asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import savings ad valorem were achieved by extra British farm production in 1968; and what further expansion of his policy, ad valorem, he estimates will occur in 1969.

It is too early to be able to give figures for home production for the complete year 1968 or for 1969. The latest import figures available, however, show that the volume of imports of temperate type foods and animal feedingstuffs was at about the same level as in 1967. The whole of the growth in demand was, therefore, met by increased home production.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members who represent important agricultural constituencies are dismayed by his turgid habits and slow progress in this matter of import substitution? Cannot he demonstrate greater energy in the national interest during 1969?

The hon. Gentleman has made his monthly oration for the benefit of the farmers of Worcestershire. He should bear in mind that imports are remaining stable and that home production is meeting increased demand.

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for reorganising the Egg Marketing Board; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for changes in the organisation of egg marketing.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a further statement following his consideration of the Report of the Reorganisation Commission for Eggs.

Yes, Sir. As the statement is rather long, I am making copies available in the Library now and I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Broadly, however, the Government accept that in the changing circumstances of the industry it would now be right to move to a free marketing system. We intend to phase out the egg subsidy over the next five years and propose to remove eggs from the guarantee under the Agriculture Acts from 1st April, 1974. We have asked the Marketing Board to continue with its present functions for the next two years, but we intend to establish a new central authority for eggs whose functions would include support buying and to move to a basically free marketing system from 1st April, 1971.

The Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as possible. In view of the phasing out of the subsidy and the transition to a free market, we shall also be embarking on discussions with overseas suppliers with a view to introducing minimum import prices for shell eggs and egg products.

Order. Answers should be reasonably brief.

I will read with avidity the statement when it appears. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to abolish in forthcoming legislation the requirement to stamp shell eggs with a lion? Is the new authority to comprise the interests, as forecast in the Daily Express, of producers, distributors and consumers, all in one board?

Order. Supplementary questions should be reasonably brief, too.

The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is, "Yes, Sir." The answer to the first part was given by me just before Christmas.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members wholeheartedly welcome the fact that we are to go over to a free market in eggs? Will he consider what part was played in this by the Western Egg Pasteurising Company, of Camelford, and will he use his powers to ensure that it gets some recompense from the public purse for its efforts?

That is an individual case about which there has been a great deal of correspondence. I do not think that it would be proper for me to comment on it when replying to a general statement.

What thought has been given to the special problems of egg producers in remoter parts of the country and particularly to the problems of the Orkneys?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I have taken into account. Perhaps he will read my statement in the Library.

Hon. Members will read the full statement with great interest. It is an important statement and I reserve my position on it. Meanwhile, on the question of the import of both shell eggs and egg products, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that minimum prices are adequate to give a fair return to home producers?

I appreciate that point. These will, of course, be matters for negotiation.

What plans does my right hon. Friend have to ensure quality control at the retail level in the absence of packing station marks, since it will no longer be possible, as it has been up to now, to trace causes of complaints back to the source?

I appreciate that as well, but this is a matter for the consumer, the housewife, who has a great deal of discrimination in this matter.

What will be the position of those egg producers who have been brought before the Board's courts and who may now find themselves in a strange position in view of the announcement which he has just made?

That raises a different matter. I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would place a Question down about it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now introduce a levy system for food imports in order to achieve the objectives of expansion of home agriculture outlined on 12th November, 1968.

No, Sir. I do not accept that the attainment of the extended selective expansion programme requires the abandonment of our present support system or the introduction of an across the board levy system.

May we have an assurance that, in the absence of effective import control through the levy system, sufficient money will be available from the Treasury at the Price Review in order to finance deficiency payments at a level necessary to provide the incentive needed for expansion?

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that these are matters for the annual Price Review discussions, which will shortly be taking place between the farmers' representatives and the Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong criticism of the levy system by some of the best informed farmers in Scotland, including the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board and others? Is he further aware that they have asked the Conservative Party to change its policy? Will he take these matters into consideration?

I have read with great interest the reactions of farmers to the declared policy of the Opposition.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is to be the quota for home producers under the new bacon sharing agreement.

The Bacon Market Sharing Understanding has to be reviewed not later than March, 1969. Discussions with our overseas suppliers are at present well under way and should be completed fairly soon. I will, of course, make an announcement when they are complete.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny rumours that home producers are to be released from the restriction of quotas? If that is the case, will he accept that this release from the restriction of quotas can be of little meaning unless, at the same time, the producers are given a better price incentive at the Price Review?

