asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support he is giving to research into alternative sources of protein supply for animal and human consumption, respectively.

Research into this subject is being carried on under the auspices of the Agricultural Research Council. My right hon. Friend has asked the Food Research Advisory Committee to consider whether further Government support for this kind of research is required.

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. However, would he not agree that one of the most grave shortages of any foodstuff in the world is that of protein food? May we have an assurance that research being conducted in this country has in mind the needs of overseas countries whose protein shortage is even more serious than ours is likely to be?

I give my hon. Friend and the House that assurance. A considerable amount of research is being done, not only by the Government, but under the auspices of private industry. We all have in mind the needs of overseas countries as well as our own.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that home production of bacon is fulfilling its allocation of the Bacon Sharing Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Although home production of bacon is likely to fall short of our minimum allocation in 1967–68, it has shown a considerable increase in the last six months. Production in the July-September quarter was over 15 per cent. higher than in January-March.

Bearing in mind that last year bacon imports cost this country £123 million—64 per cent. of our consumption—would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the time has come to renegotiate the Bacon Sharing Agreement and to give more encouragement to home producers?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bacon Sharing Agreement has been in existence for a long time, even before I was Minister. It is reviewed every year. I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am looking at this matter carefully. I am glad to say that the latest figures show that the breeding herd in Great Britain at September, 1967, was 3 per cent. up.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate an inquiry into how the balance of payments position of this country could be strengthened by an expansion in British agriculture.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that we are reviewing the implications for agriculture of the new situation created by devaluation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as long as he delays introducing measures and incentives to expand home production he is stifling one of the industries which can contribute most to this country's economic recovery?

I am not attempting to stifle the industry. I have already made a public pronouncement about the effects of devaluation and I have paid tribute to the agriculture industry. In addition, I have always defended the selective expansion programme and the rôle which home agriculture can play. In view of devaluation, I am looking at this matter carefully and having it re-examined.

When my right hon. Friend has completed his re-examination, will he either bring the Price Review forward or make an announcement so that farmers may alter their plans for the coming year to fulfil what the Chancellor of the Exchequer requires in the way of expansion?

As my hon. Friend knows, I am examining this matter, and if I have to make an announcement I will do so. I recognise that there are certain commodities which need to be considered. There is no attempt at delay.

We are all glad that the Minister is reviewing the matter, but would he agree that there is urgency about it because farmers' costs have increased and every hon. Member wants to see a real expansion in production and to give all the assistance we can to achieve it? Would the right hon. Gentleman make a statement as soon as possible?

Certainly. I am glad that all hon. Members will assist me when I make a statement and will help to carry out the policy. I am most grateful.

Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the imports of mutton and lamb and try to bring about expansion, particularly as there is so much concern about this matter in view of the Common Market negotiations?

I have said that I am looking at this matter, and I will make a statement as soon as possible. I cannot go further than that. I note what my hon. Friend says.

Surely there is a special procedure laid down for occasions such as this—a special agricultural Price Review? Will not the Minister invoke this procedure instead of waiting for March when, by dillying and dallying, he will have lost a great opportunity for agriculture?

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there are certain things which I can do, but I want to look at this matter carefully. There is no reason why we should panic. Immediately devaluation was announced, I set in motion a careful examination which my officials are now carrying out. As soon as I decide the priorities, I will inform the House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, as far back as the much vaunted National Plan, the proposal was that agricultural production should increase substantially? This has not happened. Will he now accept that very urgent measures are necessary in the light of the present situation and see that this does happen?

I am anxious that the industry should make its maximum contribution. This has been stressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Prime Minister and myself. I believe it can do so and I hope there will be no pessimism from any source.

Will the Minister search for different ways of making promises of expanded agriculture more credible to the industry than previous promises seem to have been?

It is unfair of the hon. Member to say that. I have had discussions and am in close touch with the National Farmers' Union, which represents the industry. We work well together. I know the Union's views and I always take note of what its members say in relation to the expansion programme. Although we did not lay down specific commodity targets, the broad policy was accepted by the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the deficiency payments for beef during the current financial year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his latest estimates of price support payments in 1967–68.

The Winter Supplementary Estimates which will be published in the next few days will include some £18 million on account of the possible increase in the cost of price support in the United Kingdom, of which £13½ million is for fat cattle. In accordance with normal practice this is about three quarters of the increase we think may be needed and is attributable in large part to changes made at the Annual Review.

