asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is planning for the probability of another potato shortage in 1977; and if he will make a statement.

In line with our usual practice, we have determined the target area for 1977 on the assumption of normal weather conditions, and thus a normal yield.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the acreage for planting next year will not be lower than the acreage this year? Does he realise that the lower consumption of potatoes by the public this year was due solely to scarcity and high prices?

I can give no assurances. There is a target area agreed in con- junction with the Potato Marketing Board, but the area actually planted is a matter for the industry itself. Last season, the area planted was 204,000 hectares and this season it was 223,000 hectares. The target area for 1977 is 210,000 hectares, but the take-up depends on the industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the acreage this year was only marginally higher than that of last year because the Minister increased the guaranteed price only marginally? Is he aware that this price did not deliver the goods, and that if we had had a better guaranteed price for potatoes last season—as we suggested—there would have been a better crop, and prices would not have been so high? Will the Minister see that there is a guaranteed price next year which will ensure an adequate acreage and therefore reasonable prices?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will take into account all factors when the annual review takes place. We always estimate, under normal conditions, an increased yield and this is reflected in the target area. The hon. Gentleman will also recognise that there are a number of factors which contribute to whether we have enough potatoes. One of the most important is weather. From memory, I believe that the guaranteed price was increased last year from £28 a ton to £40 a ton.

rose— —

Order. Please may we have shorter questions and shorter answers?

As we may have a shortage of potatoes next year and in later years, will my hon. Friend explore with the Indian Government the possibility of making adequate arrangements for the importation of Indian potatoes, which are of a very high quality and which could be of advantage to British housewives? Is he aware that only 2,000 tons of Indian potatoes were imported this season?

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that there may be a shortage, but he would be equally right if he said that there might be a surplus. It depends on the weather, which no one can predict at this time. It is important not to overreact. We shall take any steps necessary at the appropriate time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the British glasshouse industry is not currently paying more for fuel than any of its competitors in the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

The price of oil and other inputs reflect a variety of factors, which may vary from one EEC country to another. The Commission has produced guidelines on fuel aids aimed at preventing distortion of competition. Under these guidelines all national fuel aids had to end before 1st July 1976.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the average price paid for the standard fuel oil used by the Lea Valley growers is now, after the latest rise, 24p a gallon, and that for the same amount of energy Dutch growers pay the equivalent of 14p? Does this not represent a tremendous distortion of competition, and is it not high time that we either told our European partners that they must do something or took action ourselves to defend our highly efficient industry?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's deep interest in the horticulture industry. He is referring specifically to Dutch natural gas and this is the one energy input that is not equalised, although the Dutch Government's policy is to equalise the price of gas with oil.

The hon. Gentleman has said that fuel aids must end by a certain date, but does he not agree that the specific problem of the Dutch Government and natural gas must be re-examined? Will he consider at the earliest moment, in the Council of Ministers, or elsewhere, tackling the problem of the special position of the Dutch, which is extremely unfair to British growers?

The hon. Gentleman might recognise that there is a distinction between the more obvious examples of unfair competition as a result of subsidisation and the price at which natural gas should be sold. I take the hon. Gen- tleman's point, but it is for the Commission to ensure that fairness operates throughout the industry.

Is the Minister aware that most of our glasshouse growers became dependent on oil some years ago before the tremendous increases in the price of oil, and that because of the places in which they are situated they cannot convert to natural gas? Will he bear these factors in mind?

I must make it clear that the Government are anxious to encourage the horticulture industry and that they have taken steps to do so. The most important thing that we can do is to advise the industry on ways in which to minimise energy usage.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings he has had in the EEC regarding Great Britain's fishing industry.

My right hon. Friend participated in meetings of the EEC Council of Agriculture Ministers which considered the development required in the internal operation of the common fisheries policy, most recently at the meeting held in Luxembourg on 25th and 26th October. The extension of fisheries limits and relations with third countries have been examined by EEC Ministers of Foreign Affairs, whose most recent meetings were reported by my right hon. Friends on 20th October and 2nd November.

