluation. Although there was an original French proposal that they should join, they remained totally silent about it, and I am not certain that they want a devaluation in advance. On the other hand, the Italians do. My position is clear. If the Italians get a devaluation of the green lira ahead of the price fixing, that will be one less worry for them in the price fixing. In that event, I reserve the British right to do the same, and it will be one less worry for us.

If the Minister fails to gain the agreement of his counterparts in Europe to devalue the green pound, what alternative plans does he have to help industry in this country? Secondly, when does he think that the price review negotiations will be finalised this year?

On the second question, it might be quite a long summer. There seem to be some little local difficulties in the Community which have to be got out of the way first. The hon. Gentleman's first point is interesting. I have some ideas at the back of my mind, but they would imply that we never had a price fixing.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress so far made towards the equalisation of fuel costs to glasshouse growers in different EEC countries.

As I told my hon. Friend on 16 November 1978, the cost of oil, which is the fuel predominantly used by British growers, does not differ greatly here from that in other EEC countries.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I cannot accept this? According to my figures, the cost of gas to Dutch growers is approximately three-quarters the price of the equivalent amount of oil, taking 24p per gallon for heavy oil as approximately the current price. As Shell has permission to impose an increase of 1½p per gallon, which will probably be followed by the other oil companies, will not this increase the existing disparity and disadvantage of an efficient British industry compared with its European competitors? Does this not again illustrate how British horticulture has done badly out of the EEC?

I understand my hon. Friend's concern about energy costs, particularly as he is a resolute champion of the interests of those who work in horticulture in his constituency. But in my answer I was referring to oil. Gas is relatively cheap in Holland, but that is for geographical and geological reasons. The gas is onshore and the glasshouses are reasonably near these fields.

Is it not true that the Dutch have a favourable arrangement with the fuel authorities in Holland and that it has nothing to do with the proximity of the fuel source to the glasshouses? We have growers who could be just as close to natural gas sources, but the Dutch Government treat the matter differently.

The production costs of gas in Holland are much lower than in the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman must face the fact that we have no evidence—we have looked at this closely—of gas being supplied to Dutch horticultural producers below the cost of production.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Greater London Council about the increasing cost and the delay in the construction of the Thames flood barrier.

The aim of the discussions which my officials and I have had with the GLC in recent months was to see what could be done to achieve the earlier completion of the barrier and to contain costs. I am glad to say that the recent agreement between the GLC and the contractors approved by the Government gives every prospect of meeting these objectives.

Within the next three years there is about one chance in 17 of a major flood disaster in London in which large numbers of people might be drowned, thousands of homes flooded and the London Underground and power stations put out of action for months on end. Why has the completion of the flood barrier been allowed to fall several years behind schedule and the costs to rise faster than inflation, to a current level of £500 million or £600 million?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is many years since the Waverley committee first suggested that a barrier should be built. When rather to my surprise I discovered that the Thames barrier was within my responsibilities, I immediately got in touch with the GLC to try to shorten the period of completion. Until then, it had been mid-1984. The completion date is now 1982, and I hope we can meet that date.

Will my right hon. Friend redouble his splendid efforts? Last week there was a warning for the area around the Palace of Westminster that there was once again the possibility of a flood. Will he try even harder with the GLC?

We must now ensure that the contract is kept to time, and I am reasonably satisfied that that can be done. But we must also make people aware of the dangers. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) was right. It could be extremely damaging to life and limb in London.

In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said about the possible catastrophe that hangs over London, does the Minister recognise that the responsibility for this project and its completion is largely his?

No; it is a matter for the GLC. The Government provide the money and we set the policy, and the policy is to get the barrier built. That was why I put a slight bomb under the GLC to get the period shortened—if I may put it like that.

Whatever the timetable, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Darenth barrier is completed before the Thames barrier becomes operational in order to prevent my constituents from being flooded out by the backwash from the Thames barrier?

All these highly complex matters must be taken into consideration.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that there was severe flooding in Greenford, in my constituency, two years ago? People are not happy about what has been undertaken by the local authority and the GLC and do not believe that it is any guarantee that it will not happen again. Will the Minister make inquiries on the real progress that has been made to prevent a future similar disaster?

