asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in order to remove current uncertainties, he will take action to ensure that United Kingdom vineyards and buildings thereon used in connection with the production of wine are defined as being for agricultural purposes.

The definition of "agriculture" in section 109 of the Agriculture Act 1947 includes the production of crops but excludes their processing and distribution. My right hon. Friend the Minister has no plans to extend the definition to wine-making at present.

Is the Minister aware that this small but growing industry faces considerable uncertainty because of the threat that the buildings involved will be fully rated and that, because of the slim profit margins, the extra cost that this would entail may well force some growers out of business altogether? Will he therefore reconsider, with a view to so ruling, that the whole process is an agricultural one, as it is in the rest of the EEC, and so remove this uncertainty?

I will certainly have a look at the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, because we want to encourage the small English viticulture industry. He will, though, wish to bear in mind that at present we do not give any grants towards processing. There are other forms of processing taking place on the farm in addition to wine making.

Why should our people be treated worse than other wine growers in the Common Market?

The hon. Gentleman ought to be careful about making statements like that. The English industry, being so small, is not subjected to any of the constraints on planting which exist in the rest of the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of EEC levies on imports from outside the EEC of wheat, maize and barley, respectively, as a percentage of the import price.

Based on the Commission's calculations of import levies of 4th December, the net United Kingdom levy on third country imports of wheat, maize and barley expressed as a percentage of the total import price, including levy, were 31 per cent., 42 per cent. and 49 per cent. respectively.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a major glucose manufacturer in my constituency is being forced by this absurd levy to discharge a large section of his labour force? Will he take strenuous steps to get this levy reduced to a reasonable level, even if it cannot be cut out altogether?

I think that my right hon. Friend will know the views of my right hon. Friend the Minister about that particular levy. The main point is to try to reduce all levies, especially the one concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures show that there is, in effect, a 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. tax on imported grain from outside the EEC including wheat for bread making? Will he let me know, in writing, the amount in millions of pounds per year, thus added to the cost of British bread?

I cannot give the overall figure, but I think that my hon. Friend can work it out if I tell him that the net United Kingdom levy is made up by taking the EEC gross levy, multiplying it by the United Kingdom monetary coefficient, dividing it by the United Kingdom representative rate, and subtracting the United Kingdom MCA. What matters is the effect on the price overall.

Order. The Minister must address the House, not his hon. Friend.

Will the Minister bear in mind—I am sure that he knows this but perhaps he has forgotten it—that there are proposals for refunds on imports of maize? This would help the whole of the starch industry. Surely this is the right answer? Will he look at this again and urge his right hon. Friend to pursue this matter of a static refund, because this would help the industry considerably?

I have already said that the matter is still under review. Our view is that the levy should be the minimum possible levy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food it he has considered whether the export of processed food products from the Community should be given comparable support through the mechanisms of the common agricultural policy and otherwise as is given to the export of primary commodities ; and what is his policy on this matter.

Exports of processed food products are already given comparable support. Restitutions are paid to offset the disadvantage to manufacturers of buying the raw materials above world prices. The Government's policy is to seek reductions in EEC prices in real terms and, subject to this, to continue to treat exports of primary and processed products on a broadly comparable basis.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. May I ask him whether he welcomes recent initiatives which the food industry has taken to try to develop new thinking on this issue? Does he not recognise that the effect of fluctuating MCAs must be to depress the long-term marketing strategies of food exporting companies? Does he not also recognise that some degree of stability and greater comparability between the producers of primary and processed products could probably lead to substantial increases in employment in the food industry and fewer accumulations of surpluses?

These are all fair points to make. In return, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that one beneficial result of the work of the past few months —I believe that the effective date was 25th September—was the across the board reduction of 10 per cent. on the MCAs. I have always thought that it is an absurd way of dealing with things, that the basis of the MCAs—which I believe should not exist on exported processed goods anyway—should be on a notional recipe rather than the actual recipe.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that some of the food manufacturers have a continuing anxiety about obtaining adequate supplies of beef for manufacturing purposes? Can he say whether he is able to take an optimistic view of future, continued supplies?

