asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to initiate bilateral quota agreements to restrict the importing of agricultural products.

We have quotas on certain agricultural and horticultural imports, but I have no current plans to introduce quotas for other items.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that the extension of bilateral quota agreements could prevent the importation of commodities already produced here and that this would greatly help the planned expansion of home food production?

As a general principle, we have always adhered to a multilateral conception and we still think this the right course. We do have quotas for apples and pears—although these are not bilateral—and for main crop potatoes and hops and for butter, for example; but the general principle is multilateral trade.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the figures for the increase in food prices over the period November, 1967, to January, 1968; and what estimates he has made of the changes over the period January, 1968, to March, 1968.

Between mid-November, 1967, and mid-January, 1968, food prices rose by about 2½ per cent. due mainly to the normal seasonal increases at this time of the year and to the effects of the foot-and-mouth epidemic on the price of meat. Retail food prices are affected by many factors including the weather, availability of supplies, stock levels and special offers by manufacturers and retailers. I cannot therefore give an estimate of the change for the period January to March, 1968.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that, if the full effects of devaluation become felt, the total increase before the year is out could be about 25 to 30 per cent. and that the impact will be greatest on the lower-paid workers and social security recipients? Would not lie also agree that his ability to curb prices may determine the future of the British economy and also the future of the Government?

I would hesitate to accept the figure put by my hon. Friend. I cannot isolate the increase caused by devaluation. But obviously price stability is important. There will be price increases, as I have said, but, through our constant watch and the early warning system, we have achieved a restraining effect.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman be more emphatic in repudiating the figure suggested by his hon. Friend, which is surely absurd if what the right hon. Gentleman has said previously bears any relation to reality? Incidentally, we on this side are not concerned with the point raised by the hon. Member about the future of the Government. We are not worried about that.

I was answering my hon. Friend politely but it was a repudiation and I stress that it was.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his tenants in the County of Holland have full-time agricultural holdings of less than 20 acres.

93.

As the Wise Report recommended that these 93 holdings should no longer be regarded as viable, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that less hardship would be caused to the tenants if they could become part-time holdings?

I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter but we are trying to get these holdings amalgamated into bigger units in due course, and if we make them part-time or allow the holders to have outside holdings, this will inhibit the move towards amalgamation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has concluded his investigations into the source of the current foot-and-mouth epidemic; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now decided to keep the ban on the importation of meat from the countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic in force pending the findings of the independent inquiry which he has undertaken to set up.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is still his intention to retain the ban on certain imported meat only up to 4th March; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now undertake not to remove the present temporary ban on importation of meat from South America until a recommendation has been received from the proposed committee of inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak.

I cannot today add to what I said on 15th February either about the origins of the epidemic or about the temporary suspension of meat imports. I will make a statement on 4th March.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread local belief that this epidemic originated from a consignment of Argentine lamb? Is he also aware that, ever since the Gowers Report, a strong shadow of suspicion must fall on Latin-American meat? Will he take this into account in his statement?

Obviously I take account of what the Gowers Report said. As I have stated before, I have had a report prepared by my Chief Veterinary Officer which is now being studied. This will be taken into account in the review of the temporary suspension of imports.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the delay caused by his not answering questions about the ban has caused the greatest gloom in agricultural areas? If—I sincerely hope that he does not—the right hon. Gentleman decides to lift the ban, will he remember that it is vital that it should be kept on mutton and offals and that no carcases should come here which are not decapitated?

There has been no delay on my part. This is a very difficult problem. I made a full statement earlier and I shall make another on 4th March.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, with time running out and 4th March so near, his failure to make this statement today in answer to the Questions on the Notice Paper makes it abundantly clear that he has not yet made up his mind on this, and this is something which is bound to cause the greatest distress in farming circles?

Some hon. Members suggested—and I have seen Press accounts suggesting it—that I had made up my mind, and decided when I made my previous announcement that I was to commit myself to a certain line of action. I had not and I ask the hon. Member to be patient.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread local suspicion that apart from the original outbreak, some of the later outbreaks have been primary outbreaks, due to the same cause, imported meat?

