Skip to main content

Agriculture, Fisheries And Food

Volume 79: debated on Thursday 16 May 1985

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.



asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total cost to public funds of supporting cereal prices in the current financial year.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
(Mr. John MacGregor)

It is estimated that support for the cereals market will cost the Community 2,325 mecu in 1985.

Is that not a scandalous waste of public resources? Does my hon. Friend agree that, besides encouraging price restraint, it is now imperative to reduce or transfer the cost of disposing and storing the lower quality grains?

My hon. Friend will know that at present we are debating the price review negotiations for this year, and a key part of the United Kingdom's approach has been to urge the maximum application of the guarantee threshold to cereals. The reason for that is to reduce the cost of support altogether.

Instead of wasting money on cereals in this way, will the Minister seriously consider sending cereals completely free of charge to the starving nations of Africa, such as Ethiopia, and to other parts of the world where people are starving? It may cost more money, but at least it would save starving people.

The Community is embarking on a major programme of food aid in relation to cereals this year, and the British Government have been taking a lead. There was a fairly large programme last year. However, to think that that is a way of disposing of surpluses and of dealing with that problem is the wrong approach. The real need is to get the cereal support price down. Simply to dispose of all surpluses free of charge would cost a great deal more than the figure that I gave.

My hon. Friend referred to the talks going on now in Brussels. Does he agree that today's news from Brussels is absolutely disastrous, that Britain's efforts to try to bring about price cuts in cereals have gone out of the window, and that we shall merely store up bigger trouble and surpluses if the rest of the Community has its way?

We cannot say that the news is disastrous, because we do not yet know what it is. The negotiations are continuing. It is true to say that the full application of the guarantee threshold will not be negotiable this year, but price restraint is the main item on the table for dealing with cereals this year, and we have allies in our approach to getting price reductions in cereals.

What is the likely carry-over of cereals in storage in the United Kingdom this year and next year if, as many forecast, there is another bumper cereal harvest this summer? Does the Minister think that taxpayers' patience can be stretched as much as storage facilities to harbour such unwanted grain?

It is difficult to say what the carry-over will be, but there will clearly be one. The hon. Gentleman will know that the United Kingdom has had considerable success in exporting grain this year — a total of about 4·6 million tonnes. However, I do not disguise the fact that the size of the cereal surpluses is a major problem. It is one of the main discussion points — indeed, one of the main stumbling blocks— in the present negotiations.

Research And Development


asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the amount of money spent on research and development in the United Kingdom agriculture industry per £100 of income compares to other European countries.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
(Mrs. Peggy Fenner)

Although only partial information is available, it is clear that expenditure on publicly funded agricultural research in relation to farm income in the United Kingdom compares favourably with that in other European countries.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. She will be aware of the controversy surrounding the statements on this subject in the annual review of research and development published by the Government last year. Does she agree that such uncertain comparisons are an inadequate basis for making Government decisions?

There are many alternative measures on which to base comparisons, and different bases produce different results. However, it is clear that United Kingdom agricultural R and D has been well supported and that, even after reduction, it will stand comparison with that of our competitors:

Will the Minister concede that that statement will sound extremely hollow once the Government implement the full cuts that they propose in the general research, advisory and scientific programme, especially in Scotland, where so much of the territory for farming is in less-favoured areas, such as the Highlands? As this reduction, following the reduction in capital grants, will have a severe effect on farming, will the Government rethink the policy?

The hon. Gentleman exaggerates. There is no reduction in 1985–86, and the planned expenditure for 1986–87 will be reduced by £10 million, of which the Ministry's share will be about £8·25 million, within the general research, advisory and scientific programme. We should remember that the national spend for research and development on agriculture, fisheries and food was £204 million, of which agriculture spent £160 million. That puts the reduction in perspective.

When my hon. Friend examines future spending on research, will she remember how cost-effective it can be? The National Institute of Agricultural Engineering has developed the Paraplough, the Dynodrive cultivator and the hay mower/conditioner, which have helped the turnround in our exports of agricultural engineering products. Is this not money well spent?