The possibility of flood is principally the concern of the GLC and the London boroughs. I hope that hon. Members representing London constituencies will take an interest in this problem. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that there was a 17 to 1 chance of serious flooding and everyone should recognise that fact and do what he can.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will meet the chairman of the White Fish Authority.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so, but there is close and continuing contact between the Authority and my Department at all levels.

Does the Minister recall that when he visited the port of Folkestone some years ago the fishermen there impressed upon him the sheer necessity for conservation of fish stock? Is he satisfied that everything is being done to see that the fish are being properly conserved?

I do recall the visit and the representations the hon. Member has made since on this matter. He will be aware of the significant number of conservation orders put before the House in the last few months and earlier. He will also be aware of the order laid on 6 December last—the White Fish Authority (Researeh and Development Grants) Order—which raises the amount of money available from central funds to the authority by £1 million. Not only is conservation important; so are other aids to the industry to make it viable.

When do the Government expect to announce the general scope of the conservation measures which will be imposed in 1979 in relation to those which were imposed in 1978 and 1977?

We are taking action continually to conserve certain species of fish. Apart from that, it is important to get the agreement of the Community on these matters. This is receiving our urgent attention.

When my right hon. Friend meets members of the White Fish Authority will he ask them to ensure, when they are allocating grants for building new fishing vessels, that orders for new boats are spread fairly around the country? Will he particularly bear in mind Eyemouth, in my constituency?

I am sure that the Authority will bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend. The most important thing is to know the future shape of the industry by getting an early resolution of the common fisheries policy.

Can the Minister give any indication of when he will bring forward legislation to clarify and redefine the position of the White Fish Authority, as presaged some seven years ago?

The hon. Member will be aware of the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee that this should be done. However, I do not think that the Sub-Committee stressed urgency. There is a great deal of integration between the two organisations principally concerned and we are in consultation with them towards that end.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will meet the chairman of United Kingdom Agricultural Supply Trade Association.

My Department is of course in close and regular contact with the Association, but my right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the president of UKASTA.

In the course of this close association, has the Minister become aware of the anxieties of the relevant committee of UKASTA and the British Edible Pulse Association about EEC policies which are rightly designed to increase our self-sufficiency in animal feedstuffs, but which are unfortunately choking off United Kingdom production of processed peas for human consumption? In view of the importance of this crop in Essex and other Eastern counties, will the Minister make sure that these anxieties are removed?

Our officials are in close touch with UKASTA and undoubtedly if this matter is raised, we shall give the fullest co-operation.

When the Minister next meets the chairman, will he point out that every economic forecast produced in the last few months has asserted that global prices of food are falling? Will he ask the chairman to give an explanation of why the food index shows no sign of falling? In the meantime can the Minister offer the House any tentative explanation of this strange fact?

One of the major factors is the situation in Brussels. My right hon. Friend's views on this matter of price levels are very important.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the extent to which food and foodstuffs are being delayed by industrial action; and if he will make a statement.

The distribution of food is now returning to normal and I do not think I need make any further statement.

I understand the Minister's wish to put recent events behind him, but can he tell us whether he personally, as a member of the Cabinet, is satisfied that the law on picketing is clear and not in need of amendment? Can he also tell us, as a member of the Cabinet—[Interruption.]

Order. This question is about the supply of foodstuffs and industrial action. If the hon. Member has a question on picketing he should put it on the Order Paper.

But Mr. Speaker, it is about the fact that the Minister sanctioned and approved the agreement reached with the lorry drivers. That is the point behind this question. In the light of this dispute, what is the Government's pay policy now?

It has just occurred to me that the hon. Member has got the wrong Silkin.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a new threat to foodstuffs looming on the horizon from the decision of the European Court of Justice yesterday on the operation of tachographs? Will he sound an early warning in the Cabinet that this judgment will cause great problems?

A warning was sounded in Europe that it would cause many problems for us. If we are talking about the high price of foodstuffs, a little of the answer is to be found in Brussels.

asked the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had concerning the common agricultural policy.