I cannot confirm or deny anything in advance of the final settlement, as the hon. Gentleman should know. The Government, as he is no doubt aware, are giving considerable assistance to the curing industry, both directly through the curing industry stabilisation arrangements and, indirectly, through the fatstock guarantee scheme support for pig production.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, in considering this matter, he is taking into account the proposals of the "Little Neddy" in regard to increased pig production?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the figure of agricultural net output has been lower between 1964–65 and 1967–68 compared with that between 1961–62 and 1964–65 or 1958–59 and 1961–62; and what steps he proposes to take to improve it.

Output in the four year period 1964–65 to 1967–68, as forecast, was considerably higher than in the periods 1958–59 to 1961–62 or 1961–62 to 1964–65. As regards further expansion of output, I would refer the hon. Member to my statement on 12th November.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman find considerable significance in the information, which he gave to my right hon. Friend after some probing? In view of that, does not he agree that some very radical changes in his policy are needed to correct the situation?

The hon. Gentleman should study and consider carefully the reply I have given to his Question on output, which shows that output has gone up. The series of Questions by right hon. and hon. Members about figures over the years is a sterile and misleading exercise. One can select various years and get different results—for example, due to climate or disease.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of the rise of 32 per cent. in agricultural production for the year 1963–64 to 1967–68, how much was attributable to the year 1964–65, and how much to the remaining years.

Agricultural net output—which I presume the hon. Member means from his figures, not production—rose by 7·9 per cent. between 1963–64 and 1964–65 and by 1·7 per cent. per annum between 1964–65 and 1967–68.

Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to make clear that the figure of 3·2 per cent. in a reply on 6th December was misleading?

No, Sir. That figure was not misleading. It was the answer to the question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what part Her Majesty's Government intends to take in the development of new agricultural agreements between the countries of the European Economic Community; and what consultations are taking place with European Free Trade Association countries.

As the United Kingdom is not yet a member of the European Economic Community, we are not in a position to take part in their internal discussions. On the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the communiqué which was issued after the recent E.F.T.A. Ministerial Meeting in Vienna and circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 26th November, 1968.—[Vol. 774, c. 88–9.]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the breakdown of the Common Market agricultural policy is an extremely significant development? Does not he regard this as an opportunity for us to show ourselves to be good Europeans?

We are in the posture of good Europeans and we are watching carefully the development of a common agricultural policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has made of the ways in which British agricultural potential can profitably be developed in the long-term in conjunction with the production policies of the principal food-producing countries of Western and Eastern Europe and of the Commonwealth; and what steps he is taking to prevent the development of surpluses such as the present glut of butter.

Problems of surpluses on the world markets cannot be dealt with unilaterally, but the United Kingdom takes a full part in discussion in a number of international organisations. Our own policies are formulated with due regard to international considerations.

Is it not necessary, for the sake of the British farming community, to give far greater consideration to long-term developments? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered sufficiently the implications of this totally unnecessary butter surplus? How can we be sure that there will not be similar surpluses developing in future?

We are planning for the long term, as I made plain on 12th November. The Government are projecting policy to 1972–73—something which no Government have ever done before. We should certainly consider the surpluses accumulating in various parts of the world, but the hon. Gentleman is surely aware that this country does not produce surpluses.

When is the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement on the problem of dairy products? Obviously, a very serious problem is piling up here and we do not want to imitate the example of the Europeans. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to explain what he means by being "in the posture of good Europeans".

That should have been apparent even to the hon. Gentleman We have made our application to join E.E.C. and that is our posture at present. I have made a number of statements and speeches about dairy products. There is a world problem of dairy products and we ourselves have a substantial problem in relation to cheese. The cost of cheese has been maintained at a stable level and the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of the actions I have taken.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effect of the 10 per cent. tariff on frozen fish fillets from European Free Trade Association countries.

My right hon. Friend expects the home industry to benefit but it is difficult, especially in the short term, to isolate the various factors which influence fish supplies and prices.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the level of imports to be reduced to the figure given in the Annexe of the Stockholm Agreement over a period of months? Can he say whether the reduction in imports has led to an increase in the price of fish?

The action we took was to keep imports down to what had been agreed and we hope that it will be successful.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the comments and statements by the Minister when he visited Hull Fish Dock last week were well received by all sections of the fishing industry there? When will the President of the Board of Trade be dealing with these matters with other E.F.T.A. Ministers?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said but, as he knows, we are to have further conversations with our E.F.T.A. partners some time this year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposed reorganisation of the deep sea fishing fleet.