We have asked the Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food to advise us, and it will undoubtedly advise on the wise use of resources to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. It would not be helpful to speculate on the outcome of that advice.

When will the staff at the scientific and research establishments know their fate? Does the hon. Lady agree that the fact that the priorities board has not yet said where even one cut will fall is liable to cause the maximum uncertainty and, therefore, anxiety in research establishments?

The Agricultural and Food Research Council is our major contractor for commissioned work, and we are working closely in collaboration with it. It is represented on the priorities board.

Price Review


asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the price fixing negotiations in Brussels.


asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest position regarding the Common Market price negotiations.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I are currently attending the Council of Ministers in Brussels, from which I have just returned, and where negotiations continue. That is why my right hon. Friend is unable to be here this afternoon, and he apologises to the House for his absence. They are proving to be exceptionally difficult and protracted negotiations. A main stumbling block continues to be Germany's attitude to the proposed cuts in CAP support prices for cereals.

Is not the damaging delay in reaching agreement on prices due to the fumbling ineptitude of the Government in failing to prepare the ground adequately and sufficiently in advance, and especially in failing to recognise that across-the-board institutional cuts at a level which the Government have been pursuing are unlikely to be achieved and will only alienate our Community partners? Does the Minister agree that the only hope of reducing expenditure while maintaining farm incomes equitably is through quantitative restrictions on price support for cereals, as on milk?

Obviously we would have preferred and earlier settlement, and we have urged all the way through for a settlement as quickly as possible. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is more important to have a delayed settlement that is right than a hasty settlement that is wrong.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the United Kingdom Government have not been preparing the ground for the cereals negotiations. We have been taking the lead on many of the major issues in these negotiations, and in particular we have argued for price cuts.

I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point about alienating our Community partners. We are getting increasing support for our approach to price reductions on cereals, but we have to face the fact that many member states have a different view.

Finally, it has become clear in the debates that a considerable number of important member states are totally opposed to quotas for cereals.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the disturbing rumours from the Milk Marketing Board that the 1 per cent. cut in the co-responsibility levy might not be achieved after all? Will he assure our totally frustrated milk farmers that in these negotiations he will insist on that cut?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are battling extremely hard-for United Kingdom interests, of which this is one. One or two member states have been urging a delay in the reduction of 1 per cent. in the co-responsibility levy, but we have been resisting that strongly.

The Minister said that one of the points of contention was the price of cereals. Does he realise that artificially high prices for cereals have caused enormous environmental damage to the country? Will our negotiators do all that they can to persuade the EEC that it would be far better to devote some of the money to an integrated countryside policy than to propping up grain prices and creating surpluses that nobody can buy?

The hon. Gentleman should recall that the United Kingdom Government, initially on their own, took the lead in getting a conservation and environmental element into the Community proposals on the structure programme. We have gradually got more support.

Does my hon. Friend agree, at least in principle, that any attempt to reduce the present cereal surplus by means of price restraint alone would inevitably involve substantial reductions in price, the main burdens of which would fall upon the more marginal grain producers, such as those in Yorkshire and the south-west?

It is difficult to give the House any final sign of what is happening in the negotiations, because they shift from time to time and the package changes as the negotiations proceed. Although price reductions are the main element in what both the Commission and a considerable number of member states are urging this year, there are other ways in which cereal problems can be dealt with, including the proposal to drop the breadmaking wheat premium, which is currently being negotiated, and one or two other matters, such as changes in the carry-over payments, which would also have an effect.

What is the size of the gap between the cost of the Commission's original proposals for 1985 and the upper limit under the financial guidelines for agricultural expenditure?

For 1985, the limit, I think from memory, is 29,955 billion ecu. The current proposals are within that. There has been general agreement, very much at our insistence, that any other proposals now being considered will be financially neutral. In other words, at the end of the day we should stay within that limit.

Contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), will my hon. Friend accept that most of us agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his team are doing a first-class job in Brussels? Secondly, does he agree that if there is any one issue over which my right hon. Friend should succeed, it is maintaining the beef premium to livestock farmers in the west and the north?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that there are many other issues, besides surpluses, of great importance to us in these negotiations, and one of them is the beef variable premium scheme. The House knows that every year we have a problem even getting that subject on to the table. We are making considerable progress, largely because of tremendous efforts by my right hon. Friend, but it is too early to predict the outcome.

Have the Minister and his right hon. Friend accepted the compromise proposal put forward in the negotiations to allow the Republic of Ireland an additional 58,000 tonnes of milk this year as a retrospective adjustment for last year? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many of us would not find that compromise acceptable? Will he bear in mind the serious position of Northern Ireland dairy farmers vis-àa-vis their counterparts in Great Britain?

It is difficult to comment with any finality on what is happening in Brussels. For all I know, the compromise proposals may be changing at this very minute. The Irish Government have argued that there was a statistical mistake in quotas last year and have pressed for an additional 58,000 tonnes. They appear to have the support of nearly every other member state. We have made it clear that we are very much opposed to that, but I cannot predict the outcome.

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that there is not a significant cut in cereal prices this year? Is it not patently obvious to everyone that there will not be any proper reform of the CAP, and that in those circumstances the Government would not dream of coming to the House and asking for an increase in own resources for the European Community?

It is important to bear in mind that the figure of 19,955 million ecu—not 29,955 billion ecu as I said earlier; I expect that tiredness caused me to get it wrong—is the one to which we are working in the negotiations. We are determined to ensure that the financial agreements in the package are honoured.

What are the latest proposals for the sheep variable premiums? Is the ceiling originally proposed by the Commission still being maintained, and does the Minister accept that the success or failure of the talks will be measured by what happens on cereals?

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm certain figures? On production last year, would not an 8 per cent. reduction in the guarantee threshold be justified? The Government cut the figure to 5 per cent. because of the legal limitations in the CAP. The Commission originally proposed a figure of 3·6 per cent., but its current proposal is for a cut of less than 2 per cent.—which is less than one quarter of that which would be justified by the amount of grain grown in the CAP during the past year. Would it not be a total dereliction of duty if the Council of Ministers agreed to that?

On sheepmeat, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that a number of issues are still being discussed, and that is a rather important element of the final stages of the negotiations.

The limit on the guarantee threshold for cereals was negotiated three years ago, when it was agreed to have a ceiling in any one year of 5 per cent. That is why we had to argue for 5 per cent., although 8 per cent. would have been the figure had there not been a ceiling.

We have been taking a strong position on cereals during the negotiations. However, it is necessary to have the support of a sufficient number of other member states and the Commission to achieve any given figure. I believe that our firm stance has led to the whole question of where the cereals figure ends up being still very much in debate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are member states that would like to have no reduction at all.



asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to allow greater freedom for United Kingdom exporters to export their products throughout the European Community.

The Government continually seek to ensure that our exporters of agricultural and food products can compete on fair terms in markets throughout the European Community.

While understanding what my hon. Friend is saying, and bearing in mind that there are problems with milk imports and disease, may I ask whether she agrees that 'it is about time we made a determined effort to have far more freedom and to stop all the restrictions on British food exports to the Community — especially the clawback on beef, and even the sheepmeat regime? Is it not about time that the subsidy that the Republic of Ireland is receiving for its exports to this country was ended?

My hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister of State comment on the Eire position. Exports have risen since the sheepmeat regime was introduced and they are now back to the level of the mid-1970s. I agree that the clawback still inhibits us from taking full advantage of what should be a common market, and we are continuing to press for improvements.

Liquid Milk


asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects a decision from the European Court on the dispute over the importation of fresh liquid milk into the United Kingdom from the continent.

If the Commission application to the court goes ahead in accordance with its recent announcement, I would expect a decision in about a year.