Does the Minister not realise that these high payments, even though they may be reduced temporarily because of the shortage of cattle through foot-and-mouth disease, will produce a demand for cuts in subsidies from townspeople? Will he at once start levies on imports, beginning with Argentine beef?

I am rather surprised at the hon. Member suggesting that I should adopt immediately a levy system because that would mean the end of the subsidy system as we know it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] His hon. Friends take up the cry, "Cut the farmers' subsidies." This system is imperative to the guarantee. We emphasised that at the last Price Review and I believe we were right to do it.

Why did the Minister begin reconsideration only after devaluation? Was he deceived by the Prime Minister's assurances that there would not be devaluation? Why did he not make contingency plans against devaluation and bring in an immediate Review after them instead of waiting until after it had happened?

The hon. Member is out of touch with reality. When a decision was made I accepted collective responsibility and started my plans. Hon. Members must know full well that I could not inform many people about a major decision before embarking on this. I hope that the hon. Member will be realistic.

Why is the Minister pouring such scorn on a levy system? Does he not realise that devaluation is tantamount to a 15 per cent. levy on all imports, except that we do not get the benefit from it?

When the hon. Member says that I am pouring scorn on the system he should know that our system is working very well. Our agricultural support system, which we have built up on the 1947 and the 1957 Acts, is the admiration of many countries in Europe. I do not want easily to destroy it for some false Conservative approach.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the rise in barley production in France is having on exports of barley from this country and on prices in the market here.

As a result of higher production of barley on the Continent, including France, it had been expected that exports from the United Kingdom would be lower this season than last. It is not possible to isolate the effect of this on the home market price, nor to assess at present the effect of sterling devaluation on United Kingdom barley exports.

Does the Minister not believe that this rise in production of barley abroad, coupled with low consumption at home because of foot-and-mouth disease, is due to lower profitability of livestock? Does he not think it will mean a sharp decrease in profits for the barley farmer? What is he going to do about it?

The hon. Member should not be so pessimistic. We do not underestimate the fall in the number of cattle as a result of this most unfortunate outbreak, but I do not think we should use that for this purpose. After all, the guarantee is there and I am certain that those who grow barley are appreciative of it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take immediate steps to relieve the pressure of increased costs on farmers' incomes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the rise in costs to agriculture in Great Britain since the 1967 Price Review, on the basis of a full year's figures.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now hold a special agricultural Price Review in order to secure a saving of £200 million this year on our balance of payments account, and in order to compensate producers for their increased cost of production resulting from devaluation of the £ sterling.

I cannot yet say what the total rise in costs will be in a full year. In particular, it is too early to assess what additional costs may arise from devaluation. In present circumstances, I do not consider a special Review would be justified, but the Government are considering the implications for agriculture of the new situation.

Will the Minister bear in mind that costs to farmers are increasing from every angle and that many of these costs are the direct result of this Government's measures? Will he not have a special Price Review, bring forward the Review so that these costs can be recouped immediately?

I accept that costs have risen. I give one example, wage costs. This will have a major effect. These are matters which we shall have to consider in the Review. It is not yet possible to estimate any increases caused by devaluation.

Will the Minister accept that the figure of rising costs is already at least £30 million this year? When considering the Price Review, can he not anticipate rises in wages so that farmers are not always a year behind?

I will not commit myself to a figure. This is something we must discuss with the industry and it would be wrong to try to be precise. Anyone could make a guess and be right or not right, but I do not think it would be right for me to make a guess.

If the Minister will not hold a special Review, is there not a danger that we shall not get the saving of £200 million on our balance of payments which is absolutely essential to this country? Will he not therefore initiate a policy of cutting down unnecessary food imports, starting with eggs and beef?

I have said that we are looking at this whole question which arises from devaluation. We do not need a special Review for this. There are some commodities on which we can take action without having any Review procedure. We are having discussions, but I am not going to be pushed into taking a panic measure.

Would it not be helpful if the Opposition would make clear whether they are in support of import control or of bringing forward the Price Review?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both."]—I imagine that my right hon. Friend is entitled to know their views.

My hon. Friend is quite right. We are not certain what the policy of the Opposition is. I am not certain whether they want import control, import substitution, or the direct agreements—which they signed, not I.

Will my right hon. Friend enter discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to raising the ceiling on credit for farmers, particularly in Scotland, and easing the general situation of farmers' borrowing? This is something which must be undertaken for the Price Review whenever it is held.

I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and I am sure the Secretary of State for Scotland will take note of his question and bear it in mind. This is a matter for discussion with the unions.