The discussions which the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation is having with the interests concerned are continuing, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any statement

When does the hon. Gentleman hope to be able to make it? Is Government participation in any merger intended? Do the discussions also include the distributing side of the various firms as well as the catchment side?

It would be inadvisable for my right hon. Friend to make any comment until he has proposals from the people at present in consultation. It will be for them to make a report as soon as they can reach agreement or otherwise.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Monopolies Commission some time ago turned down mergers on a large scale? Is he aware that there are many excellent small family firms which are doing a first-class job?

I think that we are all aware of the result of the action taken by the Monopolies Commission. On the other hand, it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to make any comment about proposals he has not yet seen. We are well aware that there are small firms in the industry whose interests must also be considered.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has now received from agricultural interests on British Standard Time; and what reply he has sent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from the agricultural industry regarding British Standard Time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of representations he has received from farmers and farming organisations about the continuance of British Standard Time; and what conclusions he has reached.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the agricultural industry regarding the British Standard Time experiment; and what action he is taking.

My right hon. Friend has read comments in the farming Press and is aware that the National Farmers' Union is undertaking a review, in consultation with its branches, but the only formal representations he has received since British Standard Time began have been from the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on behalf of an organisation in his constituency. I have nothing to add to the various Answers given by my right hon. Friends before Christmas.

Have the Government yet made any assessment of the effectts of frost, even in a fairly mild winter, in causing later work starts and consequent increases in production costs?

No. There is the same amount of frost whether the time is an hour forward or an hour backward.

Will the Minister agree, when he is advising his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that it is not entirely a matter of statistics? Will he emphasise the misery of the long dark mornings and realise that it is quite impossible to do any work before 9.30 a.m. at the present time?

There is a considerable difference of opinion—as the hon. Member knows, I move about among the agricultural community a good deal—as to whether a long dark morning or a long dark night is the more miserable.

Is not the Minister aware of the special case of farmers engaged purely on arable work, who cannot put their employees to looking after stock in the early hours of the morning? They are in considerable difficulty.

I do not think they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I might point out to hon. Members opposite that I am probably the only Member who has had his Wellington boots on this morning. The question of arable farming is, I admit, different from stock farming, but we all have lights on tractors nowadays. A lot of us plough at night from choice, and an extra half hour or hour doing it in the morning does not seem to make a lot of difference.

Is not the best possible reason for abandoning the experiment the fact that the farming community in particular and the public in general dislike B.S.T. intensely? Is not this a profligate waste of agricultural working hours in the morning?

As the hon. Member knows, it is an experiment for a period of three years. As I said in my Answer, the N.F.U. is making a survey of the situation and, naturally, we will pay attention to all these things in due course.

Has any calculation or assessment been made of any additional costs that may have been incurred in this experiment? Secondly, when the review which has been promised is made at the end of March or April this year, will the hon. Gentleman, in any advice he gives on the agricultural situation, take into account the feelings of farmers north of the Border?

Yes. We have made inquiries and find that, so far, the cost has been negligible. If the hon. Member means by the review the price review, it is not a review of working conditions. We will, however, take into consideration at the review anything that is said by the farming community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to encourage the development of the marine sciences, and in particular to study the Atlantic salmon, with a view to its protection.

My Department's laboratories are continuing their research into those aspects of the marine sciences which are of actual or potential importance to fisheries. So far as salmon are concerned, research is continuing into the relationship between the Greenland fishery and British stocks, and into salmon disease.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the importance of disease in salmon in this context?

Yes, indeed, we are very much aware of it. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be grateful to know that it was Britain which took the leading part in this work. We are, of course, with certain friends, conducting research into this subject. So far, we have not found, nor nave they, the reasons for this.

Is the Minister aware that the real damage to the Atlantic salmon is being done not in the Greenland fishery, but by the Danes driftnetting in the Baring Sea? Will be bring robust pressure to bear upon the Danes and make it clear to them that their bacon quota will be cut unless they change their attitude with regard to salmon?

I am certain that the hon. Member will be aware that it was as a result of the work and pressure of the British Government that at the last conference which dealt with this problem, a resolution was passed drawing to the attention not only of Denmark, but of every other country involved, what was happening. Indeed, I can tell the House that at the next meeting we propose to push it still further. In this case, once more Britain has a very fine record.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in his discussions with the Eireann Government over the supply of cheese to the United Kingdom.