The most recent were at the meeting of the Agriculture Council in Brussels earlier this week.

Does the Minister accept that the common agricultural policy is like a bank which never closes and which only pays out money?

Then why does my hon. Friend support it?

Will my right hon. Friend draw the specific attention of his colleagues to the fact that the way this crazy policy operates at present means that consumers pay higher prices than they need to andthen, as taxpayers, they are caned for a second instalment on intervention?

My hon. Friend might have added a third element—that the majority payment into this non-closing bank happens to be British.

As the CAP has such a tremendous influence on the pattern of food production in this country, will the Minister tell us when he will produce an updated version of "Food from Our Own Resources"? When he produces that version, will he tell the United Kingdom farmers what the Government expect of them in the future?

There is a later question on the Order Paper on exactly this subject. I hope that hon. Members who have asked me this question will not regard it as a discourtesy if I answer it now. The answer is that copies will be available today in the Vote Office after 3.30 pm.

As the French and Germans are top of the first division in defending their own national interests, will my right hon. Friend understand that his vigorous defence of British interests commands widespread support throughout the country? As the charge for our membership of the Common Market now represents £20 a head for every British man, woman and child, will he continue that vigorous defence and ensure that there is no increase in the price of British food as a result of our membership?

We have to see where the problem lies. It is in the accumulation of high-priced surpluses in Europe—not in this country. It is my intention that we shall continue year after year to see that the prices do not rise until the surpluses have been eliminated. That is the best help that we can give to British housewives, and indeed to those of other EEC countries.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, apart from keeping prices down as far as possible, we need a switch from guarantees to guidance? Does he agree that structural plans must be revised and that it is about time we had a rural fund to deal with the rural areas not only in this country but also in Europe? This would help people get out of production in cases where there are surpluses.

The object of the hon. Gentleman's question is right. I am not sure that it would be altogether right to switch it from one payment by the Community as a whole to another. It seems to me that these should be national payments. When I look at where the main problem lies, and the country where it lies, it seems to me that that country can well afford to pay for it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the EEC Council of Agriculture Ministers on the question of ending the export of live animals for slaughter.

The Commission has now tabled proposals for improving the protection of animals during international transport. We shall press for early discussion on these in the Council.

May I ask the Minister to press with equal enthusiasm the notion that the export of live animals for slaughter from this country should be stopped? Will the Government please stop pussyfooting on this issue?

I cannot accept that the Government are pussyfooting on this issue. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept that not only should we be concerned about animal welfare in this country but that, indeed, we should be concerned internationally and that we should do everything possible to reduce the unnecessary suffering of livestock.

Will the Minister and his right hon. Friend give every possible assistance to building abattoirs of EEC standards in the areas where the animals are produced, so avoiding the necessity for long transport trips?

Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman is aware that it is Government policy to encourage the slaughter of animals in this country. Indeed, that is why we provide significant grants for the modernisation of slaughterhouses.

In view of the protracted nature of the EEC discussions, will the Minister take legal action to prevent those live exports that are against the law?

Certainly. If my hon. Friend can bring any instances of lawbreaking to our attention, we shall pursue the matter. As to the EEC directive, we should bear in mind that there already is a general directive which we were involved in pursuing when we had the presidency. We are now talking about an implementing directive, which is an important and recent proposal and on which we want to see a decision soon.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with current arrangements for the supply of feedstuffs for livestock.

Since my statement to the House on 22 January I am pleased to be able to report that the supply of animal feedingstuffs has much improved. Most feed manufacturers are receiving adequate supplies of raw materials and are reintroducing their better quality rations. I am hopeful that arrangements will soon be back to normal.

The House will be glad that this cruel threat to animals has been averted. Does the Minister agree that the greatest threat to the wellbeing of animals came from secondary picketing and not exports? Would not the RSPCA be better advised to urge a change in the law on picketing to the other Silkin?

The hon. Gentleman might address part of that question to the other Silkin.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that maize and barley, which are major feedingstuffs for the British livestock industry, now bear an import tax approaching 100 per cent. as a result of the European Communities Act and that that Act was supported by, amongst others, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)?