I always try to take an optimistic view of the future. I can only say that we shall continue to fight for a greater amount of manufacturing beef to be allowed into the Community. We are used to this and it is useful to our manufacturers. We shall continue to fight for this for as long as we can. Although I cannot claim that progress has been as good as I would like, I can say that we shall not relent in our efforts.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made with his EEC partners in reviewing the export of live food animals.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has had on the export of live animals for slaughter.

We raised this matter at the June meeting of the Council. Since then, the Commission has been working on proposals to implement EEC directive 77/489. I understand that these proposals may be put to the Council before the end of the year.

We are all aware of the skilled negotiations which my right hon. Friend carries out, but may I ask whether he is aware that a large majority of Labour Members would like to see this country stop the export of live food animals immediately, thus setting an example to the other Common Market countries, rather than have this delay while other countries are seemingly dragging their feet?

I sympathise with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend. The question I put to him, in answer to his supplementary question, is: is it not better that we should deal with this on an all-Europe basis? I do not mean a Common Market-only basis. The committee of experts advising the Council of Europe, which embraces most of the countries in Western Europe, came to this conclusion some time ago. That is what we should be aiming at.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he intends to respond to recent, and earlier, representations which have overwhelmingly reflected the sustained and growing public demand for this vile trade to be ended? Is he aware that it is now nine months since the departmental review was published? Would he not accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) that Britain is in a unique position to give a lead to the rest of the Common Market?

I have not always found that leads given by us in the Common Market are necessarily followed by immediate action. Perhaps the best way to deal with this is to decide our policy very clearly—I have already said what my view is—and try to push it as hard as we can inside the Community. I agree that this nine-month period of gestation since the publication of the departmental inquiry seems a long time. My hon. Friend will remember, however, that there was a period for consultation once the document was published. I believe that he had some criticisms of the document.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is considerable feeling about this matter on both sides of the House? In view of what he has just said, does he not further agree that the time has arrived when the House should have the opportunity to debate the whole issue? Will he, therefore. give an undertaking that he will arrange for a debate early in the new year?

The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not combine with that post the leadership of the House. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I have no objection to a debate and I shall tell my right hon. Friend of the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might help to concentrate the minds of our European "partners" if we unilaterally imposed a levy on the export of all live beef and veal animals from this country to the European continent, particularly bearing in mind the crucifying levies mentioned in the reply to Question no. 3 on the Order Paper today, which we have to pay because of the Community?

We are talking about two different types of levy. A levy such as my hon. Friend suggests might be considered to be illegal. There is one point which has some importance. How does it help to prevent cruelty to animals if we stop this trade but it is merely taken over by another of our Community partners?

Make it too expensive and then it will stop.

Before the right hon. Gentleman brings any recommendation to the House, will he bear in mind that many thousands of farmers, particularly in the Midlands, are dependent upon the import of live Irish store cattle? Is he aware that any ban on the export of live animals from this country could have a serious effect upon the living of such farmers?

I have thought about this very closely. I see a distinction between animals for slaughter, which in my view should be slaughtered as near to the point of production as possible, and animals for store.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to get the European Commission to adopt the European unit of account for agricultural price purposes and to assess the effect of involvement in the European monetary system on such a policy.

The Commission has proposed that, with the introduction of a European monetary system, the European currency unit should be used in the common agricultural policy instead of the existing unit of account. The initial definition of the ECU would be the same as that of the European unit of account.

Does not this move represent a good opportunity to remove some of the distortions and other undesirable features of the common agricultural policy? Are not the Government handicapped in securing those reforms by their inability to be fully involved in the system from the outset?