Is the Minister aware that, unhappily, he is sounding more casual than usual about this matter and that continually "giving consideration" is not enough in an urgent situation such as this? There has been a substantial and sudden change in costs. Will he start the Review machinery earlier?

I have told the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, including the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Scottish Opposition, that I have acted already. Immediately devaluation was announced I got my own Ministry officials working on this, and we are having a precise examination of where we can best assist the industry in relation to specific commodities. I believe that that is the right course. I do not accept the view that we need the Review to be put forward or a special Review. I am certain that this is the view of sensible people in the industry.

In view of the difficulties of the small tenant farmer, will the Minister consider getting in touch with the leaders of the Opposition to see if we can get agreed legislation to provide for a moratorium on rents?

I think not.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed the details of the pool price dilution formula for milk; and if he will now announce it.

The Government have agreed with the Farmers' Unions the factors to be taken into account in the implementation of the milk price assurance given at the 1966 Review. This year's figures will be published in the 1968 An Dual Review White Paper.

Yes, but does not the Minister realise that the farmers are very anxious to know exactly how this plan is going to work? Does the Minister realise, too, that if he wants calves he has got to have cows, and if he is to have cows he has got to have milk—[An HON. MEMBER: "And a bull."]—and if he is to have milk he has got to have money for it?

I must say that I left the bull to the hon. Gentleman who has not made a bad job of it. Of course farmers know what conditions there are. They have been worked out by the N.F.U. and the Government. There is an agreement, and indeed, the provisional estimate of the United Kingdom average producer price in 1967–68 is rather more than ¾d. more than last year. The indications are that the farmers' incomes are rising, and I am delighted to see it. We are disappointed with calf retentions. We have said this, and we hope they will improve, but on the whole it is not a bad story.

Would it not be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman were to impress upon his right hon. Friend that he ought to revise his plans altogether in view of the chronic stock shortage, which has become obvious and is likely to become more so before we have done with this scourge?

I take that into consideration, but the figures do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman has just said. The figures are up considerably compared with 1964. Talking off the record, I think it is about 230,000 up—off the cuff, I should have said, but I think that hon. Gentleman will know that I mean. I do not have the figure with me, but I think that it is 230,000 up compared with 1964.

A sluggish Opposition.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further action he proposes to take in order to prevent the dilution of the producer price of milk by imports of dumped and subsidised milk products.

Producers' returns are maintained at their proper level through the mechanism of the guarantee, which is reviewed annually, in the light of all the relevant factors. This long-standing arrangement has stood the test of time. Any application for the imposition of anti-dumping duties should be made to the Board of Trade.

As the Minister has recently made arrangements for dealing with some of these imports, should not these arrangements be widely extended?

We certainly took action in one specific instance, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's thanks.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his present estimate of the average producer price for milk during the year 1967–68.

It is estimated that the United Kingdom average net producer price for milk in 1967–68 will be about 3s. 3½d. a gallon.

Would the Minister agree that the low price attracted by manufactured milk is the bugbear of the milk price structure? In view of the need to expand production over all spheres, will the Minister consider having a new look at the whole principle of the standard price?

Quite obviously the amount that goes to manufacture has its effect, but about 90 per cent. of our total milk production is covered by the guaranteed price, and I repeat that the price this year will be about ¾d. more than last year, because since June our forecast of milk production has gone up by a further 60 million gallons.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to relieve the abatement suffered by fatstock producers prior to his announcement in July.

In disbursing the expected final payment after the end of the fatstock year 1967–68 we propose to give priority to producers who suffered heavy abatements in the three weeks before my announcement in July, so as to put them on an equal footing with those who sold immediately afterwards when the abatement was limited to 6s.

But would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the economic conditions of today it is lunacy to fine farmers for over-production when what we need is more domestic production?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise the history of the scheme, and that it was introduced by my predecessor—

In 1967?

Not in 1967. The scheme was operative then. I took the action which I thought was right, and it was welcomed by the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a progress report on the selective expansion programme for agriculture.

We do of course look at progress under the selective expansion programme at the Annual Review; but we are now looking at the programme in the light of devaluation to see what agriculture might contribute.

But does not the Minister realise that Britain's most efficient industry, the farming industry, is straining at the leash to expand? What is his pro- gramme for implementing the promise of the Prime Minister of a programme of expansion?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not stopping the industry from expanding. In fact I believe that the industry is a very dynamic industry. We have given it tremendous support. I said, and I repeat, that we are looking precisely at the effects of devaluation, and when I am in a position to make a statement I will do so. But there is no attempt to restrict the industry.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the farming industry appreciates the great opportunity it now has, and that there is no desperate need for an immediate announcement, but that mid-January would be the last date that an announcement should be made, and would my right hon. Friend accept that and say that it will come before then?

