asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the Economic Development Council report on Agriculture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement indicating how farmers and growers are to be encouraged to increase productivity in order to achieve the import savings indicated as being possible in the National Economic Development Council Report.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will complete his consideration of the National Economic Development Council Report on Agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friend and hon. Gentlemen opposite to the statement I made in the House on 12th November.—[Vol. 773, c. 210–13.]

Does not the Minister realise that his woolly statement of last week only increases uncertainty in the farming industry? In what way does he think that the plans which he announced last week will increase the targets for agriculture over those originally announced in the National Plan?

The hon. Gentleman is out of touch with farming opinion—[Interruption.]—otherwise he would realise that the statement I made has been universally welcomed. Had he read my statement he would have realised that, putting it side by side with the N.E.D.C. Report on Agriculture, it went a long way towards the objectives indicated in that Report.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to what hon. Gentlemen opposite say, my hon. Friends—and, I am sure, the farming community generally—welcome the fact that he was able to go so far as almost to meet the requirements of the N.E.D.C. Report? Appreciating that he cannot say in advance how much help he will be giving to farmers, will he bear in mind that we are anxious about the whole problem of import saving?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. The objective of the programme is to achieve an import saving of £160 million by 1972–73. As she rightly said, this has been welcomed by the farmers' unions and farmers generally.

When will the right hon. Gentleman understand that guidelines are no substitute for giving farmers proper incentives if he really means to increase production? Is he aware that he cannot go on for ever fobbing off farmers with generalities like those contained in his statement of last week?

The hon. Gentleman is obviously not in touch with the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) who speaks on agricultural matters for the Opposition. In a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made in Sudbury on 1st November, he pressed me to give guidelines. That I have done, and I have gone further than he asked.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for referring to my speech on that occasion. I hope that he will refer to all the points I made in it which had a bearing on his statement and which showed how inadequate it was. May I bring the Minister back to the salient question which I asked last week but which he did not answer: will he please tell me whether his statement means that the production targets of the selective expansion programme have been raised to higher levels or merely extended by another two years? In other words—

Order. Supplementary questions, even from the Front Bench, should be brief.

It is necessary for me to press this matter again, Mr. Speaker, because when I asked this important question last week the Minister did not reply. Will the right hon. Gentleman now explain specifically just what are his proposals in this regard, and will he explain the figure of £160 million, which he has so far not explained?

My statement was absolutely clear. It should be read side by side with the objectives in the N.E.D.C. Report on Agriculture. If it is read in that way, then the objectives are perfectly clear.

On a point of order. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's Answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to stop huge quantities of dumped and subsidised dairy products damaging the United Kingdom's domestic market.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding his discussions with overseas suppliers of dairy products.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in the reduction of imports of dairy produce.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has decided in his consultations with overseas suppliers of Cheddar cheese to lengthen the period of restraint from 1969 to March 1970; what the effect of this postponement will be; and when he expects to announce the conclusions of the discussions he is now pursuing actively.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of his talks with overseas governments on the possible limitation of their exports of Cheddar cheese to the United Kingdom.

My object in lengthening the proposed period of restraint on cheddar cheese imports is to meet the difficulties found by certain suppliers in adhering to the original programme. Negotiations are continuing and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on their outcome. Butter, near-butter and butter mixtures are already subject to quota. Apart from skim powder, the market for other milk products is at present reasonably stable.

Does not the Minister realise that because of his total inability to make up his mind on these matters and his refusal to take decisions, the Milk Marketing Board is very seriously worried about the future of our dairy products market, particularly cheese, and that the whole industry is likely to have a most serious setback unless the right hon. Gentleman gets off the fence and makes up his mind one way or the other?

The farmers' unions and the Milk Marketing Board support the action I have taken.

How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his claim of success for his policy of restraint with the fact that earlier this week the Board of Trade said that of the increase of £10 million in food imports last month, £3½ million was accounted for by increased imports of dairy products? Where is the restraint?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well about the import limitation controls. I have described the measures several times, but they do not appear to have penetrated his head.

Will the Minister not realise that the dairy farmers are fed up with these delays? Can he say how many days it will be before he will produce results?

The hon. Member must appreciate that if one is to have consultations with overseas suppliers it inevitably takes a little time. There are matters to be cleared. There are a number of suppliers. These consultations are now going on, and I will bring them to a conclusion as quickly as I possibly can.

Does not the Minister think the time for talking is over and that the time for action has come, and that this country's doors are open, this being the only open door market in the world? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this inundation of cheese which is coming in now is undermining the industry very severely indeed? Would he not now agree to receive a deputation of those Members of Parliament who represent the industry in order to hear and understand their views?