I do not know whether the hon. Member is stating categorically what he thinks is the cause. I must not commit myself until I make a final decision, which I will announce. I am still considering my Chief Veterinary Officer's report.

Would my right hon. Friend take care to base his findings on conclusive scientific evidence, and not take too much note of the pleas voiced by hon. Members opposite?

I must say in all fairness, and my hon. Friend will appreciate this, that I must take note of my Chief Veterinary Officer's report. This is a scientific report.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on supplementary financial assistance proposed by the Government to assist farmers who had their livestock slaughtered in the early weeks of the recent foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, following further consideration, he will now make a statement concerning the special position for tax purposes of compensation payments made to farmers as a result of livestock losses in the recent foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the result of his consultations regarding measures to ensure that sums received by farmers as compensation as a result of foot-and-mouth disease are not subjected to tax.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on the supplements proposed for the valuation of stock of early victims of the foot-and-mouth epidemic; and on the tax treatment of compensation for stock compulsorily slaughtered.

There has been an encouraging response to the measures already taken to assist restocking—including the National Farmers' Union's Restocking Scheme, the special arrangements for bringing the help of the Ministry's Advisory Service to each affected farmer and for encouraging grant-aided improvements, and the special £10 per acre Ploughing Grant.

Is the Minister aware that these "non-answers are becoming rather monotonous? Is it not time that farmers knew exactly where they are? Farmers have had to face the problem of restocking and it is high time that they knew about their position with regard to the tax, which I raised in November, and with regard to valuations. This has been known to the Minister for many months.

The first part of my reply was not monotonous, and has been welcomed by the industry, and I believe by the hon. Member. The matter of taxation was mentioned by the Chancellor yesterday. My Department is still having consultations with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue, I will make a statement on 4th March. That is not being monotonous.

The Chancellor said yesterday that he had not made up his mind; at the same time he wanted to do justice to the farmers. Would the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Chancellor that he can quite easily do this by reaching a decision quickly, and ensuring that these payments are not subject to tax?

I hope to announce a decision on Monday on this, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

In view of the somewhat ambivalent nature of the Chancellor's answer yesterday, could the Minister take this opportunity to confirm that he stands by the principle that the compensation shall be treated, in terms of tax, in such a way that it enables the farmer to replace the stock which has been compulsorily slaughtered?

I have said repeatedly that I am discussing this with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue and will make an announcement on Monday.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that any net compensation paid to farmers cannot be regarded as fair unless it is sufficient to replace every single beast that has had to be destroyed?

I understand what the hon. and gallant Member has said. This point of view has been put to me by farmers' representatives and that is why I am having discussions with the Treasury and Inland Revenue. I will make a statement on Monday.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to protect consumers from the effects of another outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take all possible steps to prevent further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease.

A number of import controls designed to prevent the introduction of foot-and-mouth disease are already in force. Additionally, the import of meat is at present suspended from certain countries.

Yes, but does not the Minister realise that if there is another serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease it is the consumer who will suffer probably more than the farmer because of increased costs? Will he take further steps to see that they are protected?

I am aware that the consumer also suffers as well as the producer. We did take steps.

Does the Minister realise that the South Irish Government have imposed a ban indefinitely on imported meat from diseased areas? Does he regard it as coincidental that they have been free from the disease?

I am aware of the policy adopted by the Eire Government. I am making a statement on the wider issue on Monday, as I said earlier.

Could my right hon. Friend tell us when he proposes to raise the restrictions in Northamptonshire, Rutland and Lincolnshire?

As soon as my veterinary advisers report to me and I believe that the precautions are adequate.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the foot-and-mouth disease situation.

Since I reported to the House on 15th February there have been six further outbreaks, bringing the total to 2,339. 208,800 cattle, 100,700 sheep, 133,400 pigs and 39 goats have been slaughtered. Compensation paid or pay- able to date is estimated to be £26·3 million.

In view of the possible spread or respread of infection, and as the Minister is now releasing imported meat out of cold storage, could he tell the House precisely what arrangements are being made for the disposal of the bones from this meat and the waste?

We have been in touch with the industry. There will be strict precautions and the bones will be destroyed. I am satisfied with what my veterinary advisers have said, that this is right in the circumstances.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that new consignments of beef from Argentina have not already left for this country, in view of the fact that a week ago the London insurance market was asked to quote for these consignments?