Did my hon. Friend take notice of the Foreign Secretary's remarks about proposing to stand firm on the 200-mile limit, which affects not only this country but the Common Market? Does he agree that our real requirement is not so much the 200-mile limit as a 50-mile limit for the British fishermen, because otherwise we shall have fishermen on the dole as a result of our entry into the Common Market, just as we have hundreds of thousands of industrial workers on the dole as a result of our entry?

My hon. Friend will know, if he heard the statement a few days ago, that at the meeting at The Hague last week it was agreed that member States of the Community should extend their fishing limits to 200 miles as a first step— —

That is no good.

That is the fact, and I believe it is encouraging news. Further, my hon. Friend will know that the matter of limits, to which he referred, concerns the requirement of our industry to catch the quantity it needs to maintain its viability in future.

Will the Minister confirm that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will accompany his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the negotiations on the internal regime, so that the expertise and knowledge of his Department will be immediately at hand and available during the vital negotiations to secure a 50-mile exclusive limit?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will note the right hon. Gentleman's comments. We shall ensure that the fishing content of the matter is well taken care of at the negotiations.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although the weakest possible hand was dealt to the Secretary of State by the terms of the Treaty of Accession, the House will support him in insisting upon this country's requirement of a 50-mile exclusive limit, whatever may be the indirect consequences of so insisting?

I am sure that the House finds a great deal of sympathy with the first comment made by the right hon. Gentleman, about the negotiations on the Treaty, on which we have to build substantially to look after the interests of the industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the further stages of the negotiations dealing with the internal regime within 200 miles would really be much more appropriately carried out in the Council of Agriculture Ministers than in the Council of Foreign Ministers?

My hon. Friend will recognise that there are a number of highly complex issues involved in his question. I can assure him and the House that there is close collaboration between all the Ministers concerned in the negotiations that are now taking place.

If, by 1982, there is no agreement on what I call the federal fishing area by 1982, will the present derogation continue after that year, or will it then be a free-for-all?

My understanding is that we have to make changes in the present fishing policy, which was negotiated on accession, to bring about the necessary improvements. Apart from that, I think that the hon. Gentleman's question is hypothetical.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his intentions are with regard to the provision of assistance to other sectors of the livestock industry than dairy which have been damaged as a result of the drought.

I have already announced an increase of 3p per pound in the guaranteed price for fat sheep for the first three months of 1977, and I am proposing a change in the operation of the beef cow subsidy.

We are pleased at the help that the Minister is giving to the dairy sector of the industry, but is he aware that the problems of the drought affected the whole of the farming industry? What more is he considering doing to protect the consumer, other than the measures he has just announced? Is he considering a reseeding grant? Is he, further, considering devaluing the green pound?

I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get in a quick fast ball on the green pound. I have noticed that there is a Question or two on that subject later on the Order Paper. The use of the green pound as a drought measure would be the wrong approach, as the green pound is an un-selective weapon, whereas the drought was extremely selective. The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed this, but agriculture was the only sector in our economy to receive direct Government assistance following the drought.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the United Kingdom producer percentage share of the home market in the pig industry at today's date and in relation to 1975 and the previous five years.

The United Kingdom has been virtually self-sufficient in pork over the past seven years. As for home cured bacon, United Kingdom producers' share of the market increased steadily from 42 to 45 per cent. between 1970 and 1974, and then fell to about 42 per cent. in 1975, but has since recovered, and currently accounts for 46 per cent. of total supply.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the share will be much smaller than 46 per cent. next year, even taking account of the recent adjustments to the monetary compensatory amounts, unless the Minister takes further action? Is he aware that the present outlook for pig production is gloomy and makes a mockery of the Government White Paper?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the share is higher than the lower levels of this time last year. The trend is expected to continue into 1977. As for encouragement for the industry, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the steps that have been taken and what has been achieved by my right hon. Friend at the recent negotiations in Luxembourg. He will also be aware that further steps are being considered.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, in terms of pence per pound, the difference that the new system of MCA calculation for pigmeat will make to the bacon curers, who are all operating at a loss?

