asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about the progress of his talks with the Minister of Agriculture in the Republic of Ireland in relation to the effects, on the dead meat industry in Northern Ireland, of the Anglo-Eire Trade Agreement.

Discussions with the Republic of Ireland, at both Ministerial and official level, on the trading relationships between our two countries under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement are still continuing. In the context of the discussions of the balance and phasing of cattle and beef shipments the particular interests of Northern Ireland are being kept in mind.

Apart from the damage to the recently established meat plants in Northern Ireland, has not the arrival of heavy supplies of carcase meat on the British market been at the expense of the Republic of Ireland in regard to store cattle? Can we not do something about that?

We are fully aware of the position. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the carcase meat subsidy was introduced in 1965, before the Irish Free Trade Area Agreement of July, 1966. It is worth bearing in mind that the money paid by the United Kingdom to the Irish Republic under the Agreement accounted for only one-quarter of the cost of the carcase meat subsidy to the Irish Republic in 1967–68, but we are bearing the meat plants in mind in our discussions.

Can we still afford to subsidise Eire agriculture by £10 million a year from the United Kingdom taxpayers?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well what the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement were, and I think these will be beneficial to both countries. The important thing is that we should have these consultations to make sure that the flow from one country to another is at a reasonable rate.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department are taking to ensure that when the world market price of cashew nuts falls there is a corresponding reduction in the price of Snakpak salted cashew nuts to offset the recent 50 per cent. price increase; and what machinery is available to his department to ensure that the public receives the full benefit of downward movements in world food prices.

The firm has been told that if the world price of cashew nuts falls significantly, this should be reflected in its selling price, in accordance with the criteria for price reductions set out in Cmnd. 3590.

Would my hon. Friend accept that this is not merely a "nuts" Question? Would he not agree that, whereas the market mechanism is certain to make sure that the housewife loses from the upward swing in world prices, the mechanism is inadequate to ensure that she gets the benefit of a downward turn in world prices?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that this is important. If world market prices come down, we expect that reduction to be reflected in the price. My hon. Friend must not overlook, on the other hand, that the price of potatoes, Danish and Dutch butter, New Zealand cheddar, and so on, have all recently been falling, to the advantage of the housewife.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in output of review commodities has occurred since devaluation of sterling in November, 1967; and what has been the aggregate value of such increases, as imports substitute and saving.

Agricultural output can only be assessed over a full farm year, and it is not, therefore, possible to make such estimates.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, on 16th January last, I put to the Prime Minister that the saving potential of imports on British agriculture was £250 million a year within four years? The day before yesterday, the Economic Development Council published the figure of £220 million per annum imports saving within four years. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give us some encouragement that we are making real and rapid progress towards this massively important objective?

I am always anxious to give the hon. Gentleman encouragement, although I do not know how much good chat will do. It is obvious that he has not studied the Government's selective expansion programme. The report to which he referred is very important and we are studying it carefully.

Are the Government still committed to the expansion of home production? If so, is their target that to which the right hon. Gentleman just referred, namely, the one in the National Plan, or is it now to be the higher figure given by the agricultural "Neddy"? Whichever it is, will he do something to stimulate increased production?

The present programme is, of course, the selective expansion programme, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that the report of the "Little Neddy" has just been published and therefore we must have time to consider this because it has considerable implications. Also, the Select Committee on Agriculture has considered this matter and we shall need to consider what it says. We shall bear in mind all these considerations, but obviously they must take a little time to consider.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what total of compensation for foot-and-mouth disease has been assessed since September 1967; what has been the total paid and the balance outstanding; and how many beasts have been slaughtered in the period stated.

Up to 5th June, £26,634,832, including payments for carcases, feedingstuffs and milk seized and destroyed. All has been paid, apart from the balance of some disputed valuations amounting to about £26,000. Provisional figures of beasts slaughtered are 210,539 cattle, 104,285 sheep, 114,819 pigs and 39 goats.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Treasury is persisting in its desire to tax this compensation for foot-and-mouth slaughter? Will he make urgent representations to the Treasury that all compensation should be tax free and that the Treasury should drop this utterly abhorrent policy?

No, Sir.

On a point of order. In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at the earliest minute— that is, next week on the Finance Bill.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress he has made with regard to the problem of the netting of salmon off the coast of Greenland.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) on Wednesday, 12th June.—[Vol. 766, c. 44–5.]

