asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received to the latest convenient date, from the National Farmers Union on the rating of broiler and other intensive livestock houses.

The union has made representations on several occasions about the rating of certain kinds of buildings—mainly but not exclusively those used for intensive livestock production—most recently on 30th January when it met the Minister for Planning and Land together with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and myself.

Why has there been such a long delay in restoring the position on derating to what it was before the 1964 legal decisions? When will the Government act on this matter?

It is not a case of restoring the position. The situation in agriculture has changed considerably and the intensive housing of animals is fairly recent. This is the problem, that it does not tie up with the Act. This is a very difficult subject. There is a case going to the the House of Lords. The whole question of local authority rating is currently being discussed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the policy of the Government regarding the future of guarantees for agricultural produce when the home industry reaches a level of self-sufficiency in each particular commodity, in the light of the recent decision relating to eggs.

The arrangements for each commodity are framed to meet its particular needs and circumstances, and the degree of self-sufficiency is only one of the factors which need to be taken into account. The plans which I have announced for eggs, therefore, create no precedent for other commodities.

But does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that if the present system of support is to continue, the industry cannot expand with half-baked Answers like that? Does he realise that the industry has been dropped in at the deep end by his decision about eggs and that it does not know what is coming next if self-sufficiency is to be reached? We must have a straighter answer than that.

That question shows that the hon. Gentleman has not understood the position. He must realise that the action taken on egg marketing is based on the report of the Reorganisation Commission, which was concerned exclusively with the problem of eggs. The question is, therefore, directly related to eggs.

But would the right hon. Gentleman explain, acknowledging that his decision was based on that Commission's Report, how he felt free to withdraw the guarantee for eggs when his party firmly committed itself at the last General Election to maintain the present system of agricultural support? Surely this is a break from that pledge.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the present Government have adhered to all the pledges which they made in the Election. Eggs in this context are sui generis. He has said that, generally, he agrees with the Government's action.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he proposes to discontinue measures for the control of foxes in urban and semi-urban areas.

The responsibility for fox control rests with the owners of land. In some suburban areas officers of my Department have participated directly in control operations but we believe that the small numbers of staff available will be better employed in providing local authorities with advice and training.

How much will this save, and what consideration has the Minister given to the probability that if control in future takes the form of the setting of snares by private individuals many domestic dogs and cats will suffer?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply, he would have heard me say that we thought that our people would be better employed giving advice and training, and that training would certainly not include setting snares.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many members of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee have informed him that they have an interest in intensive animal husbandry.

None, Sir. The agricultural interests of the four farmer members were known to us before they were appointed.

I thank my bon. Friend for that reply.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many members of the staff of his Department are members of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Service.

There is no farm animal welfare advisory service as such but our 359 veterinary officers in the field are responsible for giving advice on welfare matters to farmers and others concerned with livestock.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider taking action to register and license poultry packing stations so that they come under the same regulations as other slaughter houses.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 14th October last to the hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell).—[Vol. 770, c. 40.]

Would my hon. Friend not agree that poultry are particularly prone to various diseases, and that they can suffer from tumours which can be cut out, leaving no sign of the disease? Would he think about this whole matter?

We are giving the matter consideration.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the large numbers of animals and birds in intensive units under the care of one man, if he will take steps to impose a statutory limit on the number of creatures that are the responsibility of one stockman.

This suggestion has already been made to the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. It is considering it, and we would not wish to anticipate its advice.

When he receives the advice, would my hon. Friend remember that one person can look after tens of thousands of chickens in some of these units and thousands of veal-producing calves? Would he consider this urgently when it comes before him?

Yes, Sir. The Advisory Committee is alive to the fact that intensive farming today requires much more inspection than the old methods, but, nevertheless, no one intending to go in for intensive farming would neglect inspecting his animals. We are today looking for more productivity, which these methods give, and we do not want to discourage them.

But does my hon. Friend accept that these units are now turning out thousands of carcases, whether chicken or veal, and that, compared with the regulations for slaughter houses, it is now high time—this is not a matter of someone wringing half a dozen chickens' necks as they did in the old days, but of thousands of birds—that we tightened up the regulations for these intensive units?