I hope the hon. Member will not tie me to a date—[HON. MEMBERS "Oh."]—for making an announcement. It could come sooner. I will decide and nobody else.

Oh.

Gauleiter Peart.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that since he launched his selective expansion programme the production index of the agricultural industry has fallen steadily by one point each year?

No. I cannot accept that. In view of the reactions of hon. and right hon. Members opposite I would ask, surely it is right that the Minister should make the decision when to make the announcement?

May I speak—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Withdraw."]—for the Worcestershire farmers? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reputation he is rapidly earning in Worcestershire is that of a person guilty of endless, windy, pious platitudes and no effective action to help our local farmers?

I believe that that statement by the hon. Member represents his view, and his standing with the farming community is very slight.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the increased level of calf slaughterings is in accordance with the selective expansion programme as outlined in the National Plan.

Many of the extra calves kept for rearing in 1964 and 1965, when slaughterings were almost halved, proved to be overcostly to fatten and made poor quality beef. A return this year to a more selective approach is not inconsistent with the declared objectives of the Plan.

In view of the high rate and cost of slaughtering this year would not a more honest answer to my Question have been "No"?

I do not understand the meaning of that supplementary question. I have already, in reply to an earlier Question, expressed my regret at the calf slaughtering. What is true is that the number of breeding cows is increasing in the dairy herd in England and Wales and in the bed herd in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I can now confirm the figure I gave off the cuff just now. In 1967 the herd was 230,000 more in the United Kingdom than it was in 1964.

Yes, but does not this increased slaughtering of calves suggest another aspect of the matter, that a lot of hon. Members in the House know that a great many calves are being produced under rather inhumane factory methods to provide delicacies for expensive hotels, and manufactured foods, and that many Members of this House have the strongest objection to those methods?

What I am interested in is that more calves are being retained. I think that this is the best way to make a contribution to our stock, and to the farming community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost to farmers of statutory bodies established since October, 1964.

The direct charges on farmers by river authorities have averaged about £200,000 a year. The net cost to farmers of the Home Crown Cereals Authority averaged £140,000. Figures for levies on farmers by statutory bodies for 1967–68 are not yet available.

Would the Minister care to tell us how much the Training Board is likely to take from the industry as well? Would he not agree that it has been the cause of the farmers' lack of confidence more than any other one thing, and, bearing this in mind, would he try to recoup the farmers for that?

As the hon. Gentleman knows very well, it is very difficult to evaluate all the value to the agricultural industry of these various bodies which have been brought in in the last two or three years. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, as a farmer, the chaos there was in the commodity markets, meat and cereals in particular, so that we had to do something to get order in the marketing of these commodities.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional costs will fall on to horticulturists during the current financial year as a result of the surcharge on fuel oil.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional costs will be incurred by the agricultural industry during the current financial year as a result of the surcharge on fuel oil.

It is estimated that in the financial year ending 31st March, 1968, the 2d. per gallon surcharge on fuel oil may increase agricultural and horticultural costs by about £2½ million of which about £0·4 million relates to oil used for glasshouse heating.

Will the hon. Gentleman make quite sure that the officials in his Department looking into the effects of devaluation on the agriculture industry alone will take into account the extra burden which the hard-pressed horticultural industry will experience through devaluation?

Yes.

Since not even this Government would suggest burning coal in agricultural tractors, why can they not remove the fuel oil tax altogether from agriculture?

Agriculture has to bear its fair share of any increases like these which, because of the Middle East situation, are almost unavoidable. For agriculture, they are taken into account in the Price Review.

In that last Answer, is the hon. Gentleman telling us that horticulture will be reimbursed in the next Price Review?

The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) asked me specifically about agriculture, and I replied about agriculture. If the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) is asking me about horticulture now, I am prepared to answer him. The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen to what his hon. Friend asked me. There is the Horticulture Improvement Scheme to help the horticulture industry, and it is taking tremendous advantage of it to the tune of about £5½ million a year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the extra cost to the agricultural industry of fertilisers during the current financial year as a result of a reduced rate of subsidy and an increase in manufacturers' prices; and what effect on the use of fertilisers by farmers he estimates this will have.