I am not responsible for any consignments of meat which have left any countries outside of our country's jurisdiction. As far as I know there is none, but it could be that ships are leaving to take meat to other countries, but I am not responsible for that.

Arising out of the answer to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), can the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that none of this meat is being sold across the counter in a form in which bones could become available?

Certainly. This meat being released is for processing only and several precautionary measures have already been taken. If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to, I can write and give him greater details.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of three cases of recrudescence of this disease on infected premises, and has he any plan for disinfecting once again all the infected premises to make certain that the virus has been got rid of?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this has happened on previous occasions and I agree, in relation to the question of disinfecting premises again, that this is right, and this has been done.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost, so far, of the foot-and-mouth epidemic to public funds.

The total cost to public funds so far is estimated to be £35 million.

Does this include or exclude tax on compensation?

Compensation for animal slaughter is £27 million. I am in discussion with the Treasury on this matter, as I mentioned earlier.

Does that figure include it?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that farms which have suffered from foot-and-mouth disease, and then been declared free of the disease, have caught it a second time on restocking; and if he will consider imposing a minimum period before restocking can take place.

It is the normal practice not to permit restocking until six weeks have elapsed from the date of slaughter or four weeks from the date of final disinfection, whichever is the earlier. This period is sufficient in the vast majority of cases but occasionally there have been second outbreaks of disease on farms after restocking. I do not think it would be desirable to extend the present minimum period before restocking but I am taking other steps to minimise the risks of a second outbreak on a previously infected farm.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the second outbreak has caused a great deal of anxiety among farmers who want to restock, and that they would appreciate guidance from him on this, because apparently they will run greater financial risks if they restock and fail the second time?

I am aware of this. Indeed, as I said in reply to a previous Question, this has occurred before. This was a matter of disinfection. We examine each case, and as a result of our examination we find that we are perhaps able to give even further advice to farmers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those unfortunate farmers who have had a second outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease will get the same compensation, or at any rate not less than they did on the first occasion?

I said that I shall make a major statement on Monday on compensation. This will cover these farmers as well.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will launch a five-year plan to stimulate home beef production and secure the permanent replacement of South American imports.

We announced in September, 1965, a five-year selective expansion programme for the agricultural industry in which beef production plays an important part. Progress under that programme is now being considered in the Annual Review in the light of all the relevant factors.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for beef production this plan simply is not working? Has his attention been called to the fact that the latest statistics for 1967 show that the beef cow herd actually declined by 3,000 in that year?

The total breeding herd is up by 125,000–3 per cent.—between December, 1965, and December, 1967. The beef breeding herd is up by 93,000, and this despite foot-and-mouth losses. I hope the hon. Member will not be too pessimistic.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the targets in the selective expansion plan announced in 1965 are adequate in view of the opportunities for import saving presented by devaluation?

I would accept that the broad approach in the selective expansion programme is a reasonable one, at which we ought to aim.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total annual increase in the bill for imported animal feed, due to devaluation.

Assuming a price increase of one-sixth, the landed cost of imported animal food would be increased by about £25 million. In practice, because of other factors, including substitution of home-produced materials, the increase should be less.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Minister is fully aware of this significant added factor, the increase in costs, for beef producers? Would he bear it in mind at the Price Review?

I am certain that those who act for the N.F.U. will have brought it to my right hon. Friend's attention.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that at this Price Review, and thereafter, the Government will not be taking action to raise the cost of imported feedingstuffs through increasing minimum import prices? May we have an assurance that if they choose to do anything at all it will be through the levy system?

That is another question. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend was asking what the approach was and I was telling him. There are two items in the agricultural programme which are compensated for automatically. Any other rises, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are dealt with when the Annual Review is taking place.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the hundreds of grocery price increases since the beginning of 1968 are in accordance with the Government's policy; and what action he intends to take to protect the British public from unjustifiable price increases when wages and salaries are pegged.

The Government's price surveillance arrangements are designed to ensure that no price increases of significance are made unless they are justified. I am satisfied that these arrangements are working well. Some price increases must be expected, though the mere counting of lines, including variations of size, pack and flavour, can mislead people outside the trade.