My hon. Friend should have directed that supplementary question to Question No. 6, because it has nothing to do with Question No. 7.

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

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 22nd January.—[Vol. 776, c. 462–3.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision of the Boston Group not to go into the merger proposed by the I.R.C. caused considerable disappointment? Can he give a time scale as to when we can hope that he will tell us when the merger for the two other big firms will be completed, and can he indicate that the fact that the Boston Group has not entered into the merger will not deter the smaller private firms from entering into it?

I am in the closest touch with the negotiations, but it would be premature to comment on one feature of them. The I.R.C. is continuing the discussions with the fishing industry. They are in very capable hands. But the negotiations are a very delicate matter. As soon as we have any information, we shall convey it to the House.

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

It is difficult to isolate the factors affecting fish supplies and prices. This is particularly so at this time of year when weather conditions can affect supplies. Nevertheless, I am confident that the effects are beneficial to our fishing industry.

Is my hon. Friend aware that leaders in the industry said last week how successful the Government's attempts to resuscitate industry were proving, but does he realise that the real problem of the levy will apply only in the summer when there is dumping on our market? Even though people have congratulated the Government on the success of this measure, would my hon. Friend ensure that there is no premature withdrawal of the levy?

I am grateful for what has been said by my hon. Friend and by those in the industry. That is why I said that we should exercise a little care about the effect of the duty. It will be better felt when fish are more plentiful.

Can the hon. Gentleman say by how much prices have fallen and by how much he expects they will fall during the summer?

I cannot anticipate how prices will move. At present, retail fish prices are about the same as they were this time last year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he now proposes to take to reduce the drift of workers from the land.

I recognise that there is a considerable outflow of labour in some areas but the overall position in the country as a whole is not such as to require special action. I shall continue to watch the situation.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the steady decline in the number of farm workers is acceptable at present owing to increased mechanisation and modern methods, but would he not agree that there is a need in the long term to encourage younger men into the industry to avoid an imbalance in the age structure?

I agree that this matter must be watched constantly. The Agricultural Wages Board is currently considering a proposed wage structure for the industry, which is a very important factor.

The whole House would probably agree that a wage structure might be valuable, but does not the Minister realise that the Government's action in referring the last agricultural wages increase to the Prices and Incomes Board had a very serious effect on confidence among farm workers and their employers? If his proposals for expanding agricultural production are real, surely he realises that we must have an adequate labour force on the farms.

The right hon. Gentleman knows why the reference was made to the board. However, no farm worker lost a penny in wages because of the reference.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that if we are to stop the drift of workers from the land farming units must be much larger and must give greater opportunities for promotion? Certainly wages must be much higher and the houses occupied by many farm workers must be improved.

I recognise the validity of my hon. Friend's point. He will be aware that the Government have promoted the amalgamation scheme with a view to bringing about larger and more economic and more viable units.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will issue a revised and clarified claim form for beef cow subsidy.

Claim forms for beef cow subsidy incorporating explanatory notes are issued each year in December. If the hon. Member has any suggestions for improving on the form used in December, 1968, my right hon. Friend will be glad to consider them.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that this form is causing considerable extra work to his divisional offices owing to its ambiguity in relation to the qualifying acreage requirement? Much unnecessary correspondence could be avoided if the forms were clearer on this point.

I do not know what ambiguity the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but certainly there is no ambiguity about acreage, which is laid down specifically—one to two-and-a-half acres.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the loss of productivity per agricultural worker in the months of November, December and January as a result of the introduction of British Standard Time in the light of representations he has received from the farming community.

None, Sir. So far my right hon. Friend has received only one representation referring specifically to loss of productivity: this was in relation to horticulture.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the position in Scotland is different? My local branch of the N.F.U. reckons that there has been a 12 per cent. increase in labour costs owing to the dark mornings during these months. Will allowance be made for this in the Price Review?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, all increases in costs are taken into account in the Price Review.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that it is not good enough to say that he has received only one representation on this matter. Does he not realise that a great deal of discomfort and inconvenience has been caused to the farming industry throughout the country by British Standard Time?