My negotiations with overseas suppliers are continuing. In mid-December, applications were made by the British industry to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for anti-dumping or countervailing duties on imports of a wide range of cheeses. My right hon. Friend announced this morning that he has found a prima facie case and is proceeding to a full investigation. He has also said that, if there is evidence of a significant increase in dumped or subsidised imports meantime or of other developments likely to precipitate a collapse of market prices, provisional duties will be imposed immediately.

In welcoming that statement, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that this delay, particularly with the Irish Government, cannot be tolerated any longer and that they must be convinced of the need to reduce their exports of cheese to this country? Will the hon. Gentleman redouble his efforts in this way?

Certainly, we are negotiating as vigorously as we can with overseas suppliers. I am grateful to the hon. Member for the welcome he has given to the action which has now been taken and which, I agree, is significant.

Is the Minister aware that the delay which occurs between the making of an application and the taking of a decision is the most dangerous in connection with any import? What steps is the hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that that interval is reduced to an absolute minimum?

The hon. Member will be aware that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. In this case, however, as he will know, and the House will appreciate, there was no delay and the action taken was very expeditious.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the percentage of home-produced mutton and lamb available to consumers; what steps he is taking to increase production of British lamb and mutton; and if he will make a statement.

About two-fifths of our mutton and lamb is now produced at home, and in framing the balanced expansion programme announced on 12th November last, we took account of comparative trends in demand and in costs and the competing call on resources, especially on land, for this and other commodities. In the light of these factors we concluded that the scope for greater production lies primarily in the hills and uplands.

Will the Minister bear in mind that this decline is a serious trend and must be arrested? With our climate and our grass, and given suitable incentives to farmers, which is most important, we could produce far more lamb and mutton and thereby help our balance of payments problem.

Yes, indeed, and we want to see the increase. The hon. Member will not have forgotten already the considerable extent to which we helped in the 1967 review. As I have said before, we expect this improvement to take place mainly in the hills and uplands and we have certainly given encouragement there.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the administrative control exercised by his Department in the field of forestry; and if he will make a statement.

Administrative control for forestry is vested in the Forestry Commission, not in my Department, although as the Forestry Minister for England my right hon. Friend can get advice on the broader aspects of forestry from his senior agricultural officials as well as from the Commission.

Is the Minister aware that there appears to be absolutely no control at present over research projects? The Natural Environment Research Council is expanding its forestry institute, the Nature Conservancy is expanding its forestry research and now the Forestry Commission is building a new Forestry Research Unit at Edinburgh. This is empire-building and a waste of the taxpayers' money of the worst sort. Will the Minister look at it?

Yes.

Is the Minister also aware that there appears to be no control of private afforestation and that in central Wales many of the best sheep walks have been purchased by private forestry interests, thus causing great resentment among sheep farmers?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is, of course, responsible for forestry in Wales and it might be better for the hon. and learned Member to address his question to him. I am, however, surprised in any event that a member of the Liberal Party is worried about too much freedom.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being undertaken into the effect on food production of increasing air pollution caused by vehicle exhaust gases.

Limited tests have been carried out by the National Agricultural Advisory Service in conjunction with the Macaulay Institute for Soil Research concerning the deposition of the lead content of exhaust fumes on crops growing near major roads. Work on several aspects of the problem is continuing at the Macaulay Institute.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that research in America indicates that air pollution caused mainly by the emission of toxic matter from vehicle exhausts is causing a loss to agriculture of something like £500 million a year? Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that this experience of America warrants rather more research in this country than appears to be taking place?

No. We have heard of the work in America, of course, and it is interesting work. We ourselves took a considerable number of samples in 1963 from roadside crops, and we have found deposits of lead, etc., but not in sufficient quantity or in such a way that the crops seem any worse. I will bear in mind what the hon. Member said, and if we feel that there is any necessity for increasing the present research, we will do so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hill sheep farms have been purchased for afforestation in each of the last three years.

The Forestry Commission purchased 32 hill sheep farms or parts of farms in 1966, 43 in 1967 and 50 in 1968.

Comparable figures for private purchases are not available.

Does not the accelerating trend of the sale of hill farms cause the Minister grave concern? Does it not highlight the poor returns and poor profitability from hill sheep farms? What steps will he take to reverse this trend?

No, I do not think it is the case. The Forestry Commission, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has to buy land when it becomes available, and in competition with other people. It is the only way in which it can get land. In some cases, particularly in very high hill areas, forestry compares very favourably with hill farming.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the grave distress caused in parts of Scotland at the large purchases not by the Forestry Commission but by private persons and companies who buy hill farms for afforestation? How far does he think the subsidy given for land passed over to forestry is having an effect on the buying of farms and their utilisation for forestry, when they would be better kept, in the national interest, as sheep farms?