In so far as some price increases are inevitable because of devaluation and imported products, does my right hon. Friend not think that a case has been made out to control imports not vis-á-vis goods from any particular country, but by making importers place the money to cover the cost of imports with the bank?

I do not think that that would be practical or possible. The real answer is to make sure that our constant watch and early warning arrangements work.

Will the Minister stop wriggling over this? Does he realise that these increases are the direct result of Socialist policies such as devaluation and S.E.T.? Is he aware that the cost of living will never be held steady while we have a Socialist Government?

I am rather surprised that the hon. Member should say that I am wriggling. If one looks at the commodities and price increases, there has been foot-and-mouth which has had an effect upon beef, but that is nothing to do with Socialist policies, it was an outbreak of disease. There have been higher prices for lamb and pork but those are seasonal. Cabbage and cauliflower prices have risen, but again this is a seasonal factor. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.

Will the Minister tell us what is his estimate of the increased cost of grocery prices which will result from the Transport Bill now going through the House?

That is another question and I could not give a precise figure, as the right hon. Member knows.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assurances he has given to the National Farmers' Union and other interested bodies of his intention, through the Price Review, to ensure that agriculture will play a new and major part in the national effort to save imports.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is now taking to obtain an increase in agricultural production.

The steps necessary to enable agriculture to play its part in the national economy are among the matters being considered at the Annual Review now in progress, and I cannot anticipate the outcome. I would, however, refer the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) to my statements in the House on 4th December and 21st December.

The Minister will be aware that the country is being exhorted to make devaluation work. Does he realise that this is probably the greatest and perhaps last opportunity to enable agriculture to play the great part which it undoubtedly can play in this operation?

Again, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be pessimistic. I would not say that this was the last opportunity. There are always opportunities. The Price Review is the medium whereby we assess the rôle which the industry can play in the economy. We are doing that.

I understand that my right hon. Friend cannot anticipate his statement on the Price Review, but can he give an assurance that the present predicament of the hill and upland section of agriculture in Scotland, in particular, will be given special consideration at this time because of its sharply declining profitability?

Representing a constituency which has many hill and upland farms, I am naturally aware of the problems of such farms. The point has been noted. This is a matter which we are Agricultural Production examining.

Would the Minister bear in mind when dealing with matters of increasing agricultural production, which is referred to in Question No. 13, that over one-sixth of all agricultural production is horticultural and is not covered by the Price Review? Therefore, will he not always fob us off with Price Review answers?

I am aware of that. I gave an answer to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on hill and upland farms. I agree that horticulture is not covered by the Price Review. It has other assistance.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the value and what are the sources of the extra beef imported as a result of the ban on imports of meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic.

The main sources of beef imports shipped since 4th December last are the Irish Republic, Australia and New Zealand. It is not so far possible to make any useful comparison between actual arrivals and what might have come under different conditions. Nor could I really isolate the effect on total supplies of any single factors such as the suspension of imports from other sources.

What discussions has the Minister had with the Governments of these countries to see whether, in the event of his being able to keep on the ban on imported meat from countries where foot-and-mouth is endemic, they could supply the meat we have been getting from South America in particular?

I am always in touch with countries which export meat to us. This is a continuous association.

Since Australia has suffered from very severe droughts over the last two years, would the Minister agree that once it has recovered from them there will be scope for importing more meat from Australia?

Yes, but I am often pressed by representatives of producers at home not to import any more from the Commonwealth. I am always in touch with Australia and I have great sympathy with her position.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the agricultural industry expressing concern over the proposal of the Government to reduce the hours worked each day by drivers of livestock haulage vehicles, because of the suffering and inhumanity which will result; and what replies he has sent.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very severe disquiet felt by many people who haul livestock because of the provisions of the Transport Bill, which is now in Committee? Is he aware that the Bill is likely to put very severe on-costs on to farmers and to cause great suffering and inhumanity to many animals which are transported?

On-costs are a different matter. However, the transport people have organised their work to ensure that they comply with the regulations for the transport of animals, and I see no reason why they should not manage to do this under the new Bill.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the sources of any representations made to him to lift as from 4th March the ban which he imposed on certain imported meat, and of those which he has received asking for the ban to be extended; and what replies he has sent.