I answered the Question which the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) asked—namely, what representations my right hon. Friend had received? I cannot think why the hon. Gentleman should object to my answering the Question correctly.

On a point of order. Is it in order for the Minister, in referring to a Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), to say that he was asked only what representations he had received when, in fact, the Question asked what estimate he had made of the loss of productivity per agricultural worker?

Order. That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman has cost us one Question. He might have raised the matter at the end of Questions.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications for building grants for inshore fishing vessels for building in foreign yards have been approved; and what is the total sum involved.

I am informed that 23 applications for grant for inshore and herring fishing vessels to be built in foreign yards have been approved by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board since the commencement of the present Fishing Vessels Grants Scheme in 1967. Grant for these vessels is estimated to total £456,000.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money is being well spent? In other words, are we getting value for money from this sort of operation? Would it not be better to concentrate the building of these vessels in British yards?

Ninety per cent. of the vessels are built in British yards. Tenders are called for from three yards as well as from a foreign yard before approval is given. If we think, or the Minister of Technology thinks, that a subsidy is attached to a vessel being built in a foreign yard, he takes steps to cut the grant by nearly half.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes for assistance to egg producers in remote areas of the country resultant on the winding up of the Egg Marketing Board: and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he has decided that Northern Ireland egg producers are to be subsidised; and to what extent he has considered the effect of such a subsidy on the United Kingdom market as a whole.

The transitional arrangements for the next five years are designed to enable the industry to adapt to the new situation. No special assistance is envisaged for producers on the mainland of Great Britain. We have accepted the recommendation of the Reorganisation Commission that there should be special aid for sea transport for producers in Northern Ireland and the Orkneys.

Can the right hon. Gentleman justify his statement that it is not necessary to have a subsidy on the mainland? Can he say categorically that the scheme envisaged will not put out of business many small egg producers in the remoter parts of the country?

We are confident that the scheme will work out well and that producers on the mainland, with a free market, will be able to get a reasonable return for their product. This was the basic reason why the Egg Reorganisation Commission made its recommendations, most of which we have accepted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the North-East is one of the main egg-producing areas in Scotland, and that his ruling that the extra grant is not available there is very much against the wishes and views of the Scottish National Farmers' Union?

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman must represent some producers who have apprehensions on the matter. As he knows, producers have been selling direct to retailers throughout the country, even in the more peripheral areas. The House must remember that the Commission based its recommendation on the very important part played by egg production in the agricultural economies of Ulster and the Orkneys.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the producers concerned are generally the small producers? There is a significant way in which he could help them. There is a potential customer who wants good quality free-range eggs. If my right hon. Friend took steps to ensure that people were not allowed to describe their products as free-range when they are not there would be an enormous demand from customers who would pay a little extra for a quality egg.

The small producer, as all of us are aware, does sell a good quality free-range egg.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated total cost to the farming community of the increase in the fees for petroleum storage licences.

About £27,000 annually.

Does not the hon. Gentleman consider it regrettable to heap this unnecessary and bureaucratic burden on the shoulders of an industry which the Government represented that they wished to encourage?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must realise that the licensing of the storage of petrol has been administered by the local authorities for many years, and the last increase was in 1928. Even he would agree that there has been a rise in costs, and the increased fee just covers the increased cost of administration. There is no reason to suggest that a farmer's application costs less to administer. Indeed, it might cost more to administer than one in a town.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it remains the Government's intention to accept the agricultural policy of the Common Market, in connection with Great Britain's application to join; and if he wil make a statement.

I have nothing to add to what the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in his speech to the Council of Western European Union on 4th July, 1967.

Does the Minister recall the Prime Minister's pledge at Bristol in March, 1966, before the last General Election, that he would not crawl into the Common Market but would go in with his head held high and would not accept levies? He said just over a year later in the House that the levy system in the Common Market was not negotiable. How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile those two irreconcilable statements? What is the Government's policy on levies?