We all know that assistance is given to private forestry and, naturally, this must have an effect on the demand and the prices being paid for land, but, as I say, these farms come on the market in a perfectly free way, and I do not think any Government would stop their sale by anything which would reduce the price and, if they did, I think there would be as severe criticisms as we are getting now.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present level of imports of agricultural products into this country; and whether he will review his policy on this subject.

I have repeatedly emphasised the value I attach to agriculture's import-saving rôle. The expansion programme I outlined on 12th November sets out a realistic import saving programme for the industry, based on the report of the Economic Development Committee for Agriculture. I do not consider that any further policy review is called for.

Does the Minister think there is now a case for taking a much harder look at milk product imports? Could he say what general discussions he is having in this whole sphere?

I do not agree that a further review is called for. As I said in reply to an earlier supplementary question, one has to have regard to the situation in milk product surpluses throughout the world in developed countries today. We are looking at this very carefully indeed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we meet our own demand for milk liquid consumption; we have quotas for butter, and are taking the action which I have described with cheese. But I would agree that this is a matter which must be kept constantly under review.

Can the Minister say whether or not it is the case that, in the discussions which he has been having with the National Farmers' Union, he has advised the union that, if we are to restrict imports, farmers must restrict home production, and that they have strongly rejected this advice?

I have said no such thing to the leaders of the farming industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the 1969 potato crop will be sufficient to meet home demands, in view of the proposal by the Potato Marketing Board to impose an 80 per cent. quota acreage on home producers; and if he will make a statement.

After discussions with the Farmers' Unions and the agricultural Departments, the Potato Marketing Board increased the quota for the 1969 acreage to 85 per cent. of basic acreage. This is calculated to secure plantings by registered producers consistent with the total United Kingdom acreage of 650,000 which my right hon. Friend mentioned in the House on 11th July last year as the acreage that would be sufficient to meet home demand for maincrop potatoes in 1969–70 if yields are not significantly below the level expected in that year.

Is not the Minister aware that potato yields are extremely volatile and that one cannot rely on them? Is he not aware that the 80 per cent. quota bears considerable risks? Will he give an assurance to the housewives of this country that in the next 18 months they can expect reasonable supplies at reasonable prices?

Yes, we are aware that there can be changes in the yields. I think this is well known. What we have also to take care of is that we do not over-supply and bring down the market and make it unprofitable for the industry and those who produce the potatoes.

Has the Minister made an estimate of the amount of main crop potato equivalent coming into the country in manufactured form throughout the year?

No, I would not like to give an assurance on that just at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was dealt with and comes in another Question. What I was asked was what the acreage was. I think hon. Members know that this is done in consultation with the N.F.U.s, and the final decision is for the Potato Marketing Board.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the record of the Potato Marketing Board over recent years would make it a candidate for the same sort of reorganisation he is arranging for the Egg Marketing Board?

No.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present arrangements for containing the spread of Marek's disease amongst poultry; what was the incidence of the disease in 1966, 1967 and 1968; and if he will make a statement.

Marek's disease is not notifiable and no precise information is available as to its incidence. High standards of hygiene by individual producers and the segregation of young birds from older stock remain the most effective means of control.

Would my hon. Friend confirm that this disease is practically unknown in Scotland, and would he also not agree that some people consider that the so-called modern methods of egg production may bring the disease where it has not previously existed?

I did not quite hear my hon. Friend. Did he say that the disease is comparatively unknown in Scotland?

Yes.

Oh, no. Marek's disease is the old fowl paralysis, and I am afraid I had experience of it way back in the 'thirties. It is anything but unknown. As far as we can find out, there is simply no indication that intensive poultry keeping is having the effect of increasing the incidence of this disease.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many claims, involving what amount of money, still remain unsettled as far as the ancillary services are concerned in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Cheshire in 1967–68.

The claims submitted do not distinguish between work in Cheshire and work elsewhere. But for the entire outbreak only three claims, amounting to some £1,700, are still under examination in respect of ancillary services such as slaughter of animals, disposal of carcases and disinfection.

Is it not rather a bad show that these claims are not settled already, and will the hon. Gentleman do everything possible to expedite these claims and let us have a finish to that dreadful year we had last year once for all?