I was aware of both those facts. As the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) is so keen on the welfare of animals, he may draw the conclusions himself.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will meet the president of the Dairy Federation.

I am in regular contact with the president of the Dairy Trade Federation, but I have no specific plans for a meeting at present.

Will the Secretary of State discuss with the president, when he meets him, the possible consequence to producers of the strict health regulations on milk in this country not being renewed in 1980 and there being an influx of cut-price milk from Ireland and the Continent? Will he also consider the consequences on the consumers if our traditional door-to-door deliveries are not continued? Will the Minister say what he is attempting to do to get. Continental safety standards up to our own?

The hon. Gentleman put his finger on an important point. This is one reason, among many others, why we must do everything we can to preserve the proper hygiene regulations. Otherwise it seems to me that we are liable to be flooded with cut-price milk but of a standard that we have not had in this country, to the best of my knowledge. Those who advocate such a policy should—I am not a vindictive man—be sentenced to drink Charlemagne building milk for three months.

When my right hon. Friend meets the president, will he assure him that he intends to resist the EEC proposal for a levy on dairy farm production? Is it not a fact that the common agricultural policy is working against the interests of consumers, taxpayers and the farming community?

There is no doubt that the co-responsibility levy to which my hon. Friend referred would—certainly in its present form—be disastrous for our dairy production. I do not know what changes there may be. This is an example of the Commission not having the courage of our convictions. The co-responsibility levy is meant to be a tax by which to bring down the support price of dairy products throughout the Community. This should be done directly. There is an understandable case for our prices going up somewhat. There is no case whatever for leaving as they are, let alone increasing, dairy prices in the Community.

When the Minister next meets the president of the Dairy Trade Federation will he advise him that he is fully aware that this country is not self-sufficient in liquid milk and milk products and that in no circumstances will he permit the co-responsibility levy, at present proposed by the EEC, to be implemented? I am glad he indicated that earlier. Will he also emphasise the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad), that there must be no undermining of the health and hygiene regulations of this country, which would result in the mass import of bulk liquid milk of a lower quality which would destroy our daily pinta within a year or two?

I do not mind saying all that to the president of the Dairy Trade Federation. No doubt he would be interested to hear me say it. However, it would be much better if I said it in Brussels.

Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to Commissioner Gundelach's proposal to encourage greater expenditure on milk marketing and dairy marketing generally in the Community? Perhaps he would care to point to the model of the British Milk Marketing Board, which the Community attempted to destroy.

That is right. That is not the only matter about which we should be concerned. It is not only a question of cutting down production. There are many people in Europe who, if the price were right, would be willing to consume. I am distressed that, in spite of the fact that we could have saved £3¾ million of the budget we pay to Brussels, no fewer than 42 Conservative councils in this country have refused to operate the free school milk scheme.

Does the Minister agree that there is widespread concern in the dairy industry about the package which Mr. Gundelach proposed in the past week? Will he try to relieve some of that gloom by commenting on the report in The Daily Telegraph this morning that Mr. Gundelach is climbing down on the matter of the co-responsibility levy, and that it may not be necessary to exempt farmers in Europe from the levy?

We shall have to see what happens in the course of what I said that I believe will be a fairly protracted series of negotiations. The matter on which I do not want the Commissioner to climb down, however, is the price freeze.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from members of the public concerning the effects of feedstuff shortages in live-stock in the recent lorry drivers' strike.

To date I have received three such representations.

From the previous stoppage of supplies, which lasted a short time, will the Minister say whether there are any lessons to be learned for the future, just in case the Minister's own union starts to cut up rough again about deliveries, for wholly unconnected reasons?

I think that the lessons are that, if we find ourselves in this sort of position again—and obviously I hope we shall not—it will be preferable to deal with it locally, with the Government watching overall to see that the different problems as they arise are dealt with on a nationwide basis, with talks taking place locally between Government officials, MAFF officials in particular in this case, the NFU and the striking people, whoever they may be. That is a very tolerable way of dealing with the position, and that is exactly what happened.