I could explain the position of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this, but the hon. Gentleman should address his questions to my right hon. Friend.

What evidence is there that the common agricultural policy of the E.E.C. is proving all that satisfactory either to farmers or to consumers in Europe? If there is none, will not my right hon. Friend advise his right hon. Friends in the Cabinet to consider this seriously before proceeding with the application?

The Cabinet has, of course, considered this matter very carefully. As Minister of Food, I am conscious of the effect that a change to the E.E.C. system would have on, for example, food prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it remains the Government's policy that food should continue to be bought in the cheapest markets; and if he will make a statement.

It never has been the Government's policy that our food imports should be bought in the cheapest market regardless of other considerations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Prime Minister saying in that same speech at Bristol that we should continue to buy our food on the cheapest markets in the world? Does that mean that the Common Market levies are not negotiable?

Of course the Government's basic objective is to keep down the United Kingdom food import bill as much as is practicable and desirable, bearing in mind particularly the interests of United Kingdom producers and consumers and such international obligations as it is in our interests to contract.

Before buying in the cheapest market, will my right hon. Friend make sure how the cheapness is achieved?

This is constantly in our minds. As my hon. Friend and the House know, there are anti-dumping procedures which can be taken.

But the Minister will surely recognise that his answers to the last two questions have left the House completely confused about his attitude, while the attitude of this side of the House is abundantly clear. Will the right hon. Gentleman spell out his attitude on the matter so that we and the farmers may know it?

I have spelt out my views very carefully, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. If I spelt them out again now, it would take a very long time. To summarise my view, whilst we are outside the Community we should want to think very carefully before making the kind of fundamental changes the right hon. Gentleman now advocates. The present support system in agriculture has served the farmers of this country and the economy very well, and it remains suited to our present requirements. There are many snags in the Opposition's proposals, and I have dealt with them in speeches from time to time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the level of return obtained by the country's cereal farmers; and if he will make a statement.

At the last Review we made increases in the guaranteed prices for wheat, barley and oats. The current situation and prospects are being considered at this Review, the outcome of which clearly I cannot anticipate now.

But has not the degree of profitability shown a downward trend in recent years? Is it not now time for the Government to take positive action in the Price Review to reverse this trend if they want more acreage to be devoted to cereals?

That is what I said. It is being considered in the Price Review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the costs which are taken into account at the Annual Price Review have risen in the 1968–69 agricultural year.

Details of cost changes will be published in the White Paper following the completion of the 1969 Annual Farm Price Review.

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman has these figures available. Would it not be to the advantage of the House and the whole country, particularly the farming industry, to have these costs published now? They are not in dispute. Will not he tell us what the rise in cost is? Is it £40 million, as some people say?

The final figures for aggregate cost changes are agreed with the farmers unions through the Review negotiations. I cannot give the details, as the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience as a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory that this matter should be beyond debate until the Price Review is announced, when the House is told that this has taken on the nature of an agreement and that we are not in a position to influence the discussions one way or the other?

This is a convention that has obtained since the Annual Price Review was established.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much production of beef and lamb has increased from hill farming areas in 1968–69 compared with 1967–68.

It is not possible to attribute home-produced beef and lamb precisely to particular areas. As the hon. Member knows, the major importance of hill farming areas is as a source of store animals for breeding and fattening elsewhere.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he wishes to achieve the expansion mentioned by his right hon. Friend it is from the hill areas that it must come? Will he give a general assurance to the House that in the Price Review these areas will be treated more generously in the various subsidies, deficiency payments and production grants in order to reach the figure of expansion that he has been talking about?

I would not demur from the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, and I would not care to comment on the second part.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is taking to secure increased consumption of home-produced milk products in order to reduce the share of the market taken by imported milk products which are subsidised.

It is for the industry to promote consumption of United Kingdom dairy produce.

Surely the whole trend at the moment is a national disgrace bearing in mind our economic problems? Will not the Minister make a decision and tell the House what he is to do about heavily subsidised imports to this country?