The 6 per cent. increase in fertiliser prices last March and the reduction in subsidy rates from 1st June are estimated to add about £7½ million to farmers' fertiliser costs in the current financial year. The temporary surcharge on nitrogen could add a further £1½ million if it continues to the end of the financial year. Demand for fertilisers remains buoyant and these additions in farmers' prices are not expected to have any appreciable effect on their use in the rest of the year.

Even accepting that the Minister's very optimistic reply is correct, how does he tie that in with his right hon. Friend's statement that the Government are not stopping the expansion of agriculture?

I do not quite follow that supplementary question. I do not think that my right hon. Friend said that, in any case. As I say, the demand for fertilisers is buoyant. I do not want to weary the House with figures, but the demand is rising every year, apart from 1965–66. This year, the estimate is to the tune of 1,638,000 nutrient tons.

Does that figure include horticultural production? If it does, would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, if the added cost is not recouped under existing procedures, that is an additional reason for aiding horticulture?

My reply to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) applies to this Question as well.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how prices of store lambs this autumn have compared with those a year ago.

The average prices of store lambs of both hill and other breeds were up to 8s. per head higher in September and October of this year than in the same months of 1966. Information on hill sheep sales in November is not yet complete, but the prices of lambs of other breeds have been running higher than last year by between 10s, and £1 per head.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is welcome news but that, last year, the sheep industry went into a very deep trough? The prices which he has mentioned are still below those of three years ago, while costs have been soaring. Will he take steps to reimburse this sector of the industry which perhaps has been harder hit than any other?

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman thinks my information is welcome. However, even taking the year 1965 as a comparison, we are up to that level this year, which shows an even greater improvement. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned prices. He knows what was done in this year's annual Price Review to help this section of the industry, and we shall be looking at it again, together with other relevant factors, when the next Price Review takes place.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, while the average price may be up, in certain areas of Scotland the poorer quality lambs have not been so rewarded by higher prices? Will he consider what steps the Government can take to assist the fattening of lambs and substituting for the production of store lambs a rather more intensified form of fatstock production?

It is always the case, no matter what branch of industry one is in—agriculture or otherwise—that poorer qualities obviously fetch lower prices. I would remind my hon. Friend that the guaranteed price for fat sheep was increased by 1d. per lb., and that will have helped. If further assistance can be given, we will look at it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the discussions which he has been having with the Minister of Agriculture in Eire.

These discussions are still in progress and I cannot say anything about them at the moment.

Can the Minister say why these talks have had to be held at all, in view of the Prime Minister's assurance that the position of the British farmer would be in no way prejudiced by the Irish Trade Agreement—or is it that the right hon. Gentleman has found himself a victim of yet another misleading statement by his right hon. Friend?

I am certain that the hon. Gentleman knows full well why I initiated talks. I was worried about the impact of Irish products on our market, and the lack of phasing. I felt that it was right that I should see also that the Irish Government did not put on an export subsidy, as they did last year. That is why we have been having talks. I think that that is sensible.

Because of the present economic situation, has the right hon. Gentleman made any suggestion for a reduction in the £10 million which is annually borne by the United Kingdom taxpayer for the benefit of Eire agriculture?

I do not think that we should cancel it. It is mutually advantageous to have the Agreement. It is good for our industry. We want Irish stores, and I have asked for them. I am glad to say that the figure has shown an improvement this year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much he estimates will be spent on imports of meat during 1967.

I cannot predict the final cost but our imports of meat and meat preparations of all kinds from January to September cost £290 million. Of this total, imports of carcase meat and offal accounted for £132 million.

Particularly after devaluation, does the Minister not think that this is a staggering figure which ought to receive immediate attention?

It is a large figure. It has always been part of our traditional food policy to import, as well as putting an emphasis on home production. There are some people who would wish us to stop all imports, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite who are nodding their heads in agreement will answer this question: would they stop imports of meat from New Zealand?

Would the Minister consider whether it would not be advantageous now to import meat off the bone from a certain area where foot-and-mouth is endemic? It would save money and, if his advisers at Pirbright advocated it, it might afford some relief from the danger of foot-and-mouth.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a Question down on this subject. I hope that it will be reached. I should prefer to wait until it is reached before answering it.

In my right hon. Friend's Review of agricultural production, will he give added consideration to stimulating the production of home-produced meat?

Of course, we did that in the last Review. We increased the guarantees. That was a declaration of our intention.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now revise his present policy concerning support by his Department to planning applications on agricultural and horticultural holdings, so as to give a clear indication of support when he considers the proposals are of benefit to the industry.