Will the hon. Gentleman try to convene a conference of interested nations in accordance with the plan put forward by Greenland, so that discussions can start to try to find a solution to this difficult problem?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we realise the seriousness of this, but we have just had a conference at which we played a major part, as a result of which an important motion was carried which now formally recognises the serious concern which not only we but others feel, and it has recommended that member Governments should consider action to prevent an increase in the fishing and urge them to give high priority to research. This was done with tremendous support from this country.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in 1965, two boats caught 10,000 salmon off Greenland and that, last year, 11 boats caught 100,000 salmon, and that, therefore, this is becoming a very grave problem?

I do not dissent from those figures, although I do not know olfhand. I know that the arrival of the first two boats encouraged others. That is why we acted so quickly, the one country which did react so quickly to all this, and we can take a little pride in the fact that it was as a result of the work of our members at this conference that we got approval to go such a long way.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the producer bodies have taken to persuade the public to buy home-grown food that is competitive with imported food; and what assistance his Department has given them.

A great deal of publicity work is being done by the organisations concerned. I am sending the hon. Member some examples of material put out by the British Farm Produce Council which also mounts exhibitions in depart ment stores throughout the country. In addition, advertising campaigns for individual products such as bacon, cheese and eggs are mounted by the producer organisations.

Would the hon. Gentleman encourage his right hon. Friend to take more positive action in this matter? It is, after all, slightly ridiculous that advertisements for the "Lion" egg are on the hoardings at the same time as the British public are being encouraged to eat, with that "Lion" egg, Danish or Polish bacon?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that we cannot prevent the Danes or Poles advertising in this country, just as we hope that they would not prevent us advertising in their countries. All we can hope to do is persuade our people that what we are producing is a first-class product which should get priority from them. Price-wise, I think that we are producing things which people should be consuming much more.

Would my hon. Friend not agree, however, that there is a strong case for the use of quotas here, particularly in view of Britain's strong marketing position compared to some countries like Denmark?

That is travelling very wide of the original Question, which was about publicity. Quotas and levies are a different matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in considering the level of minimum import prices for cereals; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on cereals minimum import prices.

Negotiations with supplying countries have not yet been finalised, but I hope to be able to make an announcement in the next fortnight with a view to bringing the new levels of minimum import prices into operation from 1st August.

Is the Minister aware of growing and reasonable indignation at the chaos and confusion in the grain market among those taking part in it, and the nullifying effect of this upon one of the main duties of the Home Grown Cereals Authority, to register advance contracts? Can he say why he is clinging to the rather tattered remnants of his predecessor's policy instead of bringing himself up to date with a levy system?

The hon. Gentleman should know, from his experience in the Ministry, that agreements negotiated by the previous Government with four main supplying countries—the Argentine, Australia, Canada and the United States —prevent us from making an increase in the general level of minimum import prices without their consent. We have been negotiating, we are now coming to a conclusion and I will make an announcement shortly. We have been working as hard as possible to achieve this conclusion.

On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, surely it cannot be to the advantage of the countries which he mentioned that Britain should continue to run an adverse balance of payments of £500 million or £600 million a year? How can we go on with this ridiculous position of paying more for imports than we need?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that what we have been doing is adhering to agreements which the Government which he supported entered into.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take in order to protect the fishing industry from under- cutting by foreign countries by means of subsidies.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on his discussions with the fishing industry for replacing the present system of subsidies;

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement regarding Government assistance to the fishing industry.

I would refer the hon. Members to theAnswers given on 19th June, 1968, to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior).—[Vol. 766, c. 140.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is one of the most callously indifferent Answers which he has given for a long time? Is he aware that the industry's plight is very much more serious than it was even a month ago, in May, when we debated this matter, and that it is relying on him personally to fulfil the pledge—part of which, as he will recognise, is contained in this Question—which he himself gave quite categorically a year ago?

Indeed, and I would not go back on it. Unlike the party which was in Government when the hon. Gentleman was a responsible Minister, I fully appreciate the industry's difficulties. I hope that, very soon, in addition to what I have already said—certainly before the House rises—we shall make a statement.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that, unless he acts quickly, he will not have an industry to run? Is it possible to negotiate to prevent the present dumping by some form of subsidy or quota system? If not, are the Government prepared to foot the bill with bigger subsidies?