When I tell the hon. Member that we have had to deal with 10,500 claims on ancillary matters totalling £2½ million, I think he may agree that it is a pretty good show that there are only three outstanding, even after this amount of time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much he anticipates home beef production will expand in 1969; and by how much it expanded in 1968.

Home production of beef in 1968 is estimated to be about 1 per cent. less than in 1967. This is due largely to the adverse effects of the foot-and-mouth epidemic and the more normal rate of calf slaughterings in 1966 to 1967 compared with the unusually low rate in 1965 to 1966. However, we expect a resumed expansion with production in the coming year reaching at least 1967 levels, that is, some 9 per cent. greater than in 1966.

I am grateful to the Minister for the details he has gone into, but the fact nevertheless remains that, after all those statistics, the picture is still an appalling one. Will he recognise that beef producers in this country have had a desperate 12 months, and that, unless some real recoupment is offered to them for all the extra costs they have had to incur, they will just not consider the game worth the candle in the next 12 months and will switch into some other form of production?

I must tell the hon. Member that that is not true. The trends are all in an upward direction. He knows as well as I do that, when we have lost about 100,000 animals through foot-and-mouth, there is obviously bound to be a restriction in the figures. Any decision on grant and so on will be taken in the Annual Price Review, as he knows.

Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary not acknowledge that, although the foot-and-mouth epidemic certainly had some effect, which we do not deny for a moment, nevertheless the trend is not satisfactory in the light of the programme announced by the Government as long ago as 1965 of the maximum possible expansion of beef production? Will he and his right hon. Friend ensure that action is taken at the Price Review to put this right?

We would like to see it higher, we will get it higher and it will be higher this year. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, restocking has been very considerable and I am certain that, after the appalling diseases of last year, the industry can look for a much better year this year unless anything happens that nobody can foresee.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if in future he will arrange for the table relating to the supplies of fish per head moving into human consumption as shown in the Sea Fishing Statistical Tables, to indicate white fish and other types of fish separately.

Yes, Sir; to the extent that the herring component in the total for fresh, frozen and cured fish will be shown separately.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, for convenience, he will ensure that in future sprats are shown separately from other white fish in landings data in the Sea Fishing Statistical Tables.

This is already done in the tables published by my Department for countries and major ports in the United Kingdom, and for Scotland in the Scottish Sea Fisheries Statistical Tables for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the Fishing Economics Research Unit of the White Fish Authority completely disagrees with the thesis that he has just put forward; that these figures are not available and that it is looking into the size of the market in the interests of the fishing industry? Will he not think again and have this carried out?

No, if the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with the reports made by the Scottish Office in this respect, perhaps he will put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now received the interim report of the Northumberland Committee; and when he proposes to publish it.

The Duke of Northumberland has informed me that he hopes to let me have the first part of his Committee's report in the spring. I will publish it as soon as possible after that.

In view of the memories which so many of us have of the foot-and-mouth tragedies and the great importance which will be attached to the report, will the right hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend that we should debate the report soon after it has been published?

Yes, I appreciate the need for a debate, and I am sure that this can be arranged through the usual channels.

Will the Minister ask the Northumberland Committee to issue with the interim report a statement about the export of meat from South America? If we are going to stop this meat the sooner we know the better, as a tremendous tonnage is already on the high seas coming to this country.

The hon. Member will be aware that the terms of reference to the Committee were very wide, and the Committee has visited South America.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the present investment incentives in agriculture are adequate to sustain the expansion programme announced on 12th November; and if he will make a statement.

Estimated gross fixed capital formation in agriculture is rising. One of the questions which will need to be considered at the Annual Review is whether the current trend will provide the resources for investment needed for the selective expansion of agriculture at which we are aiming.

In so far as capital for the expansion programme is expected to come from increased income, is it not essential to maintain the incentives to plough back profits into new investment and not, for example, to cut the investment grants, as happened at the beginning of this year? Will the Minister therefore not accede to the N.F.U. request to go back to the simpler and more liberal system of investment allowances?

The hon. Member will be aware that when the investment allowances were abolished not only were investment grants introduced but considerable improvements were made in the Horticulture Improvement Scheme and initial allowances. The House will know that the advantages of the new investment grants are that farmers know beforehand what grant they will receive, they are available to those who are not paying tax and they are paid more promptly.

In view of the importance of carrying out the expansion programme announced by my right hon. Friend on 12th November, will my right hon. Friend consider in the interim, between now and the publication of the Annual Review, issuing a Green Paper in which the alternatives, the cost of the various types of incentive and the likely result of these incentives are set out, so that the House and the public will know the alternative methods of achieving the programme and the likely cost to the taxpayer?