Although the supply of feeding stuffs was immensely better than was suggested by both the media and the Opposition during the recent dispute, is my right hon. Friend aware of, and will he investigate, the quite sharp increases in the price of feeding stuffs which have been imposed, both directly and by the termination of discounts, during and since the recent dispute?

I think there was bound to be an increase in the price of feeding stuffs, partly because feeding stuffs were obviously in shorter supply, and that has its effect, and also partly because, in order to get the supply going, feeding stuffs had to be taken rather greater distances. But there were other factors involved. We must remember that we have had one of the worst winters for 20 or 30 years. That added to the cost.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tons of potatoes were produced in Great Britain during each of the past four years; and if he will also give the selling price per ton.

As the question calls for a number of statistics, I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report.

Will my right hon. Friend give comparable figures for potatoes which have been produced in the other EEC countries? Will he bear in mind that if the price of potatoes in the United Kingdom is kept at a very artificially high level, higher than prices on the Continent, that would be a great disadvantage to the processed potato food producers in this country, in that cheaper potatoes in the EEC countries would allow cheaper potato processed foods to come to this country?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the discussions which are under way concerning the future of the Potato Marketing Board and the potato regime generally. It is important to encourage our producers to produce and at the same time ensure that reasonable prices are available for the consumer.

Will the Minister point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) that if he wants the figures for the United Kingdom, he should ask for them?

The figures which have been asked for will be in the Official Report.

Will the Minister explain to the House the fact that the weather conditions have a very big effect on the supply of potatoes, and that therefore in many years it is not a particularly profitable crop?

We are expecting or estimating a surplus of some hundreds of thousands of tons, but there may be significant wastage as a result of frost damage and for other reasons.

Is it the case that many thousands of tons of potatoes have been bought off the market and destroyed in order to keep up the price? If so, is it not just as wrong to destroy them as to keep a mountain of them?

I think that my hon. Friend will be aware of the need for a buying-in programme to give stability to the market. Surplus potatoes are also used for feedstuffs, which is very helpful.

What consideration has the Minister given to the creation of a separate guaranteed price system for seed potatoes, in order to encourage a quality product for export, as well as for United Kingdom use? What lessons has he learned from the Dutch Government in this respect?

Ensuring that the consumer gets good quality potatoes is a matter for the Potato Marketing Board, but the Ministry is in very close touch on these matters.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent recent shortages of agricultural supplies have affected prices to farmers.

There have been some increases in the price of some supplies, but it is difficult to give a general answer.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made an estimate of the effect of the lorry drivers' settlement, which was more than 20 per cent., on farmers' costs? Will he promise that the settlement, and the likely high level of other settlements, will be taken into account?

It would be quite impossible to make such an assessment. Indeed, it is all very confused, for while, for example, the price of eggs and potatoes—and of cereals, in a few areas—has undoubtedly risen, there has been no increase in the price of fertilisers, there has been no increase in the price of seeds and there has been no increase in the price of sprays. As I said in reply to an earlier question, some of the increases are due to the bad weather, anyway.

asked the Prime Minister when he expects next to meet the Trades Union Congress.

I met representatives of the TUC at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council yesterday and further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Is the Prime Minister aware that in his dealings with the TUC, if he stands by his brave words of last night that present pay offers in the public sector disputes are pretty well the limit, he will have the support of all Opposition Members, even if he cannot command the support of members of his own party? Will he further remind the TUC, on the subject of reform of the law on picketing and the closed shop, that opinion polls show that it is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and not the TUC, who speaks for the trade unionists in this country?

I am very glad to have from the hon. Gentleman the official statement of the Opposition's position on pay claims. I am sure that he has been to the fountainhead in order to derive the authoritative exposition that he gave us.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the TUC, will he con- vey to it that, since the motivation of the Labour movement is concern for the less fortunate in our society, and since Conservatism is a belief in grabbing for oneself, is it not perhaps time that some of the more powerful and self-concerned unions, with their belief in free collective bargaining, became affiliated to the Tory Party?

