asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what grants are available towards the cost of installations to purify and dispose of farm waste.

Installations for disposing of farm waste are eligible for agricultural investment grants or can qualify for grant under the Farm Improvement Scheme if they satisfy the tests of the Scheme.

Am I not right in thinking that a much higher grant, amounting to about 60 per cent., is paid to local authorities which undertake this sort of work? In view of the great cost of many of these schemes, will the hon. Gentleman consider including them in the drainage grant?

No, Sir. As far as we can see from the number of schemes before us, the grant seems to be sufficient to attract a lot of farmers to go in for it. But I shall look at the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised regarding the local authorities.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the Reorganisation Commission on the marketing of eggs.

As announced in the 1968 Annual Review White Paper, the Commission's report is expected to be completed during the spring.

When the right hon. Gentleman sees the report, will he bear in mind the need for orderly marketing for many agricultural areas such as Northern Ireland and the Orkneys, where there is a healthy industry at present which might be put in jeopardy?

I am always aware of the need for orderly marketing, and I constantly stress it. But I must wait for the report.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will revoke the British Egg Marketing Board Scheme.

The future of the Scheme will fall to be considered in the light of the report of the Reorganisation Commission.

While I appreciate the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman to have that report before coming to any conclusion, may I ask him to bear in mind the advantages that would accrue to the taxpayer and the consumer, as well as to agriculture, if egg marketing in future were left to free enterprise and not constrained in some way, to keep in being high-cost producers?

I am aware that on this question there are many conflicting interests. One of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends said earlier that he wanted more orderly marketing. I must be sensible here and wait for the report.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Reorganisation Commission on the egg industry will include recommendations on the sale of free-range eggs when it makes its report.

The terms of reference of the Reorganisation Commission cover all aspects of the marketing of eggs. I cannot anticipate its report.

In view of the increasing demand for free-range eggs labelled as such, would my right hon. Friend ensure that provision is made for them to be marketed in this way when he receives the report?

I cannot anticipate the Commission's report at this stage.

When does the Minister expect to receive the report? Would he confirm that the nutritional value of free-range eggs is no more than that of eggs laid by battery hens or deep-litter eggs?

I cannot give a precise date for when I shall receive the report. I answered a previous Question on this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimates he has made of the total increase in costs to the horticultural industry of the present proposals in the Transport Bill;

(2) what estimates he has made of the total increase in costs to the agricultural industry of the present proposals in the Transport Bill.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the estimated cost to agriculture of the Transport Bill.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he is unable to make an estimate of the increase in costs to British agriculture consequent upon the passing into law of the Transport Bill this summer.

The detailed proposals under the Transport Bill will be brought into effect by subordinate legislation. It is not possible to estimate the costs which may fall upon agriculture and horticulture when the proposals come into operation.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that both these impor tant industries, agriculture and horticulture, and every other important industry in the country, are justifiably concerned about the enormous extra cost to be caused by this Measure and the Budget Statement together? The Budget will cost agriculture and horticulture an extra £4 million or £5 million. In all honesty, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that their only consolation is that the Conservative Party is pledged to repeal much of the Bill when it returns to power?

It would not be proper for me to comment on the speech made by the hon. Gentleman. In reply to the first of his observations, I recognise that there are proposals which could affect the industry. Certain of these costs are matters which we always discuss at the Review.

Why is it not possible to give the House an estimate of the rise in transport costs? What is the estimated percentage rise, for instance, in professional road hauliers' charges as a result of the Bill, and will not these extra costs mean a difference in the distribution pattern for food?

It is impossible for anyone to estimate at present how these proposals will affect the industry. A good deal of the Bill will be effected by Regulations. I cannot say precisely, and I do not think that any individual could.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is much misleading information being put about by hon. Members opposite, from briefs supplied to them? Is he further aware that, if goods, horticultural goods or other goods, go over 100 miles from road to rail, the transport will be cheaper and, because it will be cheaper, the traffic will go?

I am well aware of that. Obviously, there will be problems and difficulties, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and I will discuss any difficulties. Before detailed regulations are made, there will be consultations.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that particular difficulties will arise in the carriage of livestock, and many of the rules outlined in the Transport Bill make nonsense in relation to the carriage of live animals?

As I have said, my right hon. Friend and I will discuss any detailed regulations. We must bear this in mind. There will be consultations.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his answers will give rise to a good deal of disquiet in the industry as they appear not to show the degree of concern for farmers' needs in this respect that one would expect? Will he discuss this whole matter again with his right hon. Friend? Further, will he say how many representations he has had from farming organisations against proposals in the Bill?