I have received many representations about the suspension of imports. I have been urged to lift the suspension by domestic meat traders, food manufacturers, and overseas suppliers. Farming interests, the National Federation of Womens' Institutes, and others have pressed me to retain the suspension. The replies I have given have been on the lines of my statement of 15th February.

Has the Minister pointed out to those who have called for the raising of the ban the consistently poor trading balances which we have had with those who have supplied us and the enormous costs to the nation of the present oubreak of foot-and-mouth disease?

I have not got involved in an argument on this matter. My replies follow the general principles of my statement of 15th February.

As this is a very complicated business, would my right hon. Friend be willing to prepare a paper on the advantages and disadvantages of curtailing meat imports from South America?

That is another matter. Hon. Members should await my statement next Monday.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now announce the character of the inquiry into the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic, and who is to be the Chairman and the members of the Committee.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the terms of reference of the proposed Committee of Inquiry into the foot-and-mouth outbreak will cover the origin of the present outbreak and also the organisation necessary to implement whatever future policy the committee may recommend.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in framing the terms of reference for the inquiry into foot-and-mouth disease, he will ask for an early or interim report on the risks inherent in removing the ban on meat from countries where the disease is endemic.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the membership of the Committee of Inquiry into the foot-and-mouth disease and its terms of reference.

On 15th February I announced that the Duke of Northumberland had agreed to act as Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry and I gave the terms of reference. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT today the names of those who have agreed to serve as members.

May I ask the Minister whether among the members there is at least someone of high legal eminence, because this is the kind of inquiry on which somebody of that character is essential?

I can give that assurance.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the question of the organisation necessary to implement the future policy recommendations will be within the terms of reference? This is a matter which, more than any other, has activated the minds of people in the controlled areas but not on the affected farms. This is a vital matter which must be dealt with.

As I said when I announced the inquiry, the terms of reference are very wide. This will be a matter for the Committee. I should have thought that it would do this.

In considering the statement which he is to make, will the Minister bear in mind that the whole of the veterinary profession which has worked so diligently to combat this disease is strongly of the opinion, officially expressed through the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association that the ban must be maintained until the Committee has had a chance of considering its necessity and making an interim report?

I have been asked about the composition of the Committee. What the hon. Gentleman says goes much wider. He should wait for my statement on Monday.

Would the Minister ask the Committee to inquire into the advisability of total slaughter as we are or have been slaughtering strains which were exposed to infection and have probably produced resistant results? Therefore, we are losing the opportunity to produce a strain of cattle which is not subject to the disease.

I am sure that the question of slaughter policy and whether or not we should adopt a vaccine policy will be examined. These and many other matters will be covered.

While we are glad that we shall be able to find the names of the members of the Committee in the OFFICIAL REPORT, may I ask the Minister whether they mark the completion of the Committee? Will the Committee be starting work in the very near future? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the question posed to him by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when we last discussed this matter, namely, whether the Committee will meet frequently in view of the need to get on with the work as soon as possible?

I took note of what the Leader of the Opposition said on the last occasion. I thought my reply was adequate. It was a sensible suggestion. The members of the Committee can act quickly. Perhaps they would like to have another member, but six members with a Chairman makes seven. They can start work straight away.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to reduce and control the importation of skim milk powder and products, in view of the dilution effects they have on the pool price paid for liquid milk to British farmers.

Returns to milk producers are maintained at the level considered appropriate through the mechanism of the milk guarantee, and the standard quantity to which the guaranteed price applies in fact comprises a substantial quantity of milk which goes to the manufacture of milk products.

But does the hon. Gentleman realise the very serious effect which these imports have on the dairy industry? If he wants British agriculture to play its part in solving our present problems, he must start to do something about controlling imports.

Obviously, we are always looking at this question, but I am bound to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the pool price paid to farmers during the current year is the highest on record.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the dairy farmers are completely bewildered and dismayed that the Government are to reduce the milk supplied to schools by £5 million worth?

Order. That does not arise on this Question.