The industry's present position is the direct result of the policy for which hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible—[An HON. MEMBER: "Change it."] We have changed it. I have announced that we are not going to continue the policy which the party opposite introduced. Second, in a fuller consideration of this matter, we shall, for the very first time, consider the fish imports, which has never been done before by any Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the intense feeling in the Humberside ports about the present position, particularly in view of the disastrous day we had only last Monday as a result of the landings of fish? Would he agree that, for the first time, all sections of the industry —unions, employers and all others concerned—are united in asking that we be given some aid now at this difficult time in our affairs? Will he kindly be a little more forthcoming and give an indication when we might expect the statement to which he referred?

I can only add, in reply to my hon. Friend, that we hope to produce the statement in the near future. [HON MEMBERS: "When?"] I said that the House would not rise for the Summer Recess before it had been made. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that the industry has been in this position before and that for a considerable time certain parts of the industry have resented any Government interference.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his comments are wholly inadequate to meet the situation? Is he also aware that it is not good enough for him to rest on the previous position? Will he now acknowledge that there has been a complete change in the import position in the last two years and that it is the duty of the Government to safeguard the industry from annihilation?

It was because I realised the differences and because I appreciated that we could not rely on the policies initiated by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that I gave an intimation only a week or two ago about the changes that would take place. We are now working out, with the industry, the details of those changes, and I hope that, as a result, the industry will at long last be placed on a sound basis; something which was never done when the previous agreements were negotiated.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a statement from him about limiting imports would be extremely welcome on all sides of the House? Is he further aware that while the leaders of the industry have in the past squealed about Government interference and have not wanted it, there is now need for Government action in view of the poor wages which the men have been getting, particularly in the past week or two, and that real concern should be directed to those who work in the industry?

I appreciate that what is happening affects the industry as a whole. It is obvious that the British fishing industry can play a considerably important part in the economy. I also appreciate that in certain areas there is no alternative employment for those who work in it. I realise all these things. That is why I accept that, while the position must be improved for the employers, we must, at the same time, try to provide fish at reasonable prices for the consumer —a not unimportant consideration—and see that the conditions of those who work in the industry are also improved.

Is the Minister aware that the Annual Report of the White Fish Authority, published today, implies that some of the decline in the profitability of the industry has been due to increased imports?

I thought that I had replied to that question. I said that when we were considering the policy, we would obviously consider it as a whole. That cannot be done unless we give consideration to what has gone on for so many years; and that is the free importation of this commodity into this country.

Is the hon. Gentleman giving a categoric assurance that action will be taken on imports before the end of this Session?

No. I said—and my words must not be misconstrued—that we would be making a statement about assistance for the industry before the Summer Recess. I added that, in the process of considering the matter, we would obviously have to take into consideration the part that imports have played in the economy of the industry.

Is the Minister aware that it is not good enough for him to keep jogging back over four years, since he has besn the Minister responsible for four years? Is he aware that the industry cannot wait any longer, particularly since We read in the newspapers that Norway is supplying £12 million for its fishing industry this year? What do Her Majesty's Government intend to do for the British industry?

We, too, are supplying many millions of £s for our fishing industry. [Interruption.] That is true. We are supplying more than ever before. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that what is being done is not enough, but they must remember that every lime we ask for a little more money, they complain about increases in taxation or increases in the Civil Service. We must do the best for the industry that we can do. It is true that other countries carry subsidies. So do we. It is sometimes difficult to judge how much those other countries give. All that I can say at this point is that we have determined that in this review the industry will be put on a sound footing so that it can compete with is competitors on equal terms.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what encouragement he will give to increased production of home-grown early potatoes.

New potatoes imported from non-Commonwealth sources from 16th May to 30th June are liable to a protective duty of £9 6s. 8d. a ton, and I am not aware that further encouragement is needed.

That is a most unsatisfactory Answer. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that imports of Cyprus and other foreign potatoes are flooding into this country at an extremely low tariff and that in July the tariff will be less than a farthing a lb.? Is he aware that we can produce potatoes just as well at home? Will he therefore consider a complete change of policy for the protection of home growers?

The hon. Gentleman refers to potatoes flowing in with a very low tariff in July. I cannot say what the figure will be—[Interruption.]—or confirm his figure. I can only say that our producers are protected to a considerable extent as a result of the imposition of substantial import duties on anything other than Commonwealth produce. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should impose somewhat similar terms on Commonwealth countries.