I do not think that I could accept the hon. Gentleman's thesis. The Government are continuing to press for the reform of the common agricultural policy. Above all, that means holding down common prices. We welcome the fact that our policy is now reflected in the Commission's undertaking to propose a general price freeze on all common prices this coming year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the hon. Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Neubert) had really wanted an answer to his supplementary question he should have been in the Chamber for the second of the two debates that took place last night after 10 o'clock? Does he agree that if the hon. Gentleman had been so present he would have heard that these matters are so complex that one hon. Member suggested that only about a dozen hon. Members understand the arithmetic? Has my hon. Friend considered that claim and does he agree that it is about right?

Iagree with my hon. Friend that perhaps the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) should have been present for the debates that took place after 10 o'clock last night. Indeed it was my hon. Friend who in those debates pointed to the complexity of these matters. The comment has some validity. The common agricultural policy is enormously complex and the implications of the changeover to EMS make it even more difficult to comprehend.

The Minister has already referred to the holding down of prices, but that is not a reform of the policy. What proposals have the Goverment for reforming the policy rather than the prices?

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's basic observation. The more we consider the CAP the more we are forced to the conclusion that it is not so much the mechanisms that are at fault, unhappy as we are about some of them, but the level of protection. This applies both to the jacking up of prices, especially in Germany, and to the level of protection against third country imports. This is the real weakness.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to expand food production from marginal land.

My right hon. Friend the Minister and his agricultural colleagues are still studying the marginal land question.

Is the Minister aware that there are no specific aids to the 1½ million acres of marginal land in England and Wales? Does he not think that the European less favoured areas directive should apply to that land?

The hon. Gentleman is aware that a significant area of agricultural land receives substantial grants and headage payments, namely the hill areas, under the less favoured areas directive. He is proposing a substantial additional development which would be to designate a large area of marginal land where additional grants and some headage payments might be made. The Government are giving consideration to that and related proposals.

Has the Minister any plans this year to increase the hill compensatory allowance for sheep and beef cattle for those farming in the upland areas?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that we are actively considering and discussing these matters with the farming unions.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that to many farmers the continued production of farm-bottled or green-topped milk is vital, especially in areas such as West Yorkshire and Wales? What plans has he for the continued production of such milk?

My hon. Friend has been persistent in his representations on behalf of his producers and consumers. He will be happy to know that my right hon. Friend proposes to make an important announcement later today.

To follow the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), will the Minister give us the facts? Is it true that land in the United Kingdom similar to that which receives grant under the less favoured areas directive in the rest of the Community, does not receive grant? Is that not unfair? May we know the facts?

No, that is not so. The United Kingdom does exceptionally well under the less favoured areas directive in terms of the proportion of our land that is designated. We pay high rates of grant compared with other member States.

Is the Minister aware that it is from marginal land that the greatest return may be obtained in production for the smallest investment? What is needed in the first place is investment in drainage of the land. Without that preparation it is useless to apply fertilisers and lime, for example, which are leeched away. Will the Minister give attention to that need?

Yes, we shall. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we already give valuable advice to farmers in that context and we provide grants in the marginal areas. In carrying out our study we have been considering the matter to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and related matters.

Does my hon. Friend recollect the Written Answer that I received from his Department only yesterday about the application of biotechnology to food production? In that answer he stated that he was aware of the application of biotechnology hut was not

" currently funding any research on the subject."

The main applications of biotechnology do not relate to marginal land. I recall clearly my hon. Friend's Written Question. Biotechnology is an important and developing area that is being sponsored by some large companies.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the effect on the British food and drink industries of the likely accession of Greece, Portugal and Spain to membership of the European Community ; what guidance he has given to the industries ; and if he will make a statement.

My Department is keeping under consideration the implications of enlargement for the food and drink industries. We shall maintain contact with representative organisations as the negotiations with Greece, Portugal and Spain progress.