I would, of course, be very pleased to receive a deputation of hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friends on this matter, but I am taking action which will produce the quickest possible results. If I proceeded to take more formal action, asking for a more formal procedure, that would take much longer.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise the fact that we on this side of the House are very keen to limit imports where possible, but also, will he realise that he has a great duty to the consumers in this country not to limit imports to the extent that the consumers, through paying higher prices in the shops than they are now, would be much poorer than the farmers generally?

I am indeed conscious of the consumers' interest in this matter in my capacity as Minister of Food. We are constantly watching prices. The price of cheese has remained relatively stable, though I recognise that there is a problem of overstocking at the moment.

Is the Minister aware that, compared with those of other countries with similar problems, his efforts hitherto have been absolutely paralytic and that till he takes action which brings results the new policy he enunciated last Wednesday totally lacks all credibility?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, having regard to the selective expansion programme, by how much home agricultural output has risen compared with food imports; and whether he will make a statement concerning intensification of the programme of imports' substitution for foodstuffs, in view of the National Farmers' Union estimate of a saving of £250 million per annum, in imported food, given attractive prices for review commodities.

Between 1964–65 and 1967–68 the volume of total agricultural output increased by some 5 per cent.; imports of food and feeding-stuffs rose by about 4 per cent., but almost all of this increase was in tropical and other kinds of food we cannot grow here. As to the second part of the question, I have already made a statement on the Government's broad objectives for agriculture.—[Vol. 773, c. 210–13.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the import savings he indicated in his statement last week represent about one-quarter of the potential of import saving of which agriculture is capable, in that he has spread all his programme over twice as long as necessary and at only half the rate of which the industry is capable? Will he take action more dynamic and stop faltering in his feeble approach to these important matters?

The hon. Gentleman should study the report of the N.E.D.C. on agriculture.

I know it by heart.

If he does that he will realise that the programme which I announced is the most dynamic which has been announced for many years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is certainly more effective than anything that was done by the party opposite in the 13 years it was in power. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the programme I announced was over a shorter time scale than the N.E.D.C. Report.

In the light of that Report, will the Minister study his own White Paper for the last Price Review and see that the figures show that there was a much sharper increase in production in the time when we were in power than during the last three years?

I certainly do not accept that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement concerning the future of the Egg Marketing Board.

As my hon. Friend said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) on 19th November, I hope to make a statement shortly.—[Vol. 773, c. 253.]

What is "shortly"? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the egg-producing industry in Worcestershire is in a state of chaos as a result of months of Ministerial timidity and lack of decision? Will he not get a move on and make a statement if only to put the egg producers into good order?

If production in Worcestershire is in a state of chaos, that must be attributable to the hon. Member, not to the Government. But I cannot accept for one moment that there has been any unavoidable delay here. The Report, as the hon. Gentleman knows, raises far-reaching issues which need careful consideration in the light of views expressed by the wide range of interests concerned. I will make a statement in as short a time as I can, possibly in the early part of next month.

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on recent talks concerning an international sugar agreement and the future of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Her Majesty's Government intend to extend the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in view of its value to producers abroad and consumers at home.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the International Sugar Agreement.

The annual talks between the parties to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement are at present in progress. I would prefer not to make a statement until they are completed. I am very pleased that a new International Sugar Agreement has been negotiated to replace the agreement of 1958, which broke down seven years ago. By raising and stabilising the world market price of sugar, which has been excessively low in recent years, the agreement will benefit the sugar exporting countries most of whom are developing countries. Arrangements are being made for the new Agreement to be signed on behalf of the United Kingdom.

While recognising the reluctance of the Minister to make a statement, may I ask whether he would confirm that, whatever other issues are at stake in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement negotiations, at least the Government will stand firm on the time of eight years for this agreement to run?

I naturally recognise the importance of the agreement to Commonwealth exporters, especially the developing members of the Commonwealth, but the question of timing, with other matters, is one which will have to be discussed in the consultations which are now going on.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a danger that the Government's commitment to overseas aid and development will be called into question if the Government are not able to renew the agreement to its full length, because a commodity agreement of this kind is worth any amount of aid and other charity?

The Government are very conscious of the importance of this agreement. Certainly I am, and I am anxious that it should proceed successfully and acceptably for every developing country which is participating in the talks, but it would not be right for me to go into any detail at this stage; it would not be proper for me to do so in view of the talks which are now going on.

Is the Minister aware of the tremendous significance of this agreement for Commonwealth immigration? Is he truly aware of the effect on Commonwealth immigration if the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement should break up?