Owing to the importance to Pembrokeshire and South Wales generally of the early potato crop and the fact that they are dependent on road transport, would the hon. Gentleman say how much per ton the cost of producing potatoes in these areas is rising as a result of S.E.T., the Budget and the iniquitous Transport Bill?

As the Transport Bill has not yet come into operation, it obviously cannot have had an effect on the cost of producing potatoes. People should not exaggerate the position in the way that the hon. Gentleman has done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering and I do not believe that S.E.T. has had any great effect, either. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not believe that S.E.T. has made a remarkable difference.

Notwithstanding the fact that there is a large tariff on foreign potatoes, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that the market has been flooded to a great extent? Would he agree that our first priority must be to the home producer, that our second must be to the Commonwealth and that our third can be to foreign imports? Will he look at this whole matter again in view of the fact that many of the potatoes grown in Britain are being used for pigfeed?

My hon. Friend has the priorities nearly correct. They must, first, be to the home producer, and then to our Commonwealth partners. However, we must not forget the housewife, who must be able to buy potatoes in the shops and we must ensure that she obtains supplies at reasonable prices. This is why imports from foreign countries pay a tariff which is not paid by Commonwealth producers.

Although the hon. Gentleman appears to be satisfied with the present tariff, is it not clear, from the flood of foreign potatoes on the market, that the tariff is inadequate? Since he indicated that he does not know what the position will be in July, which is only a week or so away, is it not time that he studied the position to see what action can be taken to deal with the position between now and July?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we always have this matter under review. In any event, I did not say that I was unaware of the position. I said that I could not confirm the figure given by his hon. Friend for July. I do not know from where the hon. Gentleman got that figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I can neither confirm nor deny it.

Will my hon. Friend make certain that if there is to be greater control on the import of new potatoes, the price of home-grown potatoes will be kept as reasonable as the housewife can afford?

That is always the great difficulty and I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying. We are seeking to give a fair return to the producer. This is important. At the same time, it is the duty of my Ministry to see that the housewife is able to buy potatoes at reasonable prices.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the import of early potatoes and the effect on home producers.

Since the first week in June prices for early potatoes have been lower for this time than for some years past. This has been due, first, to weather conditions which caused the earliest crops from the south and west to overlap with the eastern counties crop which usually arrives about a fortnight later, and second, to the increase of about 7,000 in the acreage planted to first earlies. Imports, most of which arrive before mid-May, have not been a critical factor.

Are not fanners who are lifting potatoes at present losing up to about £50 an acre? Is not there a complete collapse in the home market? What does the Minister intend to do about it?

I agree that, for the reasons I gave, farmers are not having as good a year as they had last year, which was a splendid year for them, and as they had the year before that. There are unpredictable factors, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The Government can help. We help with an import tariff, with a top rate of £9 6s. 8d. a ton from mid-May to the end of June. If market support operations are necessary, the Board can buy from growers of earlies any potatoes not marketed before 1st August. There are considerable safe-iguards which the hon. Gentleman should consider.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the correspondence which I sent him this week about another feature of this problem as it affects my constituents—that is, the growers of early seed potatoes, the best in this country? Unless the potato growers of Pembrokeshire are able to market their potatoes, they may leave them in the ground and there will be no market for the seed growers of Brecon and Radnor.

I have enormous sympathy for Breconshire and for my hon. Friend. I will consider his letter very carefully when I receive it. I refer him to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson).

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in View of the fact that there is no milk surplus in this country, but a serious dilution of the pool price is being experienced, if he is satisfied with the effects of the recent price review increase; and if he will make a statement on the results of his discussions on this matter.

The prices currently being paid to producers by the Milk Marketing Boards do not necessarily reflect the level for the year as a whole. It is too early to forecast the final pattern of prices which can be influenced by many different factors.

Is the Minister aware that, in spite of the promise in the Price Review, the return to producers in June is a halfpenny a gallon less than it was last year? This is not the way to bring any sort of confidence into the dairy industry. Will he start to do something about it now?

It is worth bearing in mind that the monthly prices are slightly less than last year but the Milk Marketing Board is allowed for cost increases and lower prices for manufacturing milk. It is too soon yet to forecast average prices for the year as a whole.

Is not one of the reasons why the price is being eroded the import of milk products, particularly cheese? What is the Minister doing to satisfy growing anxiety, to control the import of those products?