I could not give that precisely. I recognise that the National Farmers' Union has views about it. I do not deny that. But, as I said, I shall discuss these matters with my right hon. Friend, and, as regulations are an important aspect of the Measure, I shall certainly keep in touch with her.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the Government announced modifications to the Transport Bill in the Budget some of the more exaggerated fears expressed are now no longer justified, but would he bear in mind that there is still considerable concern about the operation of the regulations regarding drivers' hours, which are of particular importance in agriculture during the harvest season?

I am aware of this. The question of drivers' hours and the practices which are accepted in the industry have been specifically raised with me, and, as I have said, I am in close consultation with my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forecast he has made of the increase in net farming income adjusted to normal weather conditions for 1968–69.

The forecast of net farming income for 1968–69 adjusted to normal weather conditions will not be available until next year.

Does not the Minister realise that the £40 million award in the 1967 Price Review has ended up with an increase in farmers' incomes, adjusted for weather, of only £13½ million? Does he expect farmers to absorb £16 million of costs under the present Review and at the same time to increase their income?

I do not see what that has to do with the Question. The farm income year starts on 1st June and does not finish until the end of the following May. We must look at prices, markets, weather and everything else before we can make that forecast.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish the revised series raised sample forecast for aggregate farming net income for 1967–68.

The data for such an estimate is collected during the summer and my right hon. Friend will publish the result following the 1969 Annual Review.

Does the Minister agree that this series, which is based on actual results, is nearer the truth than the Departmental estimate, and will he investigate why there is now a 25 per cent. difference between the two estimates?

The estimate about which the hon. Gentleman is speaking, the one done on the basis of data supplied by the universities, is based on a sample of 3,600 farms. The hon. Gentleman may not know that it does not include a great many horticultural and intensive pig and poultry units. It is a different figure, but the trend in this series is roughly the same, except in the past two years. The average end point of these results is in February and the other results are, as I explained to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), for the year ending 31st May. That explains the recent difference in trend, because last year there was a very good spring. Less feedingstuff was used and more milk was produced, and that made the big difference about which the hon. Gentleman is worried.

Does the Minister agree that farm income is not rising at the expected rate, and is tending to fall?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures he will see that it is rising fairly evenly all along. If he projected the three-year average he would see that there is a fairly straight run of a rise in incomes in agriculture.

On that last answer, presumably the Joint Parliamentary Secretary rests his case on the so-called actual figure and not the raised sample, which is what the Question was on. If he takes the three-year sample on that, it is going downhill rapidly.

As I explained, the £410 million to £400 million of the revised series—[Interruption.]—I was coming to the £371 million. I explained this previously. The right hon. Gentleman did not listen, or did not want to listen to my Answer, because there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. The difference in trend was because of the high figure in the spring last year of milk returns and the low amount of feedingstuffs used. If the hon. Gentleman cares, I shall give him the actual figures and calculations and I think that he will find that I am right.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the real increase in farmers' net income since March, 1965, after allowing for personal taxation and changes in the index of retail prices.

It is not possible to estimate the change in farmers' net income after tax since March, 1965, because details of the tax position of individual farmers are not available.

Is it not possible to give an indication of the income position? Surely the figures are fully available? The Government are always saying that increases in income should be the reward of corresponding increases in productivity. Since farming is a leader in increased productivity, should farmers not be leaders in getting increased incomes?

I do not see what that issue has to do with the Question on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman knows that individual Income Tax returns are private and that we do not have access to them.

Have the Government taken into account the high rates of interest paid by farmers on money they borrow—the highest on record? What is he going to do about it if he wants to expand agricultural policy?

Interest rates are taken into account in the Annual Price Review, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will revise upwards the selective expansion programme to take account of the new situation created by devaluation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what fresh proposals he has for increasing home-produced food; and if he will make a statement.

Agriculture's contribution to the national economy was considered very fully at the Annual Review along with other relevant considerations including the economic situation following devaluation. I have nothing to add to what is said in the Annual Review White Paper.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Prime Minister's statement on 19th November that farm production would be stimulated and imports saved? What positive action have the Government taken to give farmers the proper incentive?

This has been done not only by this year's Review, which I think was reasonable and sensible and will encourage expansion and investment. Taken with last year's Review, it aims to achieve the selective expansion programme. In that sense, it will be concerned with import saving.