The hon. Member asked me what steps I was taking

"to secure increased consumption of home-produced milk products".

Is not the right hon. Gentleman dodging one part of the Question which refers specifically to reducing

"the share of the market taken by imported milk products ".

The right hon. Gentleman knows that butter imports are governed by quotas and there is protection. Hon. Members must know that cheese imports are being discussed by the President of the Board of Trade in response to an anti-dumping application made by the Milk Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Union.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the fact that the annual cost of food imports has increased by more than £200 million since 1960, he will now take further steps to encourage import substitution.

We have already taken such steps through the introduction of the selective expansion programme after we took office and the extension of it which I announced in November last year. During this period the increase of home food production has, in fact, met a major part of the additional demand for those products which we can grow ourselves.

Does the Minister realise that I am not satisfied with this trend? Will he tell us of any other country which is importing so much food? Are we not like a man with a good garden with plenty of time and no money who goes to the end of the road and buys his food?

The House has become accustomed to the hon. Member's tirades on this question. The figures for 1967 and 1968 show that the overall increase since 1960 in food which can be grown here was obtained from home production. This is a very good record indeed.

rose——

Is my right hon. Friend aware that two days ago—[Interruption.]

Order. No hon. Member may complain if he is not called to ask a supplementary question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that two days ago the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) asked for more help for agriculture in underdeveloped countries? Is the hon. Member now complaining that their exports come here?

Withdraw.

Is the Minister aware that consistently for months past I have been asking him to publish statistics showing the extent of import substitution? Will he now undertake to include in his White Paper following the Price Review full particulars of import substitution achieved, with the relevant statistical support ad valorem in money?

It has been made abundantly clear that over the last few years agriculture has made a very important import substitution contribution which is vital to the economy. I shall consider the hon. Member's request.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the increase in food imports in 1968; what percentage of such increase was from Commonwealth, European Free Trade Association, European Economic Community and Council for Mutual Economic Assistance countries, and from the United States of America, respectively; and what decrease he estimates will be made in 1969 in accordance with the Government's policy of saving imports by means of increased home production.

As my reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS to the last part of the Question, I cannot give an estimate of food imports for 1969.

In view of the disturbing increase in food imports, which conflicts with the Government's stated policy, is the Minister satisfied that he has a proper long-term strategy for British agriculture and, in particular, that confidence is being given British farmers that their market will not be allowed to collapse for want of a proper phasing of imports?

In reply to a previous question I referred to the import-saving contribution which agriculture has made. The hon. Gentleman must get this in the right perspective. Imports of temperate-type foods last year increased by £50 million, but all of this was due to higher prices. The additional demand for temperate-type food was met by home production. This is precisely what we are trying to do.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he now intends to take to prevent imports of imitation English cheeses, in view of the large stocks of English-produced cheeses now available.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the dilution of the pool price of milk owing to the time taken to prevent the dumping of cheese upon the British market.

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 22nd January that a full investigation is being made into applications lodged in December for duties on dumped or subsidised cheese imports. Negotiations for a voluntary limitation on cheddar deliveries from overseas are still in progress. I cannot say what the pool price would have been if the cheese market had not been affected by any given level of dumping or subsidisation, but the price of home-produced cheddar has remained stable.

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that British producers are very anxious that anti-dumping duties should be introduced? Does he not think that there is a prima facie case for this? Will he therefore urge his right hon. Friend to get a move on so that negotiations can be opened with the Governments concerned in order to protect our products from unfair competition?

My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has found a prima facie case of dumping. He is now considering the matter in greater detail and will—I think, in a matter of two or three weeks—be able to come to a final conclusion.

Is it not a little late in the day when last year cheese imports increased by 67 per cent.? Surely the Minister must appreciate the state of the British economy and see that it is absolutely criminal to allow this situation to persist?

That is precisely why the steps to which I have referred have been taken. While I do not want stocks to be too high, the hon. Member should know that the total cheese stocks were lower at the end of December than at any time since last April.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in the feral mink population of England and Wales he expects to result from the discontinuance of measures of mink control in urban and semi-urban areas at present carried out by his department.