I believe that a change of policy is desirable. However this is a complex matter and my consultations are not yet complete. I share the desire of the hon. Member for an early solution.

I thank the Minister for once again expressing his concern about this matter. May I ask whether we can have something rather more definite, as many local farmers misunderstand the general position, which is being unhelpful to the agricultural industry?

I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible, and inform him directly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that comments and advice given by his Department to local authorities concerning planning applications on agricultural and horticultural holdings are submitted by suitably qualified officers; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. Advice to local planning authorities is given only by professionally qualified officers of the Agricultural Land Service.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that specialist horticulturists are expressing concern about comments coming from the Agricultural Land Service, because they feel that the most qualified officers in the specialist field are the horticultural officers of the N.A.S.? Will the hon. Gentleman give this special consideration?

I appreciate that it is very difficult for everybody to be specialists in all the details of horticulture, and we are looking at this, along with the other points mentioned by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much he estimates the imports of cereals will cost during 1967.

About £200 million.

Will the Minister make a statement in the very near future in order to stimulate home production, bearing in mind that plans for sowing times have to be made very soon?

I shall note that. It is one of the commodities which I had in mind when I replied to an earlier Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional costs will be incurred by farmers during the current financial year as a result of the recent agricultural wage award.

About £3 million in Great Britain.

As devaluation has produced a new situation, with a heavy increase in costs for all imported feedingstuffs and fertilisers, is not this another argument for trying to hasten the Price Review so that farmers can plan ahead with some confidence?

My right hon. Friend answered the point—[Hon. Members: "No."]—he may not have answered it to the satisfaction of some hon Gentlemen opposite, but he has answered the point about an additional Price Review. The £3 million is for a short period of the financial year. For a full year it will be much more. It will only affect next year.

As the new wage award does not become operative until February, 1968, will my hon. Friend give consideration to an earlier date being fixed for this award?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect imports of soft wheat are having on prices of home-grown wheat.

It is impossible to isolate the effect of imports on domestic market prices, but before devaluation these were running at a generally lower level than last year.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there was more home production this year, and therefore we needed imports less? Apart from that, does not he think it is time that his right hon. Friend and he had a fresh look at agricultural policy, instead of coming to the House with the negative and complacent attitude which they have produced up to now?

I was interested to see the hon. Gentleman reading that supplementary question. Let me say in reply that our home crop is up by 400,000 tons. The hon. Gentleman will remember that at the last Annual Price Review we put the guaranteed price up by 10s. a ton. The farmer's protection is the minimum import price, and let the hon. Gentleman remember that even the E.E.C. took steps not to impair that.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, in regard to all his import policy, that he is serving the Ministry of food as well as agriculture, and will he bear in mind, too, the cost to housewives as well as the interests of farmers?

I have said this before in the House, that what we have to endeavour to do is to be fair to our home producers, and at the same time take steps to protect the housewife who is the purchaser of all these goods.

Is not the British producer of cereals the lowest cost producer in the world?

I am not arguing against that. What I said in reply to my hon. Friend was that when prices are being fixed it is the duty of this Ministry, whichever Government are in power, to look after the interests of both the producer and the consumer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the annual decline in the numbers of agricultural workers is in accordance with the lines laid down in the National Plan.

The outflow of workers varies from year to year.

The National Plan indicated a fall in the labour force by 1970 of some 140,000, but no annual rate of outflow was given. The Agricultural Census shows a reduction between June, 1964, and June, 1967, of some 84,000 regular workers.

Against the background of the Minister's acceptance of the need for increased agricultural production, may I ask whether he will now recognise that in many parts of the country there is an acute shortage of trained stockmen, and will he revise his previous policies and take steps to encourage the recruitment of such men?

Up to now, with a steady decrease in the labour force, we have had a steady increase in efficiency and production. We see no reason for this not to continue. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are areas of the country in which there is a scarcity of stockmen, but if he would like proof that labour can come out of agriculture he should look at page 37 and the photograph in last week's issue of The Farmer's Weekly.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that there are some parts of the country in which the run-out of labour in agriculture affects all sections of industry, and is extremely serious? Will he consider the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), about bringing forward the wages award so as immediately to encourage the retention of workers in this section of the industry?

I do not think that bringing forward the award would have any effect. I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, as I do with my hon. Friend, that there are areas in which labour may be scarce but I do not think that either the hon. Gentleman's or my hon. Friend's suggestion would make any difference in the meantime.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the prospects of an international agreement on sugar prices being reached; and if he will make a statement.