Will my hon. Friend continue his heroic efforts, by every legal means open to him, to prevent this importation? Will he bear in mind, however, that the United Kingdom stands to gain more than any other member of the Community from the strict application of the rule of law within the Community? Will he remember that the doorstep delivery of milk has an importance going well beyond the dairy industry? Will he, therefore, consult his Government colleagues to ensure that our system of doorstep delivery continues, even if we eventually get imports of liquid milk?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is that we have told the Commission that, in our view, the best course is to seek a Community-wide solution via a directive on heat-treated milk. In the absence of such a directive, we consider that our public health controls are necessary, and we shall, therefore, be defending the case.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we are among the member states which are persistently arguing that the Community rules and regulations must be observed by all member states. Therefore, we must do the same ourselves if we are to succeed with that argument.

The best way in which doorstep delivery can be maintained is by keeping the excellent service and by our dairy industry remaining highly competitive. The House will recall that we had a considerable debate about imports of UHT and sterilised milk, when many fears were expressed about doorstep deliveries being undermined. That has proved not to be the case. Because of the competitiveness of our industry, there have been very few imports of that kind.

As the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has repeatedly informed me in recent months that there is a surplus of milk in the United Kingdom, why should there be any question of importing fresh milk into this country? I urge the Minister to bear in mind the danger, to which reference has been made, to the distribution of milk to the doorstep and the consequent danger to employees in the industry. In other words, is he aware that if fresh milk is allowed to be imported our already massive unemployment will be made that much higher?

Our concern about imports of this sort must, of course, be in relation to public health controls. However, if there is a Community-wide directive, as for all other products in the Common Market, there is free trade, provided that the public health controls are met. I repeat that the greatest strength of our dairy industry is its competitiveness, and the greatest hope for the doorstep delivery of milk is that that is what the consumer will continue to want. So far, all the fears about imports of other forms of milk have proved to be unjustified.

Is the Minister aware that, whatever the European Court may say, there will always be legitimate doubts about the health and hygiene standards of milk that may have been transported over long distances from warmer climates? May we have a categorical assurance that the Government will take all necessary steps to protect the health of our consumers, doorstep deliveries of milk and the interests of British dairy producers?

I have made it clear that we think that our controls are justified in the absence of a Community regime; and we shall do all that we can to persuade the court, if it comes to a court case.

Southall Horse Market


asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to visit the Southall horse market to study the implementation of his voluntary code on markets; and if he will make a statement.

I have no plans at present to visit the market at Southall. However, I am kept informed of conditions there by my veterinary staff, who frequently attend to monitor and encourage compliance with the code.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me that conditions at the Southall horse market have improved considerably, but that the handling, stabling and transport of horses still often leaves much to be desired and that considerable cruelty is involved? Will she pay an unannounced visit with me to the market on some occasion?

Delighted as I would be to pay unannounced visits to anywhere with my friendly hon. Friend, I must remind him that legislation already exists to protect horses in markets, in trnasit and during loading and unloading. It is a matter for enforcement by the police and local authorities. I hope that it will be reassuring to him to know that the Farm Animal Welfare Council is considering the welfare of horses in its review of markets. We look forward to studying the council's recommendations.

Agricultural Grants


asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for agricultural grants in the countryside, in areas outside national parks and sites of special scientific interest, have been refused by his Department on environmental grounds for each year since 1980.

I regret that the Ministry does not keep records in a form which would readily identify the number of applications refused grant and the reasons for such refusals.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that that is a major defect in any system that is geared to enhancing what she says is her Department's duty to have regard to conservation? Until local authorities and others can he prenotified—I hope the hon. Lady can say that this will be possible under the new structures regulations that are about to be implemented—conservation in the countryside will not be something that her Department can honestly say it is trying to uphold.

Obviously, we shall have to ensure that any capital grant paid is for investments compatible with good conservation in the areas which are designated as environmentally sensitive and which my right hon. Friend has ensured are in the structures programme. Prior notification is one possibility to which we shall have to give consideration.

Is my hon. Friend convinced that since 1980 no environmental damage has been done by grant-aided agricultural works, or does her reply suggest that we should move to a system of prenotification of agricultural works that attract grant-aid?

Prenotification is an enormously expensive objective. During the past few years there has been a much wider appreciation of conservation in agriculture. I trust that my hon. Friend is well aware of the initiatives in which my Department has been involved during the past months in improving conservation in agriculture. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to recite those initiatives now.