A good deal of that information is already available. My hon. Friend, while making a valuable suggestion, has asked me to produce a very complex document in a short period of time but, looking to the future, I will consider what he says.

Is the Minister aware that there is only one way of providing an incentive to the farming industry, and that is to pay them more? If he does that all the other incentives will be unnecessary.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he is making to promote further research into the net contributions made by agriculture and other industries for which he is responsible to the balance of payments, either in the form of import saving or by export earnings.

It is now well established that agriculture, and other industries for which I am responsible, make a valuable contribution to the balance of payments.

Will the Minister take seriously the; criticism in the N.E.D.C. Report that more research is badly needed into this question in the agricultural and other industries? Should there not be, therefore, a continuing study of the problem? Will the Minister also say what he is doing about forestry with its very high timber imports?

A great deal of research is going on both within the Government and in private industry. My Ministry has a special fund with which to finance research projects on particular topics in and through British universities. The fund is at present almost wholly employed on research into the effect of capital investment in agriculture and into the problem of small farms, two very important subjects.

Is not the Minister aware that research is not needed to know that the returns on new agricultural investment are inadequate to use borrowed money for that purpose and the profits too low to yield new investment capital from that source?

A good deal of research is needed into the effects on the farming industry of the policy of the party opposite.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the egg producers in this country are continually being told that they are producing more eggs than the nation requires? Why not, therefore, stop the importation of all foreign eggs and so give home producers a fair chance of earning a proper living and thus help with the balance of payments problem?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, as usual, half an hour too late. I dealt with eggs half an hour ago.

Inadequately.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the present shortage of haddock fillets.

I am not aware of any such shortage. British landings of haddock for the first 11 months of 1968 were above the 1967 level; though there was some decline, particularly in Scotland, towards the end of the year. I am informed that landings in Scotland are expected to improve this year.

Is the Minister aware that when I tabled this Question there were reports of what could be termed a commercial famine in the supply of fish? I am glad to hear that the situation has improved.

Is the Minister aware that, while many of us may be critical of the Government's policy in many matters, very few of us see a decisive rôle for it in this sphere?

Perhaps on this side of the House we have a greater respect for the fishing industry than has the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider introducing a quality grading system for British-grown onions.

My right hon. Friend will certainly keep this in mind when considering what further commodities should become subject to statutory grading.

Since it is clear that only a minority of home producers are able to compete with imported produce, would it not be an incentive to home growers if they were given greater assistance so that they could compete?

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. We will not forget what he says. However, we are trying to make a success of the present statutory grading schemes which brought in apples and pears in 1967 and cucumbers and cauliflowers last year. In looking to the future, however, we shall not overlook his point.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is now the national average weekly wage of agricultural workers; and what he estimates the national average weekly earnings of agricultural workers to be.

The current national statutory minimum wage for adult male agricultural workers in England and Wales is £11 11s. for a standard week of 44 hours. It is estimated that total average weekly earnings of all hired adult male regular whole-time agricultural workers in England and Wales was £15 13s. 9d. in the year ending 30th September, 1968.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that information. However, in view of the fact that it is estimated that the national average wage for industrial workers is between £22 and £23 a week, and in view of the fact that Report No. 25 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes was issued only in the spring of 1967, why did the hon. Gentleman not make representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she referred the recent agricultural agreement to the National Board?

I know of the difference between agricultural wages and industrial wages. It is a long-standing one, and we are doing our best to close the gap. The Agricultural Wages Board is an autonomous body, and it is the job of that body to deal with the matter. As for the National Board for Prices and Incomes, I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Lady by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on Monday.

Does my hon. Friend really agree that the Agricultural Wages Board is an autonomous body, in view of the fact that its recent decision has now been referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

The National Board for Prices and Incomes is a statutory body as well. If any Ministry refers a wage question to it, it is done on a statutory basis.

If the hon. Gentleman is seriously telling the House that the Government are trying to reduce the disparity between these wage levels, why did the Government refer this issue to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that this is a system which has been brought into being to try to control inflation and keep prices and incomes in some relationship. We have a wide spectrum of incomes, and it is not a good argument to say that a particularly low income should not be looked at. We have asked the National Board for Prices and Incomes to give us its reply before 3rd February, when the wages order is due to come into operation. It has promised to do that.