At its meeting earlier this month the International Sugar Council discussed the preparations being made by the Secretary General of UNCTAD for a negotiating Conference to be held next April. The Council welcomed this prospect

"in view of the general belief that such a Conference now had a reasonable chance of success."

I share that belief and welcome these developments.

What it the attitude of the Common Market countries in this discussion? Is it true that by their uncooperative attitude they are proving to be the main stumbling block in reaching international agreement?

It is not for me to answer for Common Market policy. I think that one must explore that further.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent London talks on the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Yes, Sir. The talks ended last Wednesday. There are no changes in the price and quota arrangements for 1968. In view of our application to join the E.E.C. it was agreed not to discuss the question of extension.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but can he give the House an assurance that he has borne in mind the immense value of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to many of the under-developed Commonwealth countries? Moreover, is he aware that the economies of many of these smaller nations are entirely dependent on their sugar crop?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remark. I pay tribute to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It gives long-term security to many parts of the world where they have only monoculture and provides prosperity for their people. It is of great value.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in the event of the occupiers of a large farm and of a non-commercial holding both wishing to purchase a non-commercial holding vacated by a third party who has obtained a grant or annuity under the terms of the Agriculture Act, both prospective buyers are given equal consideration for amalgamation grants.

Whichever buyer the outgoer chooses will be eligible for the amalgamation grant provided the amalgamation meets the conditions of the scheme. The outgoer would not qualify for a grant or annuity until the approved amalgamation had been completed.

If it is the intention of the Government to create a larger number of viable commercial holdings should not preference be given to amalgamations which will create additional commercial holdings and not merely increase the size of farms which are already viable units?

The hon. Member has argued this with me very often on previous occasions. My reply is the same. It would do away with the voluntary nature of the scheme, and that we do not want to do.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider seeking to establish a Land Bank to give fixed-interest loans for both farming and forestry on the lines of the French Credit Agricole which lends at 3 per cent., details of which have been sent to him.

No, Sir. I do not think that an institution on these lines would be appropriate in view of our present arrangements for supporting and financing agriculture and forestry.

Are the Government aware that the present Bank Rate is a crippling burden on the agricultural industry and that if the industry were permitted to invest a higher proportion of borrowed capital it would be able to reduce its liabilities more rapidly than it can at present?

Yes. We appreciate what the interest rates are, but the House as a whole will appreciate the arrangements that we have made through the agriculture corporations for the lending of money to British agriculture. Interest rates cannot be taken alone when considering the position of agriculture. We have also to consider the support price and guaranteed prices in our system.

Why does my hon. Friend give such a conservative answer? Is not he aware that many farmers who have overdrafts at the bank complain bitterly about the high rate of interest? Does not he think that some new initiative would help to relieve them from the pressure of high interest rates?

Yes—and the Government have made provision in this respect. For certain lending institutions we provide a certain sum of money free of interest. As hon. Members opposite will remember, I had to defend this in Committee on the last Agriculture Bill.

Will not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that if he is defending existing interest rates as being necessary for farmers it adds importance to the claims made to his right hon. Friend for an early decision on increased prices to help the farmers?

My right hon. Friend has never sought to deny what they were. He will also be aware that the Government guarantee money and provide money which keeps these long-term loans down to the lowest possible figure. I am not seeking to use this as an excuse, but many people in other industries would be grateful if they could get loans on the same terms as are granted to agriculture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress so far made on the brucellosis eradication scheme.

Up to 20th November we received 7,850 applications for member- ship of the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme. Of these, 700 have been withdrawn: 6,400 preliminary visits have been made and 4,550 herds are in varying stages of their qualifying tests; and eight herds are now on the Register. I regret that while the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease continues we cannot deal with new applications, and there will be delays in routine testing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many farmers are very worried about the present scheme, in that infected cattle are being put into cattle markets, purchased and sent into brucella-free herds? When does he intend to start his eradication policy?

This happened before, in T.T. days. I am anxious that we should get ahead with this. I pressed for it and made an announcement. I am having co-operation, but it is too early to give a full estimate of how the scheme is going. Applications representing just under 4 per cent. of the total number of herds have been received.

Is the Minister aware that if only eight herds are free from brucellosis it is disgraceful at this stage? When will he tackle this problem vigorously, in the interests of the health of the British people? When will he do something about it?

I do not think that, in the circumstances, progress is slow. I have made a start, which is more than my predecessors did.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many agricultural holdings are owned or administered by his Department; and how many of them have been separately visited by him in the last 12 months.