On a point of order. It definitely does arise because skim milk and milk products are very closely associated.

The question is about the importation of skim milk.

In view of that Ruling, I give notice that I will raise this matter at the earliest possible moment on the Adjournment in order to prove that this is of interest to milk producers.

Mr. Mills. No. 19.

On a point of order. I have been trying to get in on Question No. 18. A lot of the milk going into the pool is not served to school children, and the pool price is much lower—Is. 6d., as against 3s. 4d., actually—and, therefore, school milk has a bearing on the Question.

It would be in order to put down a Question about the effect of the new Bill on the pool price of milk to farmers. This Question is about the importation of skim milk.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the increase in numbers of dairy cows, he will ensure that the pool price for milk is not diluted.

This point will be taken into account at the Annual Review in accordance with the assurance given in 1966.

In the light of those assurances which were given, does the Minister think it is right that the recent increase in the size of the dairy herd in this country has not been accompanied by any improvement in the net return to milk producers, and will he make sure that this is put right soon?

I said in reply to a previous Question that the price they were receiving this year was the highest on record—[HON. MEMBERS: "Return?"]—return. Other points are bound to be taken into consideration but I stand by the assurance which was given in 1966.

Mr. Emrys Hughes—now in order.

Will the Minister explain how the dairy farmers of this country are likely to be affected by the economy cut of £5 million in school milk? How is this likely to affect the pool price? Will the farmers get greater consideration, as a result of this deduction, in the market for milk? Is the Minister aware that the farmers of this country are dismayed and disgusted by the attitude of the Government—and also of the Opposition—who failed to serve them?

If I do not reply to the latter part of that question, since I am not responsible for both sides of the House, my hon. Friend will not be surprised. The farmer receives a guaranteed price from the Board, and, of course, it is a safeguard for the control of milk production.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider controlling imports of milk products? If he does not do so, will he say how he will safeguard the returns to producers and at the same time get expansion?

As I have said in earlier replies, we were looking at this imported skim powder. About 30 per cent. of it, indeed, is supplied by New Zealand, and it is difficult to know what hon. Gentlemen opposite mean, because one of the hon. Gentleman's back benchers was asking that we should be importing more from that part of the world.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the £5 million cut affects milk to be given to children in school—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—because that costs 3s. 4d. a gallon, and if it goes into the pool the return will be only 1s. 6d? There is disquiet among the farmers in my constituency at the loss. Is it really worth while doing it when the farmers will be collecting it again under the Annual Price Review if they get their way?

The price this year is 3s. 3½d. a gallon.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate discussions with dairy farmers, with a view to arranging for the processing of surplus milk, so that it may be made available to overseas countries to strengthen their nutrition programmes.

It is for the milk marketing boards and the manufacturing industry to determine their arrangements for the manufacture of milk products from milk surplus to liquid needs. The relief organisations can obtain these products and the Government have also included some skim milk powder in its contribution to the World Food Programme.

Would my hon. Friend agree that this would be a very valuable way of contributing overseas aid without any charge on our balance of payments, and that it would go some way to offset the difficulties which I suspect will arise on the abolition of school milk for secondary schools?

On the contrary. As importers of skimmed milk powder, it would be unrealistic to offer it in large quantities, but we are determined to make our contribution, as we did last year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce the result of his consultations with the Natural Environment Research Council and National Trust regarding the cull of seals on the Fame Islands.

I understand that the meeting of scientists which the Natural Environment Research Council is arranging will take place on 20th March. In the light of it we shall consider, in conjunction with the National Trust, what further action should be taken.

Does not the Minister consider there has been a quite unnecessary delay in trying to resolve this problem over the cull of seals? In the interests of fishermen, will he use his good offices and the offices of his right hon. Friend to bring this matter forward and ensure that a great deal more urgency is shown?

The delay is not due to the Department. We have to consider with the National Trust and other people who should be represented at the conference. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Fame Islands are the property of the National Trust and we have to have permission, for we have no power to enter the Trust's land, and without its co-operation there is very little we can do.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many persons employed in the administrative class of his Department have owned, managed, or been the tenant of, a farm.

Four officers in the administrative class of this Department share or have shared ownership of a farm. None has managed or been the tenant of a farm.