What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give that imports of materials required by the United Kingdom food and drink industries from other countries with Mediterranean climates do not have new barriers raised against them when Spain, Portugal and Greece join the Community? I am thinking especially of vegetables and fruit.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of some of the advantages, such as the increase by about 20 per cent. of the EEC market and availability to our products. As for exports and imports, there will be a review of the levies and tariffs that may affect prices. Depending upon the commodities concerned, we think that on the whole enlargement should be advantageous to us.

Has my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food given consideration to surpluses? I imagine that when Greece, Portugal and Spain join the Community we shall as in France, have huge surpluses. Has any consideration been given to the creation of surpluses following enlargement? Will he take steps to endeavour to ensure that we shall no longer be subsidising the sale of surpluses at give-away prices to third countries while the British taxpayer pays for those sales by taxation and the housewife pays in high prices in the shops? Will he take some action to eradicate surpluses if and when Spain, Greece and Portugal become members of the Community?

As my hon. Friend knows, negotiations are under way in respect of Greece, Spain and Portugal. We are fighting to get rid of surpluses by maintaining reasonable price levels. It is a factor that we shall include in our review of levies and tariffs.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) about fruit products grown outside the Community? What justification can there be for the substantial taxes that we are now having to pay upon canned mandarines and pineapples when those products are not grown within the Community? What representations are being made to ensure that there is a review of that taxation?

On imports from non-EEC Mediterranean countries, the existing CCT preferential treatment will continue. There is bound to be some change in favour of the new members. As for United Kingdom imports from the new member States, the United Kingdom imports substantial quantities of fresh and processed fruit, vegetables and wines. Abolition of the levies imposed under the reference price system should lead to improved availability.

Is it not clear that in the process of the negotiations for the entry of Greece, Spain and Portugal into the Common Market the whole issue of the CAP must be discussed and that there should be an understanding that we shall happily accept the three countries into a looser organisation on the condition that there is a complete and fundamental change in the CAP at the earliest possible moment?

My hon. Friend is correct. We are fighting to improve CAP policy for the present nine countries. That is an urgent improvement if we are to have the accession of Greece in 1981 and Spain and Portugal by 1983.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what information he has about the relative proportions of wholemeal flour and white flour used in bread-making.

Estimates of the proportions of white and wholemeal flour used in bread-making are 92 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively. The remaining 6 per cent, is wheatmeal or brown flour which, unlike wholemeal flour, contains less than 100 per cent. of the milled whole wheat.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that these are disappointing figures? He will undoubtedly be aware that there is concern about the nutritional aspects of white flour. Is he aware that there are certain highly dangerous machines that are used in the manufacture of white bread that are not capable of dealing with wholemeal flour? Will he instigate jointly with the Departments of Prices and Consumer Protection, Employment and Health and Social Security investigations into the whole aspect of bread manufacture to cover all aspects for the benefit of both consumers and workers in an important and sweated industry?

I certainly know what my hon. Friend has to say about the two aspects. The dietary advantages of wholemeal bread, and questions relating to the health and nutritional aspects of food composition are kept under review regularly by the Department, in consultation with the Department of Health and Social Security. Flour and bread are at present being investigated by a panel set up by the committee on the medical aspects of food policy.

Is the war-time regulation that a percentage of chalk should be included in breadmaking still in existence?

I would not like to reply on that point, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the second report by the Food Standards Committee on bread and flour which was published not long ago.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress of measures to prevent the River Thames flooding.

Work on raising the flood defences upstream and downstream of Central London is proceeding satisfactorily but progress on the Thames barrier is disappointingly slow.

When is the completion of the Thames barrier now due? Why is there so much delay on that and, indeed, on the local flood walls as well? As there is great anxiety in parts of Twickenham and Teddington, will the Minister say what can be done to accelerate these works?

This is a very important and vital problem. It is a problem not just for Twickenham—although Twickenham has its special problems—but for London as well. The latest date by which the GLC believes the Thames barrier will be completed is late in 1983. I have been meeting the leader of the GLC with a view to discussing how the scheme might be accelerated. Although the odds in any year against a flood are supposed to be 50 to 1, I am convinced that it could be a very great danger to the citizens of London if it came.