Feral mink have very rarely been found in urban or semi-urban areas and I do not expect them to become established in such places.

Since this will encourage a flourishing feral mink breeding species, what assessment has the hon. Gentleman formed of the consequent loss to fishing and farming?

I did not quite follow the hon. Member's supplementary question when he said "since this will encourage mink to become flourishing ". I did not agree it would.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will row give the date when he expects to receive the report of the Northumberland Committee's investigation into foot-and-mouth disease.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date he now expects to receive and take action on the preliminary recommendations of the Northumberland Committee on foot-and-mouth disease.

I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) on 22nd January.—[Vol. 776, c. 475.]

When the Minister gets the Report, will he ask the Committee to put in a survey of the hardship caused to farmers by his failure to honour the pound-for-pound pledge for the compensation fund?

The hon. Member must put down another Question on that.

Is the Minister aware that he is complicating matters for himself and antagonising the farming community by his unwillingness to answer the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend? Could he not give a holding answer that he is looking at this vexed problem and will view it with the sympathy shown by the Minister last year when the scourge was at its agonising height?

I am surprised that the hon. Member should ask that question because I gave him a detailed Written Answer to a Question on this subject. In the meantime I have had discussions with the President of the National Farmers' Union and have asked for further information which he has agreed to let me have.

Will my right hon. Friend allay the growing concern of British housewives about the possible cost of the weekend joint by arranging for the Northumberland Committee's Report to be presented to the House as soon as he receives it so that there may be a debate in which the consumers' interest can be put to counter some of the vested interests put in this House by the farmers' lobby?

I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no delay in printing the document when I have received it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look seriously at this matter again? Does he recall that when it was first discussed I put the point to him that as the Government had committed themselves morally to a contribution of a quarter of a million pounds surely they should now pay it? The opportunity is there for them to do so and to help farmers who have suffered.

There are many aspects to this question which are impossible to go into at Question-time. When I come to a final conclusion I will tell the House.

On the supplementary question which asked about compensation, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to answer Question No. 65, which deals with this point?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to stabilise or reduce deficiency payments, in view of the policy of containing Government expenditure.

The cost of agricultural support to public funds is taken into account at Annual Reviews. The hon. Member cannot expect me to anticipate the outcome of this year's Review.

Is not the Minister aware that it is the Government's policy, as demonstrated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there shall be the tightest possible control over public expenditure? Therefore, does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that if British agriculture's domestic output is to be expanded along the lines he has indicated, to avoid a disproportionate charge on public funds some action must be taken in respect of control of imports, through either minimum import prices or levies.

I agree that a careful balance must be maintained between public expenditure and what is needed for the health of the agricultural industry and the economy generally. The Opposition are wrong to think that the adoption of a system of import levies and target prices would at once stabilise the market, reduce the cost to the Exchequer, and provide agriculture with the resources needed for expansion. For example, support buying, to which the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) is committed, would be very expensive indeed. These are matters which we must discuss very carefully in the public debate which is now going on.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what study he is undertaking of the different methods of agricultural support; and when he will publish his conclusions.

Methods of agricultural support are kept constantly under review. If I think an announcement is appropriate, I will make one.

Can the Minister honestly mean what he says? Is he not aware that this is a matter of great and critical importance at the moment, as the imposition of a levy system is a certain and complete cure for dumping? Will he do something about it?

Hon. Members opposite who are now supporting a levy system should study all the implications of a levy system. They should take time to examine it with the branches of the National Farmers Union so that they can have a debate in their own constituencies.

How can the selective expansion programme be achieved if imports continue at their present scale? What is the Minister's policy for reducing imports?

I have already indicated clearly to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House that the import-saving role of agriculture is making a very real contribution to the economy. I have quoted figures. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman do me the courtesy to read my reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow?