The N.E.D.C. Report states that, if the Minister's own target of expansion is to be achieved, the average level of agricultural wages has to be raised from its 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of present industrial wages. As this is the Minister's own objective, and as the record of productivity of agricultural workers of 6 per cent. is unequalled in the country, did he have words with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity before this matter was referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

Of course we had consultations with my right hon. Friend—

What did my hon. Friend say?

I realise the inexperience of my hon. Friend, but it is not usual for consultations of that nature to be made public.

Is it not a fact that, if we are to get the expansion that we need, we require more agricultural workers of the right age? How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile what he is allowing his Government to do to agricultural workers with that point? Is this not a clear case of Government double-talk?

I do not agree that it is absolutely clear that we need more agricultural workers. However, if we look at the record of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the four years to June, 1964—[Interruption.]—I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) should step his baying and listen—there was a drop of 91,100. From June, 1964, to 1968, it was 89,700. That is the general picture of the efficiency of the industry. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) knows this very well.

Disregarding the antics and cheering of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, will my hon. Friend accept that many of us who have supported and still support the prices and incomes policy none the less regard agricultural workers as among the lowest paid in Britain? In view of that, will he make the strongest representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity about this reference?

All these matters are borne in mind.

What mind?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the proportion of British-grown sugar in the total consumption.

In 1967, 34 per cent. Figures for 1968 are not yet available.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what work his Department has done to investigate the practical aspects of implementing the "Little Neddy" Report for the expansion of the sugar beet crop, bearing in mind that no really suitable break crop has been discovered and that this offers an admirable break crop as well as an import saver?

As the hon. Lady knows, we have studied the possibility of a break crop. But we have to consider what we are to do in line with the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Many hon. Members in all parts of the House urged us to maintain the Agreement and, when we do, obviously it imposes limitations on beet.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the increased cost of fresh vegetables, grown in this country, caused by the 50 per cent. deposit charge on imported packaging material.

The effect of the import deposits scheme cannot be assessed separately from other factors affecting the cost of imported packaging materials and the cost of fresh vegetables.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this deposit scheme has put 5 per cent. on the cost of sprout nets, containers and boxes and that that places our growers at a serious disadvantage compared with importers of vegetables? When he talks of a £160 million expansion, what is the point if the Government price our growers out of the home market? Will he reconsider exempting these items?

I would not like to confirm the hon. Gentleman's figure. My information is that any effect that the scheme might have on prices would be negligible.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the working of the rule as it affects price levels whereby price increases in the wine trade are notified to his department; and what is his estimate of the sum which the prices and incomes policy has saved the consuming public in respect of wine and wine-based products.

My right hon. Friend is satisfied with the way in which the special early warning arrangements for wine are working; and there is no evidence of any unjustified price increase. It would be impracticable to try to quantify the effect of this, or any other, early warning arrangement.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the more successful the policy is, the greater will be the increase in consumers' purchasing power, the greater the imports, and the worse for our balance of payments?

What we have been doing is to try to keep matters in check. It is true that consumer expenditure on wine is rising. That rise is caused by the rise in taxation and, frankly, by the amount of wine being consumed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he accepts the recommendation of the National Economic Development Council in respect of lowland sheep; and if he will make a statement.

I agree with the E.D.C. assessment that any significant expansion of lowland sheep production now could only be at the expense of other livestock and crops, and the general policy has been to encourage a shift to the hills and uplands. This does not mean there is no place for lowland sheep or that their production is being deliberately discouraged. They remain valuable to the husbandry of many lowland farms particularly as a break crop for those growing cereals.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what representations he has had from breed societies about the N.E.D.C. Report?

We are in constant touch with breed societies and no such requests have come from them. They are satisfied with our present policy.

Has the right hon. Gentleman been in touch with the Grassland Institute at Hurley in connection with its work on sheep? When he is considering the views of the Institute will not he reconsider the possibility of expanding lowland sheep production?

I shall be glad to consider that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people were employed by his Department on 1st October, 1964; and how many were employed on 1st October, 1968.

The number of staff employed by my Department on 1st October, 1964, was 15,566 and on 1st October, 1968, was 16,139.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why, when there has been a considerable reduction in the number of holdings and a considerable reduction in the number of people employed in the industry, it is necessary to have more people to administer his Department?

Most of the reduction is in the number of smallholdings and nonviable holdings, which do not cause any work at all. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. Many of the holdings are of a non-viable character and are not holdings that we have to deal with through farming schemes of any description. I have a long list of the extra work we have done since taking over in 1964. It is too long a list to give now, but I will send it to the hon. Gentleman and he will see where the extra people are employed.