When the bacon agreement comes up for review, will the Minister seek a larger share of the bacon market for the British producer in order to save imports?

This is something I must bear in mind. One of our difficulties previously has been to maintain our percentage. I have increased the guarantee for pigs and I introduced new proposals to help the industry which have been accepted by it, so that altogether I want o make the industry much more viable, strengthened and expanded.

Does the Minister appreciate that the proposals in the Review make no provision for the kind of import-saving programme the Prime Minister mentioned in November? Will he reconsider this matter in the light of the Prime Minister's undertaking?

We are always considering this, and I am in close touch with the unions. I believe that the Review, which I am certain was recognised by all fair-minded people to be sensible and realistic, will help achieve the aims of the selective expansion programme.

How can the Minister get his import saving without either taking some control over imports or incurring a vast increase in Government expenditure in the form of subsidies?

The two pertinent questions of import saving and the nature of support for the industry are matters which we shall discuss this year. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will appreciate that we have many international obligations. I have challenged the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) so often. Is it the view of the Opposition that we should end all our trade with countries like New Zealand?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the progress of the selective expansion programme.

I have given an account of progress in the recent Annual Review White Paper.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if agriculture had the chance, it would be capable of doing much better than the selective expansion programme which the Government have laid down for it?

I have already replied to that. My White Paper was categorical and I know that the hon. Gentleman has not really criticised it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contribution agriculture has made to import saving in each Price Review year since the publication of the selective expansion plan; and what contributions it is expected to make in the forthcoming year.

It is not possible to give figures on a year-to-year basis in terms of actual imports saved, but the volume of home agricultural output has risen by about 5 per cent. overall over the period of the selective expansion programme compared with about ½per cent. for all food imports.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied to leave imports at the level of £1,600 million a year without taking more urgent action than he is taking?

I announced a long time ago and I have repeatedly told the Opposition that we have a selective expansion programme which aims to meet the increased demand for food of £200 million by 1971 and that the greater part of this demand will be met from home production. My last two Price Reviews, which have been successful, have been designed to achieve this.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a proposed increase in demand. Does he mean an increased percentage of those products which we can produce ourselves at home?

I believe that we can produce a greater proportion. That is why I abolished standard quantities for wheat and raised cereal prices, for example. I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been cheering me today.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that many farmers face increased expenses because of bad marketing arrangements and steeply increased auctioneers' fees? Could he not make more sensible marketing arrangements and so do away with auctioneers and save money?

I am aware of the importance of more orderly marketing arrangements and I am conducting inquiries into many commodities. The Egg Commission is one example.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his estimates for home-fed beef supplies in 1968 and 1969.

Home-fed beef and veal supplies in 1968 are expected to be a little below those in 1967. It is too early to give a similar indication for 1969.

When he is considering 1969, will the Minister consider doubling this year's target, because farmers are willing and able to produce more? Has he really taken into account devaluation, the serious loss due to foot-and-mouth disease and the heavy cost of imports?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a little too early to be considering next year's Annual Price Review. Of course, we want to increase our own production and we have been giving thought to that.

How does the Minister expect to get a major and continuous expansion in production without introducing the levy system?

The levy system has been considered. It has been suggested by hon. Members opposite and many others. All that I am saying is that, whether we have one or not, we must seek to make British agriculture strong in its own right.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food following the break-through of the North Sea into the marshes south of Walberswick, what action he is authorising the river board to take to prevent further loss of land.

I understand that the river authority reinstated the sea bank the day after the recent flooding. It is for it to determine what capital works if any should be undertaken. If a scheme could be devised to protect these marshes which was both technically and economically sound, we would certainly consider it for grant aid.

That Answer is very disappointing, particularly in view of the representations made by the parish council and myself, because unless the wall is built up where it is now, a far longer wall, using hundreds of acres of good agricultural land, will be needed. This is a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy. The Ministry must grant the money to make this defence.

That is exactly what I said to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is the job of the board to come forward with an economically viable scheme and then—[Interruption.]—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would suggest that the present Government would spend anything unless the project was economically viable. But if that is what the Opposition want, we might take a look at it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he estimates that the increase in the guaranteed price for pig meat will recoup pig farmers for the increased costs.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether he estimates that the increase in the guaranteed price for milk will recoup dairy farmers for their increased costs;

(2) whether he estimates that the increase in the guaranteed price for beef will recoup beef farmers for their increased costs.