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the prosperity of British agriculture started with the 1947 Act? In the consideration which he is undertaking, will he be very careful about changing the basic methods of support that have brought prosperity to British agriculture?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. This is precisely what we are doing.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in the amalgamation of farms into larger units.

It is not possible to give the total number of amalgamations. The decline in the number of units in the agricultural census and the annual fall in the number of full-time farm businesses averaged 3,000–4,000 in England and Wales between 1965 and 1967. The Government's amalgamation scheme has so far attracted some 1,200 applications.

Is the Minister satisfied with that progress? Should not he have a look at two factors, in particular—first, the 40-year restrictive covenant which has been put on by Schedule 3 to the Agriculture Act; and, secondly, the effect of fragmentation which is caused by Estate Duty and capital levies?

I think that the scheme, which is generally welcomed by the House and by the country, needs to be looked at over the next two or three years. I am anxious to see exactly how it is working out. It has been in operation for only 16 months. The response is not unsatisfactory. Structure schemes are entirely new to Britain and it is only natural that farmers will want to take some time to consider the pros and cons before they reach what is, after all, a major decision for them.

Will the Minister bear in mind that output per acre is not necessarily coincidental with profitability per acre? Over-stressing profitability can result in larger units from which the output per acre is not as high as it was from the smaller units. This can be against the national interest.

This is a factor which must be taken into account. It is a voluntary scheme and it is up to farmers themselves to decide whether they want to take advantage of it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what part he estimates lowland sheep will play in providing increased supplies of home-produced meat.

Nearly half of the breeding ewes in the United Kingdom are kept in the lowlands and a major part of our fat sheep and lambs are at present finished there. Moreover, sheep have a valuable place in lowland farming systems as a break between cereal crops. So the lowlands have an important part to play in mutton and Iamb production. But any significant expansion would be at the expense of the increase we hope to see in other livestock and crops, so we are looking mainly to the hills and uplands to offset the recent decline in the national flock.

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the lowland flocks are rapidly diminishing? if the targets of increased production are to be achieved, is it not important for lowland flocks to make their contribution to the fertility of farms?

We gave considerable price support at the last Review. We realise the importance of this. As I said in reply to an earlier question, with which the hon. Gentleman did not disagree, we look to the hills and uplands for increases in the flock.

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, but will he acknowledge that the profitability of the store-producing hills and uplands depends upon the extent to which the low grounds are grazing sheep? Mr. Hoy: I appreciate the point my hon. Friend makes. We must take both aspects into consideration when planning our policy.

I appreciate the point my hon. Friend makes. We must take both aspects into consideration when planning our policy.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Government's continued policy of importing meat from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic is not only discouraging to home producers of lamb and beef but places a complete embargo on the export of quality lamb to markets such as the United States which would otherwise be open to us?

That has not got much to do with the Question. The hon. Gentleman knows what action the Government took in relation to mutton and lamb coming from a particular country. Indeed, the Northumberland Committee is now inquiring into it, and the hon. Gentleman would not want me to anticipate that Committee's findings.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the extent of the culling of young seals.

There have been no official culls of seal pups around the coast of England and Wales since 1965. Contractors employed by the Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee shot a number of adult seals near Great Yarmouth last year.

Is it not a fact that anyone can shoot the common seal? Is it not about time that legislation was passed to protect the seal, because there is evidence of considerable cruelty and considerable public concern? Will the Minister consider a system of hunting licences?

The Government are always concerned about cruelty to any type of animal. The seal is not excepted. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a possibility of legislation being introduced. Indeed, a noble Lord introduced a Bill in another place last Session. Perhaps there will be a follow-up of that Bill.

Has the Parliamentary Secretary made any inquiries into the unofficial culling of common seals?

I cannot add anything to what I have already said. However, I take this opportunity to inform the House that we are not free agents. There are difficulties of access. If we are to deal with grey seals we must get the permission of such bodies as the National Trust. Unless we secure that permission, there is nothing we can do about it.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to enforce the standards of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act in the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) on 20th November last.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the working conditions of hon. Members and the facilities for the staff of the House are far below the standards of the Act, and should not the place where the law is enacted set an example in enforcing it?