1,365 agricultural holdings are in my possession or administered by my Department. This includes 805 smallholdings managed by the L.S.A. on my behalf. I visited a number of the holdings on one of my estates last winter and my senior professional officers frequently visit Ministry properties on my behalf.

Is the Minister aware that that Answer is even worse than I expected? Does he realise that there are 271 agricultural holdings in the County of Holland and that he has still not visited any of them?

I cannot see every holding in the country. I spend as much time as possible every weekend, travelling about the country and speaking to the farmers. I cannot do any more than I am doing.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he opposes tenants of his smallholdings acquiring a tenancy of a nearby smallholding owned privately or by a county council, although the two holdings together would make an economic farm.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question of 3rd May list.—[Vol. 746, c. 63–4.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will cause no satisfaction to some of his tenants in the County of Holland who are trying to make a livelihood off 10 acres? Is not this one more reason why the Minister should visit the 271 tenants that he has in the County of Holland?

I have crossed swords with the hon. Member on this subject before. I am afraid that the answer is the same. The tenants sign an agreement not to take land from outside the estate. Our policy of amalgamations would be stultified if we were to allow this and I think that the hon. Member knows this only too well.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made as to the number of cattle which receive treatment against infestation by warble fly.

I cannot estimate the exact number, but a survey of over 15,000 herds made in 1966 showed that about 7 per cent. of them had been treated with systemic insecticides.

In view of the damage to hides caused by warble fly will the Minister consider a scheme under which notification will be given to people who sell fat cattle, whether their hides were so infected after the animal was killed?

We are directing a lot of publicity to farmers. It would be administratively difficult to carry out the hon. Member's suggestion, but I will look into the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on how many occasions in 1965, 1966 and 1967 he has prosecuted owners or occupiers of land for failing to abate an infestation of rabbits, authorised the exercise of his default powers of entry to carry out necessary rabbit clearance work, or issued formal warning letters to the owners and occupiers of rabbit-infested land;

(2) whether, in view of the fact that it is possible for an offender to avoid conviction by taking only nominal remedial action, he is satisfied that his powers under the Agriculture Act, 1947 to protect farmland from infestation by rabbits are sufficient; and if he will make a statement.

During the years ended 30th September, 1965, 1966 and 1967 there were no prosecutions; in each of these years two entries were made in default and 33, 13 and 17 warning letters respectively were sent.

I should, however, like to emphasise that this formal statutory action is taken only in those comparatively rare cases where persuasion fails.

We do not agree that an occupier can circumvent the law as the hon. Member suggests; our present powers under the Agriculture Act, 1947, and the Pests Act, 1954, to see that rabbits are properly controlled are adequate.

Can the Minister say how long the normal interval is between the first inspection by his officers and the exercise of default powers or prosecution, if there were a prosecution? Secondly, does not he agree that if this pest is to be kept under permanent control the ultimate sanction must be made more severe and effective than it is at the moment?

I cannot give the hon. Member exact figures at the moment but I will look into the matter and let him have them. On the other point, we feel that rabbits had been kept fairly well under control with a voluntary scheme. The hon. Member's right hon. Friend is continually at me in other contexts for taking too many powers. I hope that the hon. Member will not ask for more powers than his right hon. Friend wants me not to have.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present level of income of hill farmers; and if he will make a statement.

Hill farmers' returns will benefit this year from the increases in the hill cow, hill sheep and calf subsidies at the last Annual Review and the stronger store markets. We shall, of course, be considering farmers' incomes soon in the context of the Annual Review, together with all other relevant factors.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in an earlier reply the indication was that the underlying trend of incomes for hill farms was static and that costs were rising? What is the right hon Gentleman going to do about it?

As the hon. Member knows, this is a matter for the Review.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that small hill farmers in areas adjacent to parts of the country affected by foot-and-mouth disease have had to bear heavy additional costs this year because they have had to retain their store cattle and store lambs, and to buy fodder?

This question of cost is a factor that we have to bear in mind.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his answer to this Question, like his answer to some earlier ones, adds to the need for an early statement that we shall recoup farmers for these costs? Will he give an answer which will show that he realises the need—as expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House—for an early statement?

I said that I will make a statement as early as possible. These are matters for Review procedure and discussion with the unions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assist hill farmers and all other farmers by cancelling forthwith the importation of beef from the Argentine?

That has nothing to do with this Question about hill farmers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on these benches and many farmers in East Yorkshire take exception to the way in which the Opposition wish to involve him at this stage in some ill-thought and unpremeditated action?

indicated assent.