Costs, like output and productivity, vary considerably between different farms. I am satisfied that, after taking into account all the relevant factors, the increased guaranteed prices will ensure that the momentum of expansion in pig, milk and beef production will be maintained in accordance with the objectives of the selective expansion programme.

But has the Minister not just said that beef production was beginning to fall or had fallen this year? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the farmers, including the pig farmers, have recently had very large costs added to their production?

The hon. Gentleman has referred to beef production. I would remind him that we have had the foot-and-mouth epidemic which has meant the retention of a considerable number of animals. It is true that pig costs have increased, but the bulk has been for feed, where there is an effective price guarantee which is automatically raised every week to meet this situation.

In relation to milk production, has the effect of dilution been taken into consideration? Does it not mean an increased cost of 2d. a gallon which will never be covered?

Increased costs have been taken into account in accordance with our assurance last year. Indeed, those negotiating on behalf of the farmers' unions this year made sure, even if we ourselves had wanted to forget, that these costs were considered when prices were fixed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the£52½ million increase in guarantees is related to the estimated increased cost of Exchequer support of £16 million.

£16 million was the increase estimated in the cost of support in 1968–69 over 1967–68 before the Review determinations were taken into account. The effect of the determinations is estimated to increase this cost by a further £31 million. This figure of £31 million differs from the total Review determination of £52½ million for several reasons; in particular, price guarantees for some commodities do not involve Exchequer payments and the payment periods for some items do not correspond with the financial year.

Does this mean that, as a result of increasing minimum import prices, the subsidy will not be as great as it otherwise would be? If that is so, why have the Government changed their mind, and why has the hon. Gentleman changed his since he voted in favour of a levy system when the Measure was going through the House?

Anything which changes the price of a commodity upwards reduces the size of the Exchequer contribution.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will estimate the increase in the milk pool price in 1968–69 over 1967–68.

So many uncertain factors affect the situation this year that it is not possible to make any firm forecast at this stage.

Is not one of the factors involved that we are still allowing very large imports of cheap milk products to come in? Does not this dilute the price of milk to the producer enormously? What intentions have the Government to stop this trade going on?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that we must adhere to agreements entered into by the previous Government and I am certain that the Opposition would expect us to honour them. We have undertaken to discuss with the farmers' unions the proposals for a milk products levy.

No wonder the Minister cannot forecast this figure. Will the hon. Gentleman now tell us how the farmers will cover the increased cost they have in milk production, which is at least 2d. a gallon?

At the Annual Price Review the award was worth over £11 million. If the hon. Gentleman has not yet understood that, the country does. Obviously, anything which takes place this year will have to be taken into consideration at the next Price Review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give an assurance that he will retain the present system on which the remuneration of the milk distribution is based, in view of the need to maintain regular supplies of milk in sparsely populated areas.

The hon. Lady no doubt has in mind Report No. 46 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. Consultations are taking place with the organisations concerned. I cannot anticipate the outcome.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety of dairymen who are making very strong representations, as they want to continue supplying milk to the sparsely populated areas? Is he aware that, under the possible arrangements forecast, they seem to be in great difficulty? Will he give their claims very sympathetic consideration?

I am aware of the extent of the feeling that has been provoked among certain dairymen. When we got the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes we felt it only right to consult with dairymen, along with others. The point of the hon. Lady will have serious attention.

Does the Minister realise how important this matter is? Is he aware that it is not only a question of increased costs to some of the towns and rural areas, but involves the whole question of health and treated milk?

We are dealing with the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board. I realise how serious this can be, especially in the rural areas. It might not have the same effect in urban areas as in rural areas but it could have serious repercussions. I have said that I will give it attention.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what method of sampling was used by the National Board for Prices and Incomes when compiling its figures for the remuneration of milk distributors quoted in Command Paper No. 3744, and, in particular, for the figures in table 3.

I understand that the Board based its table on material provided by this Department.

Is it not true that these figures are based on an ad hoc sample taken in 1942 which was never intended as a measure of absolute cost but simply as one of movement? If that is so, does it not mean that the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board, particularly concerning retailing in the provinces, are invalid?

It is not for me to make a judgment on that matter. I answered an earlier Question on this point. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Prices and Incomes Board is an independent body. It has discretion to determine the method by which it carries out an investigation. It is for us, at the end of the day, to make a judgment on the case which it has presented to us. As I said earlier—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here at the time—I shall certainly give serious consideration to representations which we receive.