The answer is that the negotiations have so far resulted in a devaluation of 8 per cent. That is a measure that will benefit the industry. I do not have the exact figures with me, but that is some achievement. My right hon. Friend hopes that he can make further progress in this direction at future meetings.

The Minister's reply to this question could not possibly be more complacent. Has no one told him that the bacon curing industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) has said, is going through one of the greatest crises that it has ever faced? Does he understand that the 8 per cent. devaluation is absolutely trivial in face of the difficulties that the industry is facing?

The hon. Gentleman's invective is unjustified, in view of the facts. The 8 per cent. change already achieved helps the producer, the processer and the consumer. My right hon. Friend is not satisfied with that progress, and is going to take further steps at future meetings of the Council.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with his EEC colleagues concerning a review of the Common Agricultural Policy.

I regard the improvement of the CAP as of vital importance and am having continuing discussions with my EEC colleagues. The Council of Ministers will be discussing the proposed programme of action to reduce surpluses in the milk sector at its next meeting on 22nd-23rd November and more general discussions will take place early next year when the Council considers agricultural prices for 1977–78.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer a question about the green pound, although he did not reply to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are eight Questions on the green pound linked together later on the Order Paper.

Perhaps I can get one in now, Mr. Speaker, with your permission. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the short-term advantage to the consumer through the revaluation of the green pound is likely to lead to long-term disadvantages through the British farming industry not growing as much as it should? Does he accept that uncertainty about the future course of the CAP is leading to great doubt in the fanning industry?

I think that was a googly. As you, Mr. Speaker, pointed out, there are eight Questions on the green pound later on the Order Paper. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will contain his soul in patience for that part of his question.

Regarding the negotiations that are to take place in Brussels on EEC policy, is the Minister able to give an assurance to our dairy and sheep producers that they will be able to hold on to their marketing boards, such as the Milk Marketing Board and the British Wool Marketing Board?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that when we last—I was going to say "crossed swords", but one is not allowed to do that in this House—met to discuss agriculture, we discussed the marketing boards, and I thought that I gave a fairly forthright answer. I believe that the marketing boards are an extremely important and valuable adjunct to British agriculture.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the document produced by the Socialist Group of the European Parliament on this very matter? Will he consider taking that up as a basis for renegotiation of the common agricultural policy, as it lays stress on the importance of the consumer as against the producer, which is the emphasis in the CAP that is anathema to Labour Members?

It is interesting that Article 39.1(e) of the Treaty of Rome—I think that I have got it right—mentions safeguarding the rights of consumers. It seems to me that my job, as I am both the Minister of Agriculture and of Food, is to safeguard both and to ensure a proper balance between the two.

I agree about the need for a continuing improvement of the CAP, but will the Minister tell us what the position of United Kingdom producers will be at the end of transition vis-á-vis their European partners? How does he reconcile his present negotiating position in Europe, as we understand it, with his declared intention of growing more food at home?

The two are highly reconcilable. I think that the prospects are extremely good for the industry, with the exception of the pigmeat sector, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). That is causing considerable worry. Frankly, we must balance the whole position of this country in the context of the Nine and, as I said, hold the balance fairly between the producer and the consumer.

Will the Minister answer my question about the position of United Kingdom producers at the end of transition, vis-á-vis their European competitors.

The basis has been set out in "Food from our own Resources", from which I do not in any way resile.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he considers his policy for expanding food production to be still relevant so far as fish is concerned; and, if so, what aid he is going to provide for both the production and processing side of the industry.

A policy of full economic use of our food production resources continues the right policy. The Government already provide considerable direct and indirect help to the industry. Expenditure in 1975–76 on support for the industry is estimated at over £27 million.

In the event of the Icelandic discussions failing to reach agreement or in the event of a greatly reduced fishing effort, what plans are being made to help the Fleetwood and Humber ports if deep-sea trawlers have to be laid up?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that talks are taking place with both management and workers about the future of the industry. I think that he will have been heartened by my right hon. Friend's statement a few days ago about the negotiations now proceeding forthwith regarding Iceland. We anticipate that, with good will on both sides, progress can be made. However, if the reverse is the case, I think that we are in touch with the industry sufficiently to know about its future needs and what action may be taken.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that if we allow our fish stocks to be exhausted or fished out within the 50-mile limit we shall have less food in future? Therefore, is not enforcement important? Will he tell us what steps the Ministry is taking in liaison with the Navy and the Ministry of Defence to expand our fishery protection patrol?