I am very conscious of the importance of sugar production to developing countries—from my own personal experience. All these matters are being borne in mind in the talks which are now going on.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the ratification of the International Sugar Agreement, because, naturally, Commonwealth fanners, particularly in Australia, want to have confidence to plan ahead?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date, but it should be fairly soon.

Will the Minister constantly bear in mind that the economies at least of two Dominions, Mauritius and Barbados, will be completely sunk if they do not get this agreement, that they will be unable to balance their budgets and will face collapse, particularly Mauritius?

I am conscious of the importance of this to the West Indies, the Associated States, Mauritius, Fiji, and other developing countries.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will express the quantities of beef, bacon, pork, lamb, oats, barley, soft wheat, eggs, and dairy products other than cheese, imported into the United Kingdom during the last complete period of 12 months for which figures are available, as a percentage of United Kingdom consumption over the same period.

The Question asks for a number of statistics, and I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While thanking the Minister for his reply—and I look forward to seeing these figures—may I ask him if he is aware—as I am sure he is—that the products listed are those in which the British farming industry can bear competition with any farming industry in the world, both in terms of quality and economy? May I ask that he keep that in the forefront of his mind during the forthcoming negotiations and in the form of the Price Review?

I am aware of the points the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and I will bear them in mind.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the value and source of beef, bacon, pork, lamb, oats, barley, soft wheat, eggs, and dairy products other than cheese, respectively, imported into the United Kingdom during the last complete period of 12 months for which figures are available.

Detained information is given in the Overseas Trade Accounts of the United Kingdom, but I am sending the hon. Member a summary.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the steps he has taken to deal with the problem of imported primary products; and if he will make a statement.

Arrangements involving import regulation and designed to promote greater stability on our market already exist for such commodities as cereals and cereal products, bacon, butter and near butters, apples and pears, main crop potatoes and hops. But as I said in my Statement on 12th November, the Government is considering whether further measures for other commodities may be required.

Will the Minister bear in mind that he was wrong in saying recently that the farmers and the National Farmers' Union were in agreement with his policies on import control? They are sick to death of inaction and feel that he is a reed blowing in the wind. We want a Minister of Agriculture who will make up his mind and do something about this.

The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House and misinterpret what I said. What I said was that the National Farmers' Union had given a general welcome to the statement I made last week. I realise that they expressed concern about import controls, but it is worth remembering that the policy on general import controls would tend to increase prices here, and we must consider the effect on consumers and the level of consumption. We are looking at the need for further measures, if necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he completely underestimates the feelings of the farmers? Regardless of what the National Farmers' Union says, will he look into this matter? Unless something is done soon, a great many small dairy farmers will be in serious trouble.

The National Farmers' Union is perfectly aware of the steps which I am taking and welcomes them. Hon. Members must realise that I am, to a certain extent, tied by agreements entered into by the party opposite when in Government.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to enable the House of Commons closed-circuit television communications to be used for displaying information and announcements of the kind normally included in the all-Party Whip and for the publication of news bulletins at times when the House is not sitting.

No, Sir. The Services Committee resolved last Session that the messages shown on the closed-circuit television annunciators must be confined to the proceedings of the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the message dislayed by these television screens for very long periods of the day amounts to no more than the date? Would it not be useful to display announcements to hon. Members during those periods when the screens are doing nothing else?

I must take note of the Services Committee, which I chair and which is a representative body. To carry out this suggestion would mean having the staff responsible for working the annunciators on duty for many extra hours. We have costs to bear in mind as well.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether, despite the merger of the Secretary-hips of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, he will arrange to retain separate Parliamentary Questions for these two subjects, so that hon. Members are not precluded by congestion on the Order Paper from obtaining Oral Answers once every four weeks.

No, Sir. As I replied to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling) on 14th November, I consider the present arrangements already provide that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has an appropriate share of Question Time.

But has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that on Monday, when the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was answering, only about half the Questions for Oral Answers were reached. As that is likely to prove typical, does he think that there is a case for this very important combined Department having more Question time, as the two separate Departments had until this Session? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to look into the matter again in the light of experience over the next few months?

I know of the hon. Member's great interest in this matter. I will sympathetically consider looking at it. Several Departments have almost as many Questions addressed to them as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I will not weary the House with the list. This is a very difficult matter.

Is it not the case that over the years the amount of time for Questions and debate given to external affairs in the House has tended to go down, although there is considerable interest in the subject? Will my right hon. Friend at least undertake to look at this again in view of the merger of the two Ministries, see how it works, and be prepared to be a little more flexible?