Does not the minute number which the Minister has just given account for the lamentable inaccuracy of the forecasts of agricultural production each year on which the Minister depends for basing his own agricultural policy?

No, Sir. I do not think that ownership, management, or tenancy of a farm has anything to do with administrative ability. If it is of any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, the one-third bias in favour on the political side makes up for it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for amending the Licensing of Bulls Regulations for England and Wales.

Proposals are under consideration for certain minor changes such as making Charolais and Luing bulls eligible for beef bull licences and British Dane bulls eligible for dairy bull licences.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he get in touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to obviate the necessity for re-registering bulls, although, as I understand it, matters are a little easier than they were?

I take note of that point. I know the difficulty.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what quantities of potatoes have been imported since 1st January, 1968; how this amount compares with imports over the same period in each of the last three years; and what effect these imports have had on remaining home stocks of potatoes.

In January, 1968, 4,175 tons of new potatoes were imported; there were no imports of main crop potatoes. No figures are yet available for February. The corresponding figures for January in 1965, 1966 and 1967 were 1,400, 2,700 and 2,800 tons. Against a total consumption each January of about 400,000 tons of potatoes these imports signify little; and any consequent addition to the stocks of potatoes remaining this year must signify even less.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the increase these figures show underlines the difficult situation of marketing main crop potatoes. the price of which is very low? Will he ask his right hon. Friend in his capacity of Minister of Food to look into the marketing of main crop potatoes as compared with imports, in view of the fact that the wholesale price of imported potatoes is 8d. a 1b., and I bought them in a shop today at ls. a lb., whereas the wholesale price of main crop British potatoes is 2d., and they are selling at 5d?

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman bought imported potatoes at 1s. a 1b. when he could have got home produce at 5d. I can assure him that we are in consultation with the Potato Marketing Board, because we want to sell to the best advantage what our farmers produce.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present scale of imports of frozen potato chips and new potatoes from the Canary Islands.

Imports of frozen chips during 1967 are estimated at about 8,000 tons from all sources compared with about 5,000 tons in 1966. These imports have occurred because demand has outstripped home production. Two firms, however, have recently announced plans for expanding output.

How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he has just said about wishing to improve the marketing of potatoes with the figures that he has now quoted for the importation of frozen chips? When there are massive supplies in our clamps, surely that is a first consideration for him? With regard to imports of so-called new potatoes from the Canaries, no doubt he will agree that they are not really new potatoes at all, and, again, if he wishes to improve marketing he had better give more consideration to our home producers.

It is not for me to define and argue about what we are sent, but we take precautions to see that they are new potatoes. If most of our manufacturers have not taken advantage of the market, the hon. Gentleman ought to be grateful that at least two have and are about to establish plants in this country. Ross Foods are about to establish another £175,000 production line at Westwick in Norfolk, and I can also confirm that McCains of Canada are about to build a £980,000 factory at Scarborough, in the development area, to meet the demand in this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library of the House of Commons a weekly bulletin of retail food prices, showing the retail price of 40 staple foodstuffs in a major centre of population in each economic planning region of Great Britain.

The Cost of Living Advisory Committee is currently examining whether more information on regional prices should be collected and published. In the meantime my right hon. Friends and I are considering the best way of publishing regularly other information on retail food prices.

While I welcome my right hon. Friend's Answer, so far as it goes, may I ask whether he would agree that food prices are critical in our prices and incomes policy? Would he further agree that a lot of vague information is being bandied about in the Press, and that this proposal would give an authoritative central index to which one could make reference?

I agree that it is important, in view of the effect of food prices on the prices and incomes policy. I am looking at this.

Would the Minister care to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest to him that, if he took Selective Employment Tax off the distributive trades, he would help alleviate some of the harm that this Government have done in that costs of distribution could be reduced?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is another matter entirely and is out of order on this Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated number and proportion of claims for investment grants on tractors and self-propelled harvesters under the Agriculture Act, 1967, which he has referred back to applicants a first time and a second or more times; and whether he will list the main reasons for such references back.