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

I am not yet in a position to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member on 28th February.—[Vol. 759, c. 1404–5.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make a statement on this long delayed review before the Whitsun Recess? Is he aware that we shall want to debate this subject separately from the usual debate on the White Paper on the herring subsidy?

I appreciate the need for an early statement. I have been having meetings with representatives of the industry. I am anxious to make a statement as early as possible.

May I press on my right hon. Friend the urgent need for the review to be published, since there is tremendous uncertainty in the industry and a threat to employment in Hull? There is great anxiety amongst fishermen lest trawelers have to be laid up.

I am aware of this concern and I am anxious that the results of the review, which we have been awaiting for some time, shall be published as soon as possible and that we shall be able to take what steps are necessary. But I cannot announce a date yet.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in Grimsby, genuine fears are being expressed that many trawlers will have to be withdrawn from the industry because it is unprofitable? It is not only the trawler owners who are complaining but the men, who are frightened of losing their jobs. Will he do something quickly?

I am aware of the problems. As I have said, I have held meetings with representatives of the industry and they have given me details. I must look carefully at the review and I cannot announce it yet.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that sensational statements have been made at Hull by some leaders of the industry to the effect that 30 vessels may be laid up? This is causing great anxiety. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he is constantly in touch with leaders of the industry?

I had a meeting recently with leaders of the industry on this matter and I am aware of all the difficulties.

This is a serious matter, as is evidenced by the questions from both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the concern in the industry. May we have a firm promise of a statement soon? We should have it before the Easter Recess but at any rate will the right hon. Gentleman make it as soon as possible afterwards so as to try to alleviate some of the axieties and deal with the problems?

I am fully aware of the Need for a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will decide the course of action that is to be taken in relation to the recommendations in the Wise Report, that certain estates, including Elmesthorpe, be closed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to announce his decision in regard to the future of the three Land Settlement Association Estates which the Wise Committee recommended should be withdrawn from the Land Settlement Association scheme.

I regret that I am still not able to make a statement on the future of these estates, but I will do so as soon as possible.

This is yet another matter on which the right hon. Gentleman is required to do something. Is he aware of the distress and suffering being caused to tenants who have to work these estates under sentence of death, as it were? Cannot he get on with it?

I am always anxious to speed up and do things. I do a lot of things for the agricultural industry, though I am usually attacked by hon. Members opposite for it. The livelihood of these tenants is at stake and I am anxious to make the right decision after careful inquiries. 'I am not going to be rushed into taking action which might be disastrous. I must be sure of taking the right long-term view, and that I shall do.

But the right hon. Gentleman has had adequate time. We want him to take the right decision, as it is very important for the tenants. But this Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads has been there a long time and it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to say something to enable these tenants to plan their future. Is not he aware of the real concern there is?

I am aware of that concern and it is for that reason that I am making careful inquiries and studies. Of course many of the tenants are worried and concerned. I am well aware of that, since I have met their representatives and I want to make the right decision.

The Wise Report has been out nearly two years. When are we going to get action on it or at least a debate?

There were two sections to the Report, the first part dealing with local authority smallholdings. The question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and if the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about it he must ask him.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement on his proposed legislation following the Wise Committee's Report.

I intend to introduce legislation to implement the proposals announced in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), on 7th March [Vol. 760, c. 156–8] but I cannot yet say when this will be possible.

Am I to understand that the Minister is proposing legislation to allow units which are financially viable to become independent? If so, is he aware how much some of us will welcome this measure of denationalisation, however small? When will he implement this legislation or is he coming to this side of the House before then?

I cannot go beyond what I have already said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he now intends to introduce a system of import controls through levies.

I am always ready to consider possible modifications and improvements in our system of agricultural support; but a switch to a comprehensive system of import controls by levies raises many problems, not least in relation to our international obligations and general commercial policy and also with regard to consumers.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman at least agree that it would be better if, instead of increasing minimum import prices for cereals, so giving our suppliers overseas a free bonanza, he raised the price through a levy system?

I am not so sure that that would be the right decision. Minimum import prices for cereals were introduced by my predecessors. We are having discussions with our overseas suppliers and we may well have to consider a levy system if we do certain things. However, I hope that it is appreciated that this system would not necessarily bring certainty, least of all to the consumers.

Will my right hon. Friend resist the siren voices and recall that many of us who on balance supported Britain's application to join the Common Market always regarded the levy system as the least attractive part of the bargain? In the present circumstances of the Common Market, will he resist pressure to introduce this measure in isolation from all the other possible benefits which might have arisen from the package deal?