The price of British-produced cheese is remaining reasonably stable at present. We are considering representations made to us by the Milk Marketing Board and the unions, but proposals for control of imports have to be considered in relation to our international commitments and general commercial policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to expand home production of milk products to save imports; and if he will make a statement.

The awards given by the Government at the recent Reviews to encourage an increase in beef production in pursuance of the selective expansion programme should enable the industry to make a contribution to the increasing demand for milk products.

Does not the Minister agree that unless there is a levy on imports there is no chance of this being achieved?

I do not agree. I think that I and my colleagues in the Government should consider alternative possibilities. This is not an easy matter. There are considerable and difficult implications for the farming industry and for the consumer which it is important that we consider very carefully before we make any major switch of policy.

Will my right hon. Friend take steps to help to ease the balance of payments problem by encouraging the industry to use modern techniques to export dairy produce from this country, including liquid milk?

These are matters which are being considered by the British Agricultural Export Council. The important thing is that we should produce more for our own consumption at home.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the fact that the dumping of surplus dairy produce in this country is causing a crisis in the dairy industry, what steps he is taking to remedy the situation by limiting imports or other appropriate action.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his general policy for controlling the import of dairy products.

I have at present nothing further to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on 19th June.

Does the Minister realise that, because of the almost criminal reluctance of the Government to act upon imports, the worst dairy crisis for many years is upon us and that, if he wishes to do anything, he must act soon and very quickly?

The hon. Member does not help the situation by using such exaggerated language. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is the kind of thing which causes alarm in the industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is true."] The hon. Member clearly has not studied the situation adequately. There have been discussions with the Boards and unions, particularly about imports of cheddar cheese. The matter is being considered, but he should recognise that these matters cannot be completed quickly.

Does the Minister agree that much that is imported is heavily subsidised? How can the farmer expand if we are flooded out with imports?

There is truth in what the hon. Member has said, but we are looking at the situation.

Will the Minister say quite simply whether or not he accepts that there is serious dumping of milk products—not just cheese, but all milk products—taking place at present? If he accepts that, what action are the Government to take to safeguard the home industry?

The price of British cheese is remaining stable. A difficulty could arise, but the right hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate because butter, butter-oil and near-butter are subject to quota arrangements. We are consulting with the interests concerned at present and we shall come to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the United Kingdom market for dairy products will be supplied from home-produced sources this year; and what steps he is taking to increase it.

Excluding milk for liquid consumption, home production provided 23 per cent. of our requirements for dairy products in 1967. On recent trends, the proportion this year should be similar, but it is too early to give a reliable forecast. The measures taken under the selective expansion programme should enable the home producer to take his share of the growing market for milk products.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen that the French immediately put on import controls when their economy is in difficulties? Can he say how long it will be before he can bring in anti-dumping measures?

We do not necessarily have to imitate the French Government in all they do. We have international commitments, and we have international obligations for which the party opposite had some responsibility. We are honouring those obligations. This we shall continue to do in the best interests of British fanning. The problems mentioned by hon. Members opposite have not been overlooked. We shall act as soon as possible.

How can the right hon. Gentleman make a reply like that when a situation exists in which the European Economic Community is paying an export subsidy seven times the selling price for certain dairy produce? Will he snap out of this appalling complacency?

In view of the supplementary questions, I must set the record straight. Although imports have risen there is certainly no indication of a market collapse. It is important for the industry and producers that that should be understood. Prices of United Kingdom cheeses are being well maintained, and for milk producers the safeguard is the milk guarantee.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if we had far fewer gentleman fanners whose main pastime is asking political questions—[Interruption.] —if they were all working farmers we would get greatly increased production?

My Ministry's concern is to encourage the hard-working farmer and at the same time to protect the interests of the consumer.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to obligations he has to maintain. Is it not a fact that in dairy products the obligation he is up against is that made by his predecessor, the present Leader of the House, which gave the New Zealand Government unlimited access to these markets up to 1972?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are quotas in relation to butter, near-butter products and butter-oil. The situation with cheese is slightly different, I agree, and this we are looking at.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the comparative weights of dairy product imports in the first five months of 1967 and 1968.

The weights during the periods January to April 1967 and 1968, inclusive, were 272,575 tons and 275,669 tons, respectively. Figures for May 1968 are not yet available.

Do not those figures show that our dairy farmers have every reason to be apprehensive? Will the Minister now take positive action by imposing import levies on milk products coming into this country in order to save our dairy industry from a serious deterioration?