The information is not available in the detailed form requested but in recent months roughly 30 per cent. of all applications have given rise to some form of inquiry, including those resolved by a telephone call. The main reasons for inquiries appear to be failure by applicants to supply the information requested on the application form, and claims for amounts in excess of manufacturers' recommended prices.

Is not this procedure so ridden with paper work that it is misemploying costly extra Ministry staff and, what is worse, preventing farmers who have limited office facilities from getting down to such important work as cost analyses and farm efficiency studies?

I do not agree with that. I have a copy of the form before me. It is a fairly simple one, and it would not take a lot of time or intelligence to fill it in.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that, far from being a simple form, it is anything but? Will he say what advice is given to farmers as to where the forms can be obtained when they wish to apply for grant? Under the old investment allowance, it was simple, but many farmers now do not know where to apply for forms?

As a member of the farming industry, I have never found it difficult to discover where a form can be obtained which will bring me in some money. We have made it clear where these forms are to be obtained. If any hon. Gentleman can point out to me a question on the form which is difficult to answer, I will be glad to help him.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress toward the estimated increase of 125,000 tons of home-produced beef and veal by 1970 has taken place in each convenient half year since September, 1965.

With permission I will publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the figures of calf-slaughterings over the last three years, where there has been a steep decline? Until that trend is reversed, can the Minister feel that he is likely to get what he wants?

There are those figures, but I have arranged for the figures that the hon. Gentleman wants to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the Minister not aware that food imports went up again last year and that this total figure needs actually to be reduced?

Yes. We should like greater production to come from our own farms, and that is what the policy is directed to.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the increase in total cost of such inputs as fertilisers, seeds, feedingstuffs and fuel, and increased investment in machinery at constant prices above 1964–65 and its percentage increase above 1964–65.

In terms of constant prices the total cost of material inputs used by agriculture increased by £21 million between 1964–65 and 1966–67, or about 2 per cent., and new gross investment in plant and machinery was £77 million in 1965 and 1½ per cent. less at £76 million in 1967.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the increasing costs for the industry are causing the gravest anxiety, and that is one of the reasons why it has so little confidence in this Government?

No, Sir.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many price increases since devaluation have been notified to, and examined by, his Department under the early warning system; how many of the proposed increases were withdrawn as a result of discussions with the firms concerned; and how many have been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, to the latest convenient date.

Between 18th November, 1967, and 23rd February, 1968, 147 proposals for price increases have been notified to my Department under the early warning system; of these 59 are attributable wholly or mainly to devaluation; this was an additional factor in a further 37 cases. Ninety-two have been accepted as notified, 16 have been modified after discussion, and 7 rejected or withdrawn. The remainder are still being examined. Nine notifications, all relating to bread flour, were referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

While welcoming what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask whether he will accept that the time has come for him to get tough over food prices? While he is about it, would he also care to settle the argument between the Consumer Council and the Grocer? Which is right?

I think that the Consumer Council is right in this case. On the wider aspects of policy, we are trying to make a success of our prices and incomes policy by having our constant watch and early warning arrangements. This is working.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how often he brings the Prime Minister up to date on these price increases, bearing in mind what the Prime Minister said on 19th November about the £ in people's pockets?

I am always in touch with my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of the fishing industry.

Our study of the outcome of the review is proceeding and we have promised a statement as soon as possible. I hope that it will be very soon.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the fishing industry is undergoing difficult conditions and its uncertainty is. increased from failure to know how the Government will react to the review? Will he ensure that the review recommendations will be reported to the House and debated?

I cannot say anything about a debate, but there will be a report. We will speed it up as much as possible.

Is there any possibility of having the statement before the annual debate?

There is always a dispute about whether the debate should take place on the Orders or later on the statement when we normally discuss the fishing industry as a whole. I can certainly give the assurance that it will come before then.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now completed his consideration of the Report of the Wise Committee on the future of the Land Settlement Association; and whether he will now make a statement.

The recommendations made in the second Wise Report raise many important questions for the future both of the L.S.A. and of individual tenants. I am considering carefully the varied views which have been expressed about the Committee's proposals and will make a statement as soon as I can.

Is the Minister aware that he has had this report for eight months already and continuing delay is very unsettling, particularly at Andover where land settlement tenants are anxious to make future plans?