My hon. Friend, whose concern about this matter is well known, is right to suggest that the industry is concerned about conservation. This is important, because it concerns the future of the industry just as much as other aspects of the negotiations. My hon. Friend will know, from what we have said about that enforcement, that we are concerned not only about Community enforcement of quotas and other restrictions but about national enforcement. My hon. Friend will be aware of the steps that have been taken, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, for an increased number of vessels which may be considered necessary. This matter will have to be kept under constant review in the context of the development of a common fisheries policy.

Does the Minister agree that, since the publication of "Food from our own Resources", the economic situation demands that we produce from our own resources not only more fish, but more from all sectors of agriculture? Have more resources been ploughed into the agriculture sector since publication of the White Paper? What proposals have the Government for increasing them?

The Question relates to the importance of food rather than agriculture. We regard both as very important. The agricultural content of the White Paper is a matter for continuing review, including the coming annual price review and the CAP negotiations.

Does the Minister agree that fish farming can play its part in the expansion of food production in this country? What plans are there, and what details can he give the House about those plans, for expanding fish farming within the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall the recent debate that we had on this matter, when I was pleased to see the House wake up from its apparent slumbers and ask what we were doing. In my reply I said, first, that we were spending over £1 million a year on fish farming, which is a high percentage of the total budget, and, secondly, that we were in close contact with the industry, which was considering a memorandum that we put out. These matters are still under consideration. I am sure that the House will recognise that, while the Government are keen on fish farming, they must be realistic about the contribution that it can make to our food resources.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek to introduce a policy of helping the bread making industry to change its processes to take account of the fact that the majority of existing types of bread produced in the United Kingdom require hard wheat, not usually grown in the United Kingdom in any great quantity.

There is as yet no technical process, suitable for use on a commercial scale, by which bread acceptable to the United Kingdom consumer can be made entirely from home or Continental wheat.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. I should like to inform him that it is incorrect—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not impart information. He must ask a question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a process, known as the microwave process, by which an entirely home-grown loaf can be produced and that, moreover, millers are unable to capitalise on the research into such a development because the price of the loaf is now controlled? What will he do about it? Will he take steps to encourage the research that has successfully taken place?

I am aware of that important research. I should point out that even when the research and development effort is completed it will be enormously costly to change our industry from its present system of production to one incorporating the microwave process.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the present viability of the bread industry is not very good? As he has just said, this greater expense would make its task more difficult. Does he agree that it is wrong that the British people should have inflicted upon them at the order of the Common Market, a different type of bread from that which they have been used to for so many years?

I certainly agree that of all the nonsenses that could be imposed on us, it would be most wrong for us to fail to supply our consumers with the bread that they desire.

Will the hon. Gentleman look into the rather disturbing reports that not all wholemeal bread is genuinely wholemeal?

I agree that it is quite wrong that any consumer should be sold bread described as wholemeal which is not wholemeal.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he now proposes to take in the EEC Agricultural Council to adjust the green pound for the recent depreciation of the pound sterling.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will alter the value of the green pound bringing it into parity with the £ sterling.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now devalue the green pound.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now devalue the green pound.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the value of the green pound.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will devalue the green pound.

As I made clear in the debate on 22nd October, I shall continue to keep the green pound under review but I do not consider now to be an appropriate time to make a change.

Will the right hon. Gentleman seize this opportunity to be bold, straightforward and dramatic, and concede that the green pound will have to be fully adjusted downwards by the time that the United Kingdom gives up the presidency of the Council of Ministers in the first half of next year?

The hon. Gentleman is looking eight months ahead. I have to deal with the position at this moment, and that position is absolutely clear. At the moment I do not have the slightest intention of devaluing the green pound.