I am interested in this problem. I note the change of right hon. Gentlemen opposite I hope that they appreciate that rushing to adopt such a system quickly could have disastrous effects on the industry and on consumers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when I pressed the Conservative Government to introduce a levy system, I was told that it was difficult to do so because of our international obligations? Can he tell the House what those international obligations are and what their present extent is?

There are several international obligations affecting certain commodities. For example, there is the Bacon Sharing Agreement; we have international obligations for supplies of butter from countries like New Zealand; we have a minimum import price system affecting cereals from countries like the United States, Australia and Canada.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are very interested in his change of tone on these matters over recent weeks and that we hope that this means that he has now accepted the logic of such a change? Will he accept our assurance that we will gladly help him to change from the position which he has had so strongly maintained over the last two or three years when he has said that this system was all wrong? He now says that he at least sees something in it. Let us hope that he will go a long way on these lines.

I am always prepared to accept the logic of constructive change, but not Conservative change. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I have never been doctrinaire about these matters.

Can my right hon. Friend say how much substituting the levy system for the present system would add to Britain's food bill? Would it be much lower than the figure of £400 million per annum which was tentatively suggested by the Opposition some years ago?

The right hon. Gentleman has made his statement and I have recently published a White Paper on the effects on the consumer of the adoption of the Common Market levy system. We have debated the subject. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite must accept that a change to that system would mean very high prices for the consumer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantities of meat from South America he estimates will be imported into this country in each of the first eight weeks after the lifting of the ban imposed by him at the time of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.

About 600 tons in the first week and, provided booked cargo space is filled, about 3,000 and 2,400 tons in the second and third weeks respectively. Most of this will be from Uruguay, with some from Brazil. The trade are not yet in a position to give me estimates for subsequent weeks.

As the Argentine is now refusing to send beef and as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has just said that our own beef supplies are going down, is the right hon. Gentleman confident that he should not now review his rice Review award for beef cattle?

I cannot review a Price Review award. I gave increased incentives to increase home production and this section of the Price Review was welcomed by the industry.

As the ban on the import of beef carcases is to be lifted on 15th April, what evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have that Uruguay and contiguous countries will not send us their piled up carcases saved up there throughout the period of the ban on imports here?

But not with diseased carcases.

I cannot give precise details now, but I will do my best to get them for the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of calves from the dairy herd in England and Wales which are likely to be slaughtered at an early age in 1968–69; and what revision of that estimate he has now made following on the publication of the Annual Price Review.

I would certainly hope to see a lower rate of slaughter for young dairy calves in 1968–69, in response to the Annual Review award and to maintain the increase in herd numbers after the losses sustained through foot-and- mouth disease. But the rate of slaughter has in any event dropped since the turn of the year and I would not like to put a figure on the possible difference as compared with 1967–68.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, based on the returns of last summer, the total breeding herd is around 4 million, that calves under one year old number about 2,500,000, that the majority of the deficiency must come from the dairy herd and that the difference between the 2,500,000 and the 4 million shows how much more beef could be produced from the dairy herd?

At this stage I shall not seek to confirm or deny the hon. Gentleman's figures. We gave an increase in the guaranteed price this year. We realise that some 70 per cent. of our beef supplies comes from the dairy herds, so that from all points of view we should like to encourage beef production.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy regarding the catching of herring in inshore waters.

I recently received representations from local fishermen that fishing for herring should be banned within United Kingdom fishery limits in an area off the North-East coast of England, but no decision will be taken until these have been discussed with other sections of the industry.

I should like to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. Is he aware that this involves very serious issues and that fullest possible consultation with all parts of the industry is of extreme importance?

I am grateful for the hon. Member's remarks. We realise that this affects fishermen in other parts of the United Kingdom. We would obviously want to consult every section before reaching a decision.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is holding with regard to the question of minimum import prices or with regard to the imposition of levies on imports at the present time; and whether he will make a statement.

Consultations with our main overseas suppliers are in progress concerning the level of the cereals minimum import prices following devaluation. There are also shortly to be discussions with the industry about suggestions it has made relating to imports of certain other agricultural products.

Will the Minister keep in mind all the time that any changes that he makes, if they are based on a minimum import price system, must have an adverse effect on our balance of payments, whereas if he uses the levy system it will not have this effect? In answering this point, will he also clear up an inaccurate answer that he gave earlier on the levy, when he talked about very high prices for the consumer in the change. In fact, that change would be less than the effect of devaluation.