I am constantly reminded by the Opposition that there are a large number of Tory trade unionists, some of whom are at the moment on strike or leading the strikes.

Will the Prime Minister discuss with the trade union movement today's rise in interest rates? Is he not aware that an increase in interest rates to 14 per cent. is a potential disaster for home buyers? Is it not the case that mortgage rates are already higher than at any time before 1974 and that it is the home buyer and the small business who are having to pay the price for the Government's economic failure?

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for spelling out some of the consequences of the policy she has been advocating. Perhaps she will now give me greater support in the Government's determination to keep inflation down and to achieve moderate wage settlements as a means of so doing and to ensure that the degree of uncertainty about the level of wage settlements, which is partly responsible for the increase in the minimum lending rate, is put at an end. I would be very happy to have her support on those matters.

Is the Prime Minister aware that if he wishes genuinely to get down inflation, he must get down Government borrowing? The real reason for the increase to 14 per cent. is the high amount of borrowing which this Chancellor has been doing and his declared intention to increase that borrowing by a further 2½ per cent. next year.

The right hon. Lady is, as so often, partly right. The level of Government borrowing clearly influences the level of interest rates. The level of Government borrowing in this country is about on a par with that of a number of other major industrial countries as a proportion of our gross domestic product. It would be helpful if we could reduce it, but I prefer that it should be done not by cutting public expenditure but by increasing economic growth, which would give us additional revenue.

If the Prime Minister is so anxious to reduce Government borrowing, will he withdraw the present White Paper on public expenditure?

The present White Paper, which provided for a modest increase of 2 per cent., was generally regarded as a sensible approach to these matters. The right hon. Lady has no need to adopt a hectoring tone about this. But the uncertainties of the present pay situation, including the high additional cost that would result from meeting some of the claims being put forward in the public sector and in the public services—whether in the local authorities or the Civil Service—or some of the other claims, would mean, if carried through, that we would have to review total Government expenditure and the borrowing requirement. There can be no escape from that.

When the Prime Minister and his colleagues meet the TUC in these discussions, are they equipped with up-to-date figures on the present level of wage settlements? Can he give the House any figure for the level over the last month or so?

Yes. We are equipped with the notifications which are made. I believe they are not complete. I have not charged my memory, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not hold me too closely to what I say. But my recollection is that up to about a month ago, they were running at a little under 10 per cent. One or two of the most recent large settlements, including the lorry drivers' settlement, which the House will remember was 22 per cent., are now nudging the level above 10 per cent. This is the Government's concern. We should avoid getting on to this escalator which, four or five years ago, carried us up to 30 per cent. by the end of the round. Therefore, the Government must, and intend to, stand firm in their own area. If the country has to suffer a certain amount of disruption, I shall regret it. But that disruption will be less significant in the long run than it would be if we gave way to all these claims.

asked the Prime Minister when he plans next to meet the Confederation of British Industry.

I met representatives of the CBI at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council yesterday and further meetings will be arranged as necessary.

At the next meeting, will the Prime Minister invite the CBI to explain to him the grave damage to British industry and to those of us who depend on it and work in it which will be caused by the latest massive rise in interest rates, due to the incompetence of his Government?

The last part of the question will be a matter of judgment and argument. As to the first part, there is no doubt that high interest rates, if sustained for a considerable period, are damaging to industry and especially to small firms. That is one reason why it is important that we should maintain our insistence on keeping inflation under control. That, in its turn, will ensure higher employment. If we allow all these things to get out of control, there is no doubt that unemployment will increase.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the CBI, when it seeks legislation to control the unions, that the experience of the Opposition when in Government was to succeed in losing 23 million days in 1972? That must be an all-time record. Will he accept and also inform the CBI that its opposition to industrial democracy and to planning agreements helps to produce the industrial situation that we face today? Does he also accept that the basic solution to industrial problems is to provide decent basic wages and working conditions?