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

No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of the EEC Council of Fisheries Ministers, but I expect one to be convened early in the new year.

Is the Minister aware that we hope that at the meeting, when it comes, he will be successful in getting a settlement which would be approved by this House? But at the same time will he take up with the Fisheries Ministers the question of compensation for those fishermen already made redundant through no fault of their own? Will he perhaps argue for compensation on the lines of the amounts given to steelworkers by the EEC under similar schemes?

The question of restructuring the industry is vital, but it clearly must wait upon a settlement of the common fisheries policy, otherwise we simply do not know for what sort of industry we are catering and who may be made redundant. But I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a very fair one to make and it will be one of the factors which will need to be discussed and agreed in any settlement.

In view of the intransigent and blunt opposition of the German Minister, who was the chairman of the last meeting, and in view of his behaviour there, would it not be a good thing to defer the next meeting for as long as possible? Does not my right hon. Friend believe, as most Members of this House believe, that we shall get a squarer deal in the new year with a new chairman?

We shall get a square deal, in my view, when the basic principles that the United Kingdom has continued to enunciate arc recognised and accepted by our Common Market partners. The chairmanship changes anyway on 1st January.

Is the Minister aware that when our boats go to fish in Norwegian waters they are required to report their position when they arrive and when they leave? Will he raise this at the next EEC fisheries meeting and make it clear that we could extend that principle to all foreign boats coming into our waters? Does he agree that he ought to do so in preparation for any new policy or agreement that is reached?

This is a question of management which deserves very careful consideration. I am impressed with the way in which the Norwegians are handling the matter, and it is one which is very near to our thoughts at this moment.

I recognise the need for tough attitudes in negotiations in the EEC, but may I ask the Minister to tell us why he is not introducing the essential conservation measures required by inshore fishermen here? There will otherwise be nothing left to negotiate.

I should have thought that the conservation measures we have introduced, and which are already in operation, with one possible exception at this moment—the deferment on the question of nephrops size—were as effective as we need to have them. These are all national measures. None of them is at the moment a community measure.

When my right hon. Friend next meets his Common Market counterparts, will he indicate to them that he has the support not only of a united fishing industry but of that rarest of all commodities, a united House of Commons, and that there can be no compromise on Britain's basic demands for a 12-mile limit, a dominant preference for British vessels up to the 50 miles, and the continued application of national conservation measures in the waters up to 200 miles?

I try to tell my counterparts that at every Council meeting. Sometimes I wonder whether the interpreters are at fault.

I share the right hon. Gentleman's hope that he will be successful in persuading the other members of the Council of Fisheries Ministers to accept the basic principles of the case he has put forward—principles which have been put forward from all parts of the House—but will he take an early opportunity to shed a little light on the formal proposals which he put last time to the Council? If I may say so, they were somewhat opaque, and even the German Minister—to whom I do not wish to give support at all—could be excused if he rejected them because he could not understand them.

I do not want to go into quarrels about the chairmanship—although, believe me, it is very easy to do so—but what I can say is this. If the German president or any of our members of the Council found these proposals opaque or difficult to comprehend —I fully understand that they might be so—the right thing to do would have been to discuss them and to ask for elucidation of them. Had that been done, as I suggested it should—and, to be fair, one or two members of the Council agreed with me that it should—we might have clarified even the president's mind on that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity to shed a little light on them, for the benefit of the House of Commons?

I think that it might be of advantage—I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Lord President about it—if before the next meeting of the Council of Fisheries Ministers it were possible for us to discuss these matters ; I agree that they are complicated and that many of them are highly technical. It would not be a bad idea at all.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will meet the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board.

My right hon Friend met the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board on Tuesday 12th December to discuss matters of mutual interest.