We want to give all the encouragement and protection we can. The hon. Gentleman talks in terms of a large increase, but it was 3,000 tons on 275,000 tons. One must put it into perspective. It was as a result of certain representations that we took action on the import of butter oil into this country and imposed a restrictive quota so as to give protection to our own industry.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that a year ago, in reply to a similar question, his right hon. Friend the previous Minister of Agriculture replied that the then increase was serious? Would not he say that the present increase is very serious?

No, Sir. I have said that it ought to be taken into consideration in proportion to the total, that is, 3,000 as against 275,000 tons. One should neither exaggerate nor belittle it. When these figures are produced, it is up to any Government to look at them and protect our interests.

In view of the considerable apprehension and consternation among small dairy farmers, what steps will the Government take to bring a Measure before the House to decrease their rents?

My hon. Friend has frequently raised the question of rents, which is extremely important for tenants. I regret that I have no announcement to make about it at present.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on what terms the National Seed Development Organisation acquires new seed varieties from the Agricultural Research Council stations;

The plant breeding stations supported by the Agricultural Research Council make no charge for the small quantities of breeders' seed of new plant varieties supplied to the National Seed Development Organisation Ltd. for development purposes. In their guidance to the Organisation on general and financial policy, the Agricultural Ministers have stated that the Organisation will be expected to secure the best possible return on the public funds invested in plant breeding, to co-operate with the seeds industry wherever possible and to avoid unfair competition. I am satisfied that both in its prices to the trade for basic seed and in its royalty rates on protected varieties, the Organisation is following these principles.

I hope the Minister realises the very grave concern in the trade about the danger of State intervention in a highly competitive market, £7 million spent on Government seed breeding, but most of us would like to see new varieties developed—

Order. A question please.

new varities developed with public money made available to the trade by auction.

I do not think the trade is quite so worried. We had long discussions with the trade. I know that some members of the trade felt that this organisation was established simply to deal with varieties used by our plant-breeding stations. It might have been operated in a different way, but this is a difficult problem. We think this is the right way to do it. After all, it has been going for only just over a year. We should give it a chance and see how it works.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the monthly rate of food imports since the introduction of the selective expansion programme.

The selective expansion programme was announced in September, 1965. During 1965 the average monthly value of imports of food and live animals was £131 million. It remained at this level in 1966 and rose to £134 million in 1967. The average monthly value for the first five months of 1968 was £154 million compared with £140 million in the same period in 1967.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that that makes nonsense of all the Governmental claptrap about expansion? Is he aware that farmers in Scotland have not been able to detect a sign of a selective expansion programme? Will he rapidly announce his acceptance of the agricultural "Neddy" Report, published yesterday, and allow the industry to get on with the expansion drive which it is anxious and able to see through?

The rise in the price of imports is in the foods we could not have grown in this country. The import of all the temperate foods which we grow is at just about the same level over the last two or three years. If the hon. Member follows the evidence given to the Select Committee he will see the figures which have been given there.

What proportion of the food imports over the last two years which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned could have been produced at home? What steps will he take to ensure that those products are produced at home in future so as to make a major contribution towards solving our economic difficulties?

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been following all the various arguments and discussions which have been going on recently about agricultural production, he would have seen the figures that we have for our selective expansion programme and the figures that the little Neddy for agriculture produced two days ago. My right hon. Friend is examining those. Agriculture has been given more encouragement in the last three and a half years than it ever had before. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks, not only at the figures, but around the countryside, he will see that farmers are responding to that encouragement.

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

I cannot usefully add to the account of progress given in the Annual Review White Paper which was presented to the House on 6th March.

Does not the Minister agree that only one of the last six years has seen a smaller expansion in the beef herd than the last 12 months? Will he couple that with the fact that there was a high level of calf slaughtering? Does not that indicate that what he needs to do most is to encourage confidence in farmers?

I was referring to the Annual Review, which envisages a continuing expansion in the beef, dairy and pig herds, the maintenance of the sheep flock, and further expansion in the cereals programme, especially of wheat. This amounts to a very substantial programme.

Is it still the Government's intention that the selective expansion programme introduced by his predecessor, who I am glad to see has just joined us, will be achieved by the date which was stated?

On present calculations we believe that it will be achieved, but we might even improve on it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the volume and value of milk powder imports in the first five months of 1967 and 1968.