Does the hon. Lady agree that, whatever the costs of prenotification-1 disagree with the costs she suggested—it will be necessary for people to be able to object to the granting of agricultural grant where damage is caused to the environment? What alternatives is the hon. Lady considering?

The extension of prior notification was recommended by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment. The Government will publish their reponse to that report shortly. I cannot, therefore, comment at present.



asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to establish a joint producer-Government-backed organisation to help the promotion of cereal exports.

The promotion of cereals exports already falls within the scope of Food from Britain, which is a producer-Government-backed organisation. I would be prepared to consider proposals for improvements in the existing arrangements for the promotion of cereals exports if they were practical and realistic and had wide support from the cereals sector.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the export credit arrangements are satisfactory in time for the start of exports from the 1985 grain harvest?

Last December we made consider-able improvements in the export credit arrangements. During a meeting with the trade I said that I would be happy to consider any practical ideas that could bring about further improvements. Our export growth in cereals has been substantial in recent years. That is a remarkable achievement. It is clear that a great deal of growth is taking place.

Will the Minister comment on the financial crisis suffered by Food from Britain? Does he accept that massively subsidised cereal exports to Russia and elsewhere are not only an insult to our taxpayers but an injury to our cereal-consuming industries? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that any new export promotion initiative by the Government on cereals also benefits the British cereal-consuming industries in the livestock sector?

Food from Britain already has a funding programme from the Government. The time is not right to review where Food from Britain should go. There is a continuing programme. As the House will be aware, we are opposed to any special arrangements for the export of agricultural products to Russia. The Community has a considerable surplus of cereals and the House has been expressing anxiety about that this afternoon. It is important that we should be able to export that surplus. With regard to the livestock sector in the United Kingdom, one of the reasons why we have been urging a reduction in cereal support prices is to improve the horn-corn balance and help the livestock sector.

Veterinary Inspection Centres


asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on his proposals for closure of veterinary inspection centres.

My right hon. Friend has received 118 representations to date on his statement of 15 April about the future of the veterinary investigation service.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the important Moulton inspection centre lies in my constituency of Kettering? Has he got the message that the farmers in my constituency are worried about its possible closure? Will he therefore confirm that he will consider all sensible proposals, including the privatisation of the Moulton centre?

I am aware that the centre is in my hon. Friend's constituency, but, as the report made clear, it receives a low level of submissions and serves a relatively small catchment area. That area can easily be served by the centres at Cambridge and Sutton Bonington. My right hon. Friend is considering all the representations that have been made. He is meeting representatives of the main interested bodies and will be hoping to complete consultations within the next month or so, after which a final decision will be made.

Given that timetable, can the Minister guarantee that he will come to the House with these decisions before we rise for the summer recess?

I should like to consult my right hon. Friend on that, because some decisions must await the outcome of financial studies which are currently being undertaken and which require careful consideration. They could take a little longer than the month or so that I talked about earlier.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that part of his proposal is to close three centres that serve the south of England—including the Itchen Abbas centre which serves my constituency—and to replace them with a single, larger, central unit? Will he consider enlarging the Itchen Abbas centre, which would be simple, rather than closing it? It is ideally situated on a green field site. If it were closed, obtaining change of use planning permission would be extremely difficult. The only alternative would be to destroy it, and that would be a terrible waste of a public asset.

I shall draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend so that they can be taken into account in the consultations in which he is now engaged.

Nutritional Food Labelling


asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will invite the London Food Commission to participate in consultations on nutritional food labelling.

Our consultation document on draft guidelines for nutrition labelling of food has been circulated for comment to over 700 organisations. The London Food Commission is amongst this circulation and we shall welcome any response that it cares to make.

I accept that the Minister wants to improve the linkage between food and health, although we might disagree about the speed of action. Does she accept that the new body in London is plainly a broadly based and well funded body which will be able to contribute to making people understand the benefits of nutritional food labelling and help in the educational process? Will she involve it in the closer consultations in which she is involved with organisations such as the Consumers Association?