The decision has been made. I have said I will look at it sympathetically. All I am suggesting is that other important Departments which affect the life and the economy of our country are also in the same position.

asked the Lord President of the Council why he, the Attorney-General and the Paymaster-General are each only to answer Questions once in seven weeks; and if he will take steps to increase the frequency so that one of them answers each Wednesday.

In fact, my right hon. Friends and I answer Questions as frequently as the other Departments on Mondays and Wednesdays.

As the Paymaster-General now has many multifarious questions to answer for in this House, ought we not to see her here more often? After all, unlike the previous Paymaster-General, she has nothing to hide.

I accept what the hon. Member has said, that there was no provision in the previous roster. The Paymaster-General is due to answer Questions, after only four weeks in the current roster, on Wednesday, 27th November. She will be due to answer again in the second week of the sittings after Christmas, a gap of five sitting weeks. I think that this is satisfactory.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange for a limit to be placed on the number of days that may elapse between a Parliamentary Question being put down and being transferred.

I would refer the hon. Member to a Written Answer I gave on 23rd July last.—[Vol. 769, c. 91–2.]

Without knowing what that Answer said, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that Questions have been transferred at later and later dates after being put down? Is he also aware that there is a curious coincidence in that the more awkward the Question the more likely it seems to be transferred? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this obnoxious practice by Ministers will be brought to an end?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I believe that in a particular case a Department did apologise. I will convey the feelings of the House to Departmental Ministers. I will act in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give for the last convenient 12-month period the total cost of services and accommodation provided for the Press and broadcasting authorities in the House of Commons; and if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of this expenditure, including an apportionment of the relevant capital costs.

I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the amount is not insubstantial? Has he received any approach from newspaper proprietors with a view to their reducing the immense cost to the taxpayer? Would he further agree, in view of the adverse comments in some sections of the Press about the cost of providing additional facilities for some hon. Members so that they can do their work properly, that the newspaper proprietors have a right to indicate clearly that the provision of Press facilities costs the taxpayer a large sum of money?

I have had no communication from any newspaper proprietor. It may well be that my hon. Friend's Question may stimulate this.

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that Members would be utterly emasculated without the Press?

I can never imagine a situation where the hon. Member would be emasculated, or indeed is. I pay tribute to the Press, and I am glad that he, too, paid tribute.

asked the Lord President of the Council what further progress he has made towards the establishment of a Specialist Committee to investigate Scottish affairs.

This proposal is being given most careful consideration, but I am afraid that I cannot enter into any commitment at this stage.

Can my right hon. Friend say exactly what that means? Will he give an assurance that an early statement will be made one way or the other, and will he undertake to set up such a Committee this Session?

My hon. Friend asks me exactly what it means. It means exactly what I say. This matter has been looked into very carefully. When I am able to make any other announcement I will do so.

Does this mean that the proposal is dead for another year? If it is ever revived, will the Minister give an assurance that this Committee will be able to look into the conduct of the boards of the nationalised industries in Scotland, not simply matters coming within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Scotland?

It does not mean that at all. The hon. Member obviously takes a great interest, as he must. I note what he says, but I make no commitment at this stage.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this subject is of great interest to people interested in the reform of government in Scotland, and that those people, apart from those who want complete isolation, are anxious to have this inquiry to get at the facts?

I am aware of the importance of the major principle of setting up Select Committees not just for Scotland, but for other parts of the United Kingdom, about which I have been approached. This is an important matter and I will make a statement as soon as I can.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now move to set up a Select Committee on the Scottish Office with powers to meet publicly in Edinburgh.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I am afraid the same considerations apply.

I was afraid that would be the answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very strong agitation and concern in Scotland that the government of Scotland should be open to greater scrutiny by Members sent to this House from Scottish constituencies? Will he, therefore, accept that there is genuine pressure for this by Members of all parties, and will he make an early announcement in favour of setting up such a Committee?

I am aware of this and I am not unsympathetic. The subject is one of a potential number for future Specialist Committees.

When and if the right hon. Gentleman decides to set up this Committee and it wishes to sit in Edinburgh, will he ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not put the same difficulties in the way of that Committee as were put in the way of the Specialist Committee on Agriculture when it wanted to go to Brussels?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to my right hon. Friend or to myself. I put no difficulties in the way of that Committee. I believe in Select Committees. I was the first Departmental Minister to appear on agriculture, and I gave every encouragement to the Committee.

asked the Lord President of the Council what steps he is taking to seek to arrange a greater allocation of the available space in the Palace of Westminster for the House of Commons.