Will my right hon. Friend please say that he will continue to do what he has done up to now and protect the interests of the British housewife, because that is what matters and will stop prices rising? Prices have been rising ever since we have been connected with the EEC. I admire the stand that my right hon. Friend is taking and I hope that he will continue to take it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The rate of devaluation proposed by the ommission—4·5 per cent.—would have made a difference of about 1p in the pound on food at this moment. That was something to which I was not prepared to agree.

I am sure that the Minister is well aware that the cost of importing food and feeding stuffs has increased 400 per cent. over the last 15 years. I am sure, also— —

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question?

I am just wondering whether the Minister—

No.

"Is the Minister aware …?"

Is the Minister aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—that he will not devalue the green pound? What incentives will he give farmers to increase production from the land?

I am afraid that, in the cheers which greeted the hon. Member, I missed the last part of his question.

What incentives does the right hon. Gentleman intend to give to producers to improve or increase production from the land?

Clearly, one must look always at what the question is in regard to the agriculture industry. This is made much more clear when one realises how long it took the hon. Member to frame his question. Of course I will keep this totally under review. At present, I do not believe that there is any danger to British agriculture at all from the stand I am making. So far as the British consumer is concerned, there would be a considerable amount of danger if I did not make a stand.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we had never entered the Common Market the Tory Party would not now need to worry about the green pound, since we should still have our own system of price support and the annual review to help farmers?

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that if we had not entered the Common Market we should today be discussing many different questions.

Is the Minister aware that he has shown today his lack of knowledge of agriculture and food production by saying that he is thinking only of the near future? Agriculture is a long-term business. Although it may be in the interests of the consumer in the short term to say "No" to the green pound, in the long term it will be fatal.

I have great respect for the hon. Member, who occupied a distinguished post in the Ministry in which I now hold one also, but I should like him to go back to do his sums on the 4·5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound suggested by the Commission, weighing what actual benefit the farmers would have got from it, and the loss to the consumer.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and on his stand on the green pound. Rather than trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, should we not be trying to end the common agricultural policy and revert to the policy that we had from the end of the war, which was good for British farming and for the British housewife?

My hon. Friend has bowled a kind of posthumous googly, because we dealt with the CAP earlier. I said then that there were many changes that could be made in it and that I was anxious to get them under way as soon as possible.

Surely the Minister realises that it is not the hard cash value of altering the green pound by a small amount which matters to the industry; it is the raising of confidence in the industry that we are moving in the right direction. He must make a small movement soon.

If the confidence of the agriculture industry depends upon the token devaluation of the green pound, which would hurt the consumer but would not help the industry, I can only say that the industry has been very badly advised over the past short while.

Is the Minister aware that since he last spoke in the House about the green pound the decline in sterling has caused as big an increase in the retail price index as a modest devaluation of the green pound would have done, without any benefits to increased food production and therefore to the housewife in the long run? Will he also comment on the Agricultural Development Committee's view that there are substantial benefits to be gained by the balance of payments in the long run from narrowing that gap?

When the hon. Gentleman thinks about the first part of his question, I think that he will see that what he says applies equally to the green pound and its relation to what the consumer pays for food. Were one to devalue, it would inevitably increase food prices, about which the hon. Gentleman was rightly disturbed a moment ago. On the question of a general, for ever, policy about the green pound, one way or another, I think that I made it clear in the debate on 22nd October that this is a question not of philosophy but of what is best for Britain at any particular moment. That is what I intend to work by.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the old system of farm support worked very well and while the CAP is in need of urgent revision, if we returned to the old system it would cost this country about £1,000 million a year?

I have, and have always had, a great respect for my right hon. Friend, but the Question on the Order Paper was whether I intended to devalue the green pound. I think that we would both agree that if I did so now it would be disastrous. When people talk about a 40 per cent. gap, I wonder whether they realise what the effect on agriculture would be if we closed that gap. It would destroy it as surely as it would destroy the consumer.

Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this misalignment of the green pound is one unhappy consequence of the failure of the Government's national economic policy, resulting in the fall in the value of sterling? Will the Minister acknowledge that, whereas the immediate result of what he is doing is that the consumers benefit to the tune of more than £½ million a day at our partners' expense, he is running the risk of shortages in a year or two's time so that in the long run the consumer will be disadvantaged? Has the right hon. Gentleman given sufficient consideration to that aspect?

The right hon. Gentleman has asked three supplementary questions in one. The answer to the second part of his supplementary question is "No, Sir". We are concerned with the immediate position, but we are also watching and guarding the whole future of the agriculture industry and will continue to do so. Secondly, it is impossible to have a common agricultural policy unless we have something like a common prices policy. Therefore, it was necessary to invent the unit of account. That requires differing monetary compensatory amounts and has nothing to do with the economic position of any country. It goes back to 1969. The only alternative would be economic and monetary union, which is what the Germans would have liked at that time but which is, as far as I can see, the wish of nobody in the House.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will pay an official visit to a cold store where food mountains are stored.

I have at present no plans to do so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the beef mountain has been growing at over 1,000 tons a week for the past two years and is now over 300,000 tons? If the right hon. Gentleman will not visit a beef mountain, will he visit butchers' shops in Glasgow, where beef consumption is falling because the people cannot afford to buy it?

The beef mountain in the hon. Gentleman's cold store will be declining in size and becoming merely a hillock by the end of the year. I made clear in answer to an earlier question that there are certain aspects of the common agricultural policy which we seek to improve. Among those—I put it first—is the structural surplus that the hon. Gentleman calls a mountain.

Does my right hon. Friend regard food mountains and the state of the common agricultural policy generally as one of the benefits that this country has derived from Common Market membership?

My right hon. Friend must have missed what I thought was a fairly clear answer to an earlier Question. No, Sir, I do not so regard it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he expects (he loses will be in agricultural production this year as a result of the drought compared with last year's figures and those of the average of the last five years.

We shall be looking at the precise figures in the annual review, which will be starting shortly. But I have no doubt that there is a serious impact, though I do not believe it will turn out to be as bad as some estimates I have seen.

Is it true that the glasshouse industry recovered from the drought better than any of us could ever have hoped? If that is not true, has any thought been given to possible assistance towards reseeding?

We have not felt it necessary to help the agriculture and horticulture industries overall to recover from the drought. During the annual review within the next few months, we shall have regard to any factors that affected the industry adversely.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the policies of his Department as they affect the Scotch whisky trade.

Yes. My Department fully recognises the importance of the Scotch whisky industry to the national economy and seeks every opportunity to further its interests at home and abroad.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing trend towards exporting whisky in bulk, to such an extent that bulk exports now account for about 35 per cent. of total whisky exports? Does he agree that this trend to export in bulk rather than in bottles presents a threat to the jobs of workers in the whisky and ancillary industries, including workers in United Glass at Bridge of Allan? Will my hon. Friend take the necessary action to stop this practice by the distillers, who are simply trying to make a fast buck instead of looking at the longer-term needs of the industry and the workers involved?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, but a considerable number of our workers are employed in the bottling of imported spirits. Therefore, it may be that the action that my hon. Friend should take is in persuading the industry rather than the Government on this matter.

Is the Minister aware of the adverse effect upon the cash flow of the whisky industry of having to pay Customs and Excise duty long before it can be recovered in sales? What representations is the hon. Gentleman making to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that?

This matter is being constantly raised with us by the Scotch whisky industry. The hon. Gentleman will know that 85 per cent. of the industry's output is for export. In September, there was a sharp increase in whisky exports of 37 per cent. in value and 19 per cent. in volume—a very creditable performance.

Bulk shipment has nothing to do with the distillers. The American Government wish to import whisky in that way. What is much more relevant is the voice of the prophet of doom that duty is to be increased in the mini-Budget that has been mentioned. Would it not be more helpful to the Scotch whisky industry if the Minister made representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to increase the duty?

The hon. Gentleman must remember that 85 per cent. of the output is exported. The United States Government do not insist that their imports arrive in bulk; the wine gallonage system of taxation discriminates against bottled whisky. The Government are trying to obtain a modification of that policy.