In the first four months of 1968, as compared with the same period in 1967, the volume and value of milk powder imports declined slightly. Figures for May 1968 are not yet available. I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is not the important point that the price of milk powder which is now imported is falling rapidly due to overseas subsidy? How long does the

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the carry-over of cereals stocks to the next cereals year.

It is too early to estimate with any precision the stocks remaining on farms at the end of June, but if the rate of disposal during May is maintained, I do not expect that there will be more than the normal amounts remaining on farms of origin at this time.

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme; and what plans he has for introducing into the scheme greater financial incentives.

Up to the end of May, 9,550 applications for membership of the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme had been received. Some 5,000 herds are in the varying stages of their qualifying tests, and 514 herds have been registered as accredited. We see no immediate need to introduce greater financial incentives in view of the encouraging response to this scheme. How-

The hon. Gentleman asked me what the imports were. I thought that he would have been delighted to hear that a decline had occurred. I hope that what we have done and what has happened will strengthen our own position.

Despite the hon. Gentleman's reply, does he not agree that the most significant contribution the Government could make to this scheme would be to introduce a slaughter and compensation policy, which so far they have withheld?

I could not disagree with the hon. Gentleman more. If we were to introduce a slaughter policy we would be short of milk and everything else literally overnight.

Despite the figures the hon. Gentleman gave, does he not agree that the bulk of applications to join the scheme come from pedigree breeders and producer/retailers and that, when these have been dealt with, it is likely that there will be a considerable slackening off in the number of applications, unless better incentives are given?

There is nothing whatsoever to indicate that.

May I assure my hon. Friend that his Answer will be welcomed by many people and that the achievements which have already been made will make a significant contribution, not only to improving animal health, but also to improving human health?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he hopes to publish the report of the Reorganisation Commission on Egg Marketing; and when he will announce his decisions upon it.

The report was published on 21st June. We are giving urgent consideration to it and have asked the organisations concerned to let us have their comments on the major recommendations by the end of next month. We shall decide on the action to be taken in the light of the comments received. While we fully recognise the urgency, I cannot say now when I am likely to be able to make a statement.

Does not the Minister agree that, if the Egg Marketing Board is disbanded, it will be a mortal blow to small egg producers in the more remote parts of the United Kingdom?

It is not possible for me to agree or disagree with the hon. Gentleman at present. It would be premature for me to make an announcement in advance of consultations with all the interests concerned.

Although we accept that this is a very important Report which must be considered fully, will the Minister give an assurance that we shall have the opportunity of debating it fully in the House before decisions are reached, and will he make representations in that regard to the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons?

I will certainly make representations to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to make representations through the usual channels.

Will my right hon. Friend, in considering this question, pay particular attention to the interests of the consumer with a view to keeping eggs low in price for the housewife and not, as has been suggested as a result of this report, increasing the price?

As Minister of Food it is my duty to protect the consumer, but I must also see to the interests of the producer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the volume of cheese imports in the first five months of 1968 compared with the first five months of 1967.

The tonnage during the period January to April, 1968, inclusive, was 66,108 tons, compared with 53,135 tons in the corresponding period of 1967. Figures for May, 1968, are not yet available.

Those figures show a most unsatisfactory increase in cheese imports. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling of exasperation and almost despair in the farming community because quicker action is not possible in dealing with dumping? Does he realise that it is no good going back over the ground and that what we need is quick action and a quicker form of control than we have had hitherto?

That is true, and that is why the legislation which is at present before another place was introduced.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to extend the scope of the Livestock Rearing Act, 1951 to enable the downs and hills of Southern England to qualify for the hill cow subsidy.

Hill cow subsidy has always been restricted to the livestock rearing areas of the North and West where farming conditions generally are especially difficult. We should not feel justified in extending it now to uplands in other parts of the country; but we had such areas especially in mind when the beef cow subsidy was introduced two years ago.

As the uplands to which I refer—there are hundreds of acres in the Isle of Wight—are used for no other form of farming, would not the Minister, if he really intends to increase the beef breeding herd, do best by extending the subsidy so that these lands could be put to use?

There are always difficulties in such cases. Whenever a line is drawn, there are the people within it and those outside it. We have to do our best to see that, if encouragement is given, it is given to those who deserve it. If we bring it further down the map, I do not know what we shall exclude.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the present level of maximum charges under, the Meat Inspection (Amendment) Regulations, 1966 is insufficient and is causing some local authorities to finance the service partly out of the local rates; and whether he will review the position.