That organisation now has our document, and it has been invited, with the other 699 organisations, to make any comments that it wishes. I am sure that, as a responsible body, it will do that.

Will my hon. Friend explain why the nutritionists and other experts who serve on committees to do with food labelling, such as the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, are required to sign the Official Secrets Act? Is food labelling not a subject where maximum publicity is needed, not maximum security?

The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I shall draw his attention to my hon. Friend's comments.

Can nutritional food labelling, valuable as it is of itself, adequately compensate the British consumer for the ever-rising cost of food products in the Common Market?

Fat labelling is a recommendation of COMA. There are other questions on the Order Paper today which may refer to food prices.

When my hon. Friend is considering these problems and the future of labelling, will she turn her attention to the unfairness of confining this to certain food products such as milk and meat? If it is successful for those products, why should it not be successful and wise for all products? Will it not have a damaging effect on the dairy industry?

Fat labelling is a recommendation of COMA and will be on all products. It is the nutritional labelling which will be voluntary. We are considering the best format which would be meaningful to the consumer. Nutritional labelling was not a recommendation of COMA whereas fat labelling was.

We welcome the Government recommendations so far as they go to achieve a healthier diet for our people. Would the Minister accept that if these recommendations are to be of any value, food labelling must be both uniform and easily comprehensible so that when consumers go to the shops they know what the code means?

We are involved in a survey, in collaboration with the National Consumer Council and the Consumers Association, to discover exactly the perception of consumers to labelling. I agree wholly with the hon. Member that the labelling must make sense to consumers if they are to accept advice.

Food Prices


asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what proportion of food price increases since 1975 have been the result of higher real prices paid to farmers; and what proportion can be attributed to higher food processing and retailing costs.

Apportioning increases in food prices between prices paid to farmers and the costs of retailing and distribution can be done only in broad terms. In the decade since 1975, agricultural product prices have risen by 122 per cent., while retail food prices have risen by 166 per cent. Associated with this slower growth of agricultural prices, the cost of basic food raw materials now accounts for 44 per cent. of consumer spending on food compared with 50 per cent. 10 years ago.

My hon. Friend may be aware that in real terms the cost of food, taking the farmgate price received by farmers, has fallen substantially in real terms. What expectation has she that the current common agricultural policy proposed price cuts will result in substantially reduced production, for which she no doubt hopes?

I am not hoping for substantially reduced production, but clearly realism in the common agricultural programme means that we need to consider surplus production.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the moderate rise in food prices compared with the retail prices index is helped greatly by the variable beef premium? Will she encourage my right hon. Friend in no way to barter that valuable instrument in exchange for anything else?

I can only reiterate to my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends need no encouragement to defend British interests in this matter.

Surplus Food


asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the total amount and value of surplus food stored in the United Kingdom; and what is the total amount currently stored in the European Economic Community.

On 30 April intervention stocks of beef, breadwheat, butter and skimmed milk powder in the United Kingdom were just over 321,000 tonnes, valued at some £476 million, using the buying-in prices valid at that date. The volume of Community stocks of these products and sugar at the latest available date was just over 7 million tonnes.

Would the Minister care to estimate how much of that food will eventually be consumed by human beings and how much will simply rot away? Is it not an absolute crime against humanity for the Government to support a high-price, high-waste common agricultural policy, especially at a time when literally millions of people in the Third world are in danger of starving to death?

Neither this House nor the Council of Ministers is under any illusions. It is the firm resolve of the United Kingdom Government to reduce the surpluses. Nevertheless, a considerable proportion of the surpluses will be consumed by human beings, or by animals which will ultimately be consumed by human beings. A considerable proportion will be consumed within the Community, through exports, or through the substantial programme of food aid.

While the surpluses seem large in tonnage terms, will my hon. Friend put the whole business of surpluses into perspective and tell the House exactly how many days of normal supply for the British housewife the surpluses represent?

Clearly, it varies, but for butter it is between 150 and 200 days' supply. There are some cases in which it is vital to reduce the surpluses substantially. In other cases, moderate surpluses are desirable for the safety of food stocks.