I assure my hon. Friend that, as an old Member of the House, I have always accepted this. The standards are not what I would like, but as long as I am Lord President I will try to improve them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hon. Members are particularly concerned about the slow progress being made with the improvement in the low standard of lighting in the Palace?

I will look into this. I know that the hon. Member has taken a particular interest in it, and I will do what I can.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will undertake a review with the aim of ensuring that the prices of items of food and refreshments sold in the House of Commons are not greater than those charged at comparable commercial enterprises outside.

I have been asked to reply.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his Answer is quite inadequate, and that in the cafeterias and snack bars we are invited to pay such prices as 5d. for bread and butter, and in the restaurant Is. 9d. for a thimbleful of cream? Surely hon. Members ought not to be penalised for the peculiar conditions that are inevitable in serving refreshments in the Palace of Westminster or be expected to make up losses incurred in the distant past?

The Catering Sub-Committee is not seeking to make up losses for the distant past. We attempt to pay our way. If the hon. Member wishes to complain of specific prices such as he has mentioned we shall be glad to look into them.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that prices are not being related to the cost of staff alone, and that the recent dismissal of a popular executive in the Strangers' Room was not on grounds of economy?

This matter really requires another Question to be put down. I am glad to assure the House that the member of the staff to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred was not dismissed but resigned, and that the Committee is looking into the circumstances. In reply to the first part of the question, I am glad to assure the hon. Member that price increases are related only to cost increases.

asked the Lord President of the Council what steps he plans to take to improve the service in the Members' Cafeteria.

I have been asked to reply.

That is a most welcome piece of information. Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many hon. Members have to entertain guests in the cafeterias downstairs, and is he aware that the evening menu has not, to my certain knowledge, been changed for the last three years? It has remained at Welsh rarebit, pork sausage and "chips with everything".

All the dishes which my hon. Friend has described are splendid ones, but I must correct him; only last week we had at least two changes. If he finds the fare monotonous, I shall be glad to look at it again.

Will the hon. Gentleman rest assured that the quality and the courtesy of the service is probably higher in the Members' Cafeteria than in any other establishment in the country?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I assure him that the staff will appreciate this, and will continue to give the good service which they have given in the past.

Is not the real trouble that, instead of an intellectual presiding over these affairs, we ought to have someone with a knowledge of business?

rose——

Mr. Kitson.

rose——

On a point of order. I was listening at the microphone and I had the impression that you called me, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) got up again. He got up rather unexpectedly.

That point of order has cost a Question. Mr. Kitson.

Will the hon. Member make a personal attempt to kill the mice that have returned to the cafeteria?

This is obviously an occupation for intellectuals, and I cannot give that undertaking, but I will certainly take up the matter with the Department of Agriculture.

asked the Lord President of the Council (1) on what date the Catering Sub-Committee authorised the continuation of the one shilling surcharge on meat courses after the ending of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom;

I have been asked to reply.

Is it not wrong that the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee should on his own authority manipulate prices in this manner without the consent of the Catering Sub-Committee or the House?

If the hon. Member wishes to insist on that question he had better put down a Motion to that effect. The authority for price rises is with the Catering Sub-Committee, and the surcharge has not been withdrawn for the reasons which I have stated.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek to establish a system of specialist select committees to investigate regularly the administration of Government Departments.

The House earlier today approved my proposal for a Specialist Select Committee on Scottish affairs, and I recently announced proposals for a new one on Overseas Aid and Development. The House will, of course, wish in due course to review the progress of this experiment.

On the surface the Answer sounds very satisfactory, but will the Lord President explain why it has been necessary to kill the Specialist Committee on Agriculture and to threaten with extinction the Select Committee on Education and Science? Surely it is possible to have more Select Committees, if necessary with a smaller membership?

My hon. Friend should appreciate that there is no attempt to kill any Committee as such. Indeed, my hon. Friends on the Select Committee on Agriculture will know that I welcomed it. The Committees were selected for an experimental period and we are continuing the experiment.