The answer to the last part of the question must be "Yes". As regards the first part, we had some discussion at NEDC yesterday about what is called in shorthand "industrial democracy". There is a difference between the Government and the CBI on the methods that should be employed. I am bound to tell the House that the CBI representatives said officially that they believe it is important that all CBI members should make available as much knowledge as possible of firms' investment programmes, profitability and future programme. There were complaints that a number of companies were not doing that. The CBI said that, if it could use its influence to ensure that companies did co-operate, it would do so. But there is still this difference over the method by which the Government would hope to proceed on industrial democracy.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House which Conservative trade unions are currently on strike or taking industrial action?

No, Sir.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his public engagements for 8 February.

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. I will also be meeting my hon. Friend and other of my hon. Friends representing Merseyside constituencies.

Will my right hon. Friend reflect this afternoon on the "World in Action" programme shown on Monday which linked mortality with unemployment? A reference to Liverpool suggests a possible 1,000 premature deaths. Will the Prime Minister order a Government inquiry into this latest disease? Does he not agree that large private companies such as Dunlop and Plessey have announced substantial redundancies in Liverpool and could possibly be considered in the future to be parties to murder?

There is undoubtedly a connection—I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing this to my attention—between poor urban conditions and a higher rate of mortality just as there is a distinct relationship between earlier deaths among manual workers compared with deaths among non-manual workers. These are factors that must always be taken into account. I note what my hon. Friend says about closures. Let us also remember—because Merseyside gets such a bad reputation—that Schreiber's is making a substantial improvement and hoping to employ several hundred more men. So is GEC Fairchild. There are, therefore, elements on the positive side as well as negative ones.

Does the Prime Minister appreciate that if there is a choice between a policy of high money interest rates and reducing Government expenditure, for the Government always to choose to increase money interest rates means that they are sacrificing future growth prospects of the economy? Is it not evident that the Government are embarked on a policy of low growth with the inevitable consequence of low wages?

This is a matter of dispute among economists. I do not think that we will clear it up by means of a supplementary question and answer. It would not be right to say that the Government have allowed public expenditure to go ahead untrammelled. Indeed, the complaints of my hon. Friends below the Gangway are that we have restricted it to too great a degree. In terms of the needs to be met, they are right, but the Government, the Chancellor and I always have to consider how we balance those needs. It would be very shortsighted to suggest that we should cut back substantially on public expenditure in a number of areas where needs are so great. Hon. Members should consider what we are hearing now about the National Health Service and other services. It would be very short-sighted to cut back further there, though, as I said earlier, it may be necessary to do something in those areas.

Will the Prime Minister find time to reflect that our low-paid workers require something similar to the Roosevelt New Deal to give them a guarantee that the benefits that they achieve will not be eroded within the next few months? Does he agree that the guarantors of such a new deal cannot be the Government, but must be the better-paid and more powerful groups in our society and that, until those groups pursue productivity and stop leapfrogging, we shall all continue to suffer—low-paid workers and society in general?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his comments. He has raised one of the most difficult issues which has to be resolved. Clearly, if everyone gets the same increase as the low-paid workers or, as I have heard some claim, twice as much as the low-paid workers, the man on low pay will either remain in the same relative position or fall further behind. The problem has to be resolved. The Government have made an approach and an offer to low-paid workers.

It is not good enough.

The hon. Gentleman is not negotiating. He had better leave that to the negotiators. We have proposed for low-paid workers a fixed sum and a study of comparable pay for comparable effort in order to see whether low-paid workers in the public sector get less than low-paid workers in the private sector. That is a matter of much dispute and only an examination will reveal the truth.

Does not the Prime Minister remember that 12 months ago, the minimum lending rate stood at 6½ per cent? Today it stands at 14 per cent. Does he not accept that that increase in interest rates, which is doing such damage to home buyers and industrial confidence, is the direct result of his Government's plan to increase public spending this year by £4,000 million—more than 6 per cent? Is it not clear that continued increases in interest rates without reductions in public spending are quite inadequate to redress the balance in the economy?

I do not accept a great deal of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says. A combination of internal and external policies has resulted in MLR going to a far higher level than any of us ought to want or desire. Another element that the House must take into account is that it is important to maintain the stability of our currency. The increase in interest rates is, partly, a protection for that purpose. That will help to keep down inflation.