I hope that the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board expressed the thanks of the potato producers for the renewed buying programme which has just been announced. Will the right hon. Gentleman say to what tonnage that is likely to apply? Did his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture also tell the chairman, when he met him, whether he was able to give an estimate of when he thought the market price might reach the guaranteed price of £44·69 a ton?

I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance as to the chairman being thanked when my right hon. Friend met him. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that prices recently received by the producers were well below the guaranteed price to which he referred. It has justified the buying-in programme. If the position had continued, there would have had to be a very large deficiency payment, which would have had to be met by the taxpayer. The whole process is aimed at stabilising the market.

Can my hon. Friend tell the House about any discussions that he has had on arrangements for the potato market in this country following the introduction of an EEC potato regime? Has he yet made a decision on a response of some positive help towards the establishment of co-operative grading stations?

It is too early to say what form the support for next year's crop will take or how it will operate from 1979. Of course, we must be clear about the progress of the regime itself. As to the co-operative aspect, I think that my hon. Friend will be aware of my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) about the encouragement given to the marketing of potatoes by the agricultural marketing co-operatives. I think that that has also been welcomed.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that many producers in this country are worried about the future of the Potato Marketing Board. Does he believe that the producers will have to vote, like the milk producers did last month, to secure the future of the Potato Marketing Board in this country?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the negotiations for the future regime have now been under way for some time. In seeking finalisation of the negotiations, we want to bear in mind the need for self-efficiency in potatoes as far as possible, the question of confidence for the producer, and, of course, reasonable prices for the consumer.

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

I keep in close touch with the president of the National Farmers' Union, but at present I have no plans for a meeting.

Will the Minister be discussing with the president the Labour Party conference policy of agricultural land nationalisation, which the Under-Secretary of State supports? Does the right hon. Gentleman personally support it?

I certainly support the fact that 3 million acres of agricultural land in this country are already publicly owned. If I may say so, they are at least as efficient as those in the hands of absentee landlords.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the president, will be discuss the future of the dairy industry? Is he aware of attempts to import liquid milk into this country? Is it the case that only health and hygiene regulations are keeping out that milk? Will he take measures to ensure that the dairy industry of Great Britain is protected?

The health and hygiene regulations are of such importance in ensuring that the proper standards of liquid milk in this country are maintained that we shall do everything possible to preserve them. They are one of the factors which at present keep out inferior milk from our country.

When the Minister next meets the president, will he take steps to ensure that the chairman of the central horticultural committee of the NFU is also present?

That would be unusual. However, if the hon. Gentleman means "Will I take an interest in horticulture? ". the answer is" Certainly ".

Can my right hon. Friend say when he intends to meet the general secretary of the farm workers' union in view of recent happenings? For instance, has he noted that 92 hon. Members have signed a motion supporting the farm workers' claim for average industrial earnings? Is he aware that the farmers on the Agricultural Wages Board are saying that they would have offered more than 5 per cent. had they not been afraid that the Government would apply sanctions? In view of last night's vote, will he reconsider this matter and meet the leaders of the farm workers' union again with a view to giving skilled and important workers, such as farm workers, a return which adequately compensates them for their importance to the country's economy?

I am always glad to meet the general secretary, and as my hon. Friend knows I met him very recently indeed. I should like to clear up one misconception—the task of the Agricultural Wages Board is to fix a minimum rate, not to make a national agreement as such. The difficulty with farm workers—and no one knows this better than my hon. Friend—is that one is dealing with literally thousands of employers scattered over the countryside, with very small numbers of workers per farm. That in itself makes for difficulties. But I personally think that it would be good if the farmers could enter into self-financing productivity agreements with their individual workers. There is nothing to stop them from doing so, and I shall do anything I can to encourage it.

Will the Minister now give a proper answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham)? Will he answer "Yes" or "No" whether he personally supports the idea of agricultural land nationalisation?

I did not think that I had tried to dodge the question. On the contrary, I pointed out that 3 million acres of publicly owned agricultural land had been very efficient.