We are satisfied that the present maximum charges, while not necessarily representing the full cost of meat inspection in all cases are nevertheless sufficient to enable local authorities to provide a full and effective service. My right hon. Friend's predecessor reviewed the position in 1966, and we do not propose to do so at the present time.

Has not the time come for a review of the whole meat charges system, which is unpopular with the meat trade and is bearing heavily on ratepayers in the producing areas rather than the consuming areas?

I do not think that that is so. I admit that there are difficulties because there are areas of low rateable value and large slaughter numbers, and this does create a problem. But, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman, we have reviewed the system once since 1963. We do not propose to review it immediately, but we shall keep the situation in mind. It is not an easy one.

Is it not a fact that in many of the areas where rateable values are low to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred meat inspection is not being carried out satisfactorily?

This is one of our difficulties. One of the reasons for bringing in the 1963 Act was to try to ensure that it was done satisfactorily. When we reviewed the system in 1966, we could see no reason to alter it. The powers given to regulate times of slaughtering were of tremendous help because it overcame one of the difficulties which made the system expensive, when overtime had to be paid for Sunday mornings and all the odd times when slaughterers want to turn out to kill their cattle.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the findings of the report, details of which have been sent to him, by the British Veterinary Association, published on 15th June, recommending the total ban of imports of meat from countries with foot-and-mouth disease, whether he will now order a resumption of the ban on the import of beef from Argentina.

I think that the hon. Member is referring to the evidence given by the British Veterinary Association to the Northumberland Committee, a copy of which has been sent to me. This evidence will be for consideration by the Committee, and it would be wrong for me to comment at this stage.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a most authoritative piece of evidence which should be treated with the utmost seriousness, and does it not give great emphasis to the views of those who said that the ban on the import of beef from the Argentine should not have been lifted?

I agree that this is a report which must be looked at with great respect, but any reconsideration of the Government's decision about imports of beef from South America should await the report of the Northumberland Committee. I understand that the Northumberland Committee is giving priority to the policy questions which it was asked to consider, and it will present the first part of its report dealing with these matters as soon as possible.

In advising the House to await the Northumberland Committee's report, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the report has already been highly prejudiced by the statements made by a member of the Committee urging a ban on imported meat, and will he consider dismissing Mr. Henry Plumb from the Committee?

My hon. Friend has a later Question on that subject on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to introduce regulations providing minimum standards for canned and packet soups.

The Food Standards Committee has recently completed a comprehensive review of soups, and its Report was published on 6th June. My right hon. Friend has invited interested organisations to let him have their comments on the Committee's Report by 9th September, and he will then consider what action is necessary.

When he has the replies and is considering laying regulations, will my hon. Friend ensure that the standards are adequate to enable the many elderly people and others who use these soups as quickly prepared and easily digested forms of nourishment to obtain real nutrition from such products?

That is the whole intention. We hope that, when the regulations are introduced, they will give that assurance to people who purchase the products.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue further advice to consumers of soft drinks and other foods containing cyclamate artificial sweetening, following the reports of recent researches in Austria on the subject, details of which have been sent to him.

No, Sir. The Austrian research work to which my hon. Friend refers is not new. Although it has only recently been published, it was considered in 1967 by the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee before it reaffirmed its earlier recommendation as to the safety in use of cyclamates.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when a report like this is published, or republished, it causes considerable alarm to consumers, particularly those who have heart, circulatory and liver complaints, who are told that they may be particularly susceptible to even small amounts of cyclamates? Will he issue a circular to manufacturers calling on them to state on the labels whether their products contain cyclamates, and, if so, how much, as guidance to people-who are worried about all this?

I have already replied to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. If evidence is re-published, that does not alter it from what it was originally. As I said, what was published originally was taken into consideration before the decision was made.

Would not the Minister agree that if there is any doubt whatsoever about the effect on health of an additive to foodstuffs, at least it should be published on the label, so that people who believe that their health might suffer from ingesting those additives would know what was contained in the foodstuffs and would then avoid them?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, if this point had been considered, it would not have been approved by this very distinguished Committee, which went into the whole matter. Our Committee's verdict has been supported by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the other international organisations whose job it is to consider these matters. This evidence was available when that very expert Committee considered the matter in the first place.