I did not give an inaccurate answer. On the estimates of the right hon. Gentleman's own party the adoption of the levy system would force prices up. They said this. There is no doubt about this and they should not pretend. I inherited the minimum import price system from the right hon. Gentleman and I am having discussions about how to modify and improve it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the talks that he is to hold with the leaders of the farming industry and, in so far as this is another broken election promise, will he go on with them?

I was not aware that it was an election promise of mine not to have talks with the National Farmers' Union.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of any evidence to show that productivity is encouraged as a result of that imposition of a levy system?

This is why I have said that we must be cautious, pragmatic and sensible, unlike hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are doctrinal about this, and who would sacrifice the interests of the farming community tomorrow.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that carcases of beef, imported from the Argentine and other countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic and which might contain salmonella typhimurium, should be inspected by qualified veterinary officers in this country before they are distributed.

The port health authorities already have power to examine and test imported meat for conditions that may be injurious to public health, such as salmonella, but a veterinary inspection of carcases could not be relied upon to detect foot-and-mouth disease virus. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. Member's suggestion would improve our safeguards.

Is the Minister aware that there is great concern about the adequacy of inspection of imported meat? In view of the Answer given to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), does he not think, as this is the only country which does not have inspection by veterinary surgeons, that we ought, as a matter of urgency, to introduce such a system?

The hon. and learned Member has, in some strange way, confused the incidence of foot-and-mouth disease with salmonella. They are quite different. The arrangements that we have are, in the circumstances, sensible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has misjudged the whole situation and, having alienated the wishes of the farming community, he will not get the meat from Argentina anyhow? Where has this got him?

I have carried on a system about which over many years my predecessor did nothing. I am now examining this carefully, and have already set up the Northumberland Committee on foot-and-mouth disease. On other matters affecting salmonella, this is a matter for the Ministry of Health. As far as I am concerned, if we can improve the system in existence we shall do it.

The Minister keeps repeating that he is doing something, but the whole situation has been changed by this latest epidemic and it was incumbent upon him to do this. Is he aware that he must safeguard supplies coming in now as much as he safeguarded those already in?

I cannot accept that the situation has changed. If hon. Members were really sincere in their desire to improve health arrangements in the general sense why, in all the years that they had, did they do absolutely nothing?

On a point of order. Although it is not my Question, in view of the unsatisfactory Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise this important matter, before 15th April, on the Adjournment.

Order. The hon. Member must give notice in the conventional way.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent there has been recrudescence of foot-and-mouth disease arising from the epidemic circumstantially ascribed to Argentine lamb; and if he will make a statement.

Disease has appeared again on seven of the 1,700 farms which have been restocked. Four of these were premises where extra disinfection had already been carried out. All are due to the same type of virus as the original series.

All premises still to be restocked or recently restocked, are being surveyed again and further destruction of feedingstuffs carried out where necessary. Not more than 50 cattle or pigs will be allowed on any farm premises for the first fortnight after restocking.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since I put down this Question, there has been a new outbreak at Weatherford Hall Farm, Shawbury? Could he say whether, in the judgment of his veterinary officers, that is an outbreak which has resulted from recrudescence in adjacent areas or whether it is a new primary outbreak?

So far my veterinary officers have not been able to trace the origin. The virus type is "O" and the sub-typing is not yet completed. As soon as I have the sub-type, I will let the hon. Member know the result.

Does not this new outbreak make it all the more important that the Minister should not lift the ban on 15th April? Will he revise his thoughts on this important matter?

The hon. Member must appreciate that the House took a decision on this. The situation is still the same.

Would not the Minister agree that, as there is so much doubt about this Argentine meat, it would be a great deal better to increase meat imports from New Zealand?

The hon. Member will be well aware of the action of the Government on this. Since then, we have sent a veterinary mission to South America and it is still there.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation he will pay to butchers who, because of his restrictions on imported meat, have had considerable losses in meeting Government contracts.

I recognise that the measures taken in connection with the foot-and-mouth outbreak have involved many businesses and individuals in loss, but I regret that I can make no exception to the policy of not paying compensation for consequential losses.

Any question arising from a contract to supply meat to a Government Department should be addressed to the Minister responsible for that Department.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the example in my constituency of a butcher who is still holding over £20,000 worth of meat and is not allowed to touch it by the Government? Would he have a word with his right hon. Friends to get something done about compensation?

I am not aware of the details of that case, but the hon. Member's hon. Friends will probably not want him to distribute that meat. If there is any difficulty with a Government Department, approaches should be made.

If my right hon. Friend makes arrangements for compensation to be paid to butchers, would he bear in mind that farm workers who have lost their employment or have suffered a considerable reduction in earnings are also entitled to compensation?

I do not think that any Government could go beyond the system which we have now. Many people suffer consequential losses, such as my racing friends.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation he has had with the Potato Marketing Board to ensure that the retail price of potatoes does not increase because of Board policy.

There is regular consultation between this Department and the Potato Marketing Board on all aspects of Board policy which might affect potato prices. I am satisfied that the Board's current market support operations should not lead to an increase in price to the consumer beyond what is normal towards the end of the season.

Is my hon. Friend aware that consumers are completely baffled at having to pay £5 million in taxation to prevent themselves from being able to buy cheap potatoes in the shops? Would he urgently review the policy of the Potato Marketing Board to ensure that consumers get greater benefit at this time of year instead of good food being left to rot?

We have continuous consultations with the Potato Marketing Board. We think that producers are getting no more than a fair return—this time of year it is about 2d. a lb. We think that this is fair to the consumer and to the producer. We have to aim at fairness.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many tons of the surplus stocks held will be destroyed by the Potato Marketing Board this year, what imports are coming into the country and from where?

I do not think that any potatoes will be destroyed. They may go for animal feed, and so on. I should not like to give a figure for imports. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the only potatoes which are imported are new potatoes. Ordinary potatoes are not permitted into this country. [Interruption.] I have dealt with the question of frozen chips. We were quite unable to manufacture the chips owing to a little lack of private enterprise.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the interests of the home-grown timber trade are sufficiently represented in the present membership of the Forestry Commission; and if he will make a statement.

The Forestry Commissioners are appointed as individuals and not to represent specific interests. The Commissioners are closely in touch with the home trade through the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, which was specifically set up in order that the views of all sections of the industry should be available both to the Forestry Commission and to the forestry Ministers.

When a new appointment to the Commission fell to be made last autumn, was there any prior consultation with the home-grown timber trade? As the appointment which was made left the home-grown trade unrepresented on the Commission, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to ensure that before any new appointment is made such consultation will be held?

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that it has always been held that the members of the Forestry Commission should not represent specific interests. Incidentally, the person appointed has had 25 years' experience of the timber trade and took a degree in forestry at a university.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that for the very reasons set out in this Question the Scottish home-grown timber trade is being prejudiced by foreign imports? Will he take steps to protect the Scottish homegrown timber trade?

That is another matter. The Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for it, not me.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to provide financial support for objectors at rural development board inquiries to ensure that their case can be properly put by comparable counsel to those briefed for his Department.

No. Sir. I am satisfied that the inquiry will provide full opportunity for objectors to state their case whether they choose to be legally represented or not.

As the Minister is to be represented by two eminent counsel, and as the objectors are, in the main, very small farmers, is it not fair that the Ministry should, in the long inquiry pending at Aberystwyth on Monday, provide objectors with the means of having equal representation?

I do not think that any Government could take the action suggested; it would be very improper. I am aware that only one objector has raised the question of legal aid in connection with the Welsh Rural Development Board. What is important is that objectors should have ample opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses called on behalf of my Department. That will be done.

asked -the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received to date from the farming community against the establishment of the Agricultural Training Board; and what representations he has received in support of the Board's efforts to give adequate training to all employees who want it.

None, Sir, but I understand that the work of the Board is fully suported by the organisations representing the employers and workers concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that hon. Members, par ticularly hon. Members opposite, voted against the establishment of the Agricultural Training Board? Does lie not think it deplorable that Members who consistently criticise the Government for providing inadequate training facilities should take this action? Can he say how many workers in Scotland will avail themselves of these training opportunities?

It is very difficult to give an assessment of how many people in Scotland will avail themselves of the opportunities given, but I know full well that there is anxiety to ensure that training facilities are provided, and that, in particular, those from sparsely populated areas will have an opportunity, for the first time, of proper training.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the increased costs in transport, agriculture and distribution imposed by the Budget within the area covered by the Highland and Islands Development Board.

None, Sir.

Does not the Secretary of State feel that a calculation of the increase in transport costs should be made, particularly in view of what has been happening recently in Inverness?