asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the price of milk will result in expanded output at the rate planned in his November statement on the expansion of agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present level of profitability for milk producers; and what steps he is taking to increase the margin.

The determinations at the recent Farm Price Review are consistent with the Government's production objectives and will enable the efficient dairy farmer to secure a reasonable return.

How many beef cows does the Minister expect from the dairy herd this year? What saving does he expect on imported milk products?

It is difficult to make a precise projection on the figures. It depends on a number of complex factors. I am satisfied that over the four-year period we shall achieve the objective for 1972–73.

What work has been done in the Department on the effect on consumption of higher prices?

The present Review will impose no additional burden on the consumer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the level of milk sales for liquid consumption this year.

Sales through the marketing schemes of milk for liquid consumption are expected to be marginally less this year than in the April/March year just ended.

What effect are sales of liquid milk substitutes likely to have on these milk sales? As the substitutes are often reconstituted milk powder, sometimes dumped from abroad, should not the hon. Gentleman be taking some action, such as perhaps imposing minimum import prices?

One is obviously bound to look at the use of milk substitutes, which is growing but which is not a major problem. I am happy to tell the House that, for instance, the importation of skimmed milk powder went down by about half between 1964 and 1968, from 64,000 tons to 38,000 tons. Imports of whole milk powder declined last year by about a third.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the price of lamb will result in expanded output at the rate planned in his November statement on the expansion of agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

The addition of 1½d. per lb. to the guaranteed price of fat sheep on top of last year's increase of 2½d. a lb. will assist the industry in securing our objective of maintained production.

This, and the improvement in the hill sheep subsidy stocking ratio, will benefit all producers and particularly those in the hills and uplands where there is real scope for increasing productivity and output.

Does the Minister realise that the increase in the price of lamb will produce only about £60 for the average hill farmer? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is an incentive when weighed against the staggering increase in costs?

The hon. Gentleman should know from his personal experience that this year's determination on sheep, added to last year's, will enable the producer to benefit considerably. This is the view of sheep farmers generally throughout the country.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no doubt but that the rate of expansion will be reached because of the undoubtedly large incentive provided in the last two Price Reviews of 4d. per lb.?

My hon. Friend is quite right. The December sheep census indicates that the rate of decline may be lessening. There are clear signs that the flocks in the hills and uplands are increasing.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the undertaking given by him to the farmers of Shropshire and Cheshire concerning the pound-for-pound contribution to be made by Her Majesty's Government to the appeal for foot-and-mouth disease compensation, why he has now decided to exclude self-benefiting contributions from the scheme.

There are certain aspects of this matter which I am still considering. I will make an announcement as soon as possible after Easter.

Will the Minister bear in mind that no researches indicate that either he or his Ministry at any time said that self-benefiting contributions would be excluded? Many people take the view that the decision to exclude them is rather like changing the rules during the course of the match.

I am satisfied that self-benefiting contributions of the type of which the hon. Gentleman is aware are outwith the spirit of the scheme. However, I am giving this question very careful consideration and I do not want to pre-empt a final decision on it now.

I do not want to embarrass the Minister if he is giving further consideration to this question. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay full regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) said. When the scheme was announced in the House there was no indication that any contribution would be barred. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter very carefully, because there are people who have suffered materially and, as I said in the House previously, this money should be paid by the Government as they committed themselves to a contribution.

I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would consider very carefuly the type of contribution which has recently been organised by farmers in the affected area, with whom I have considerable sympathy. I do not want to pre-judge the issue now. I will make a statement as soon as I can.

Is the Minister aware that a very sizeable amount is locked up in the latest contribution by the farmers which they hope will be matched by the Ministry? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the anxiety that there is for an early decision to be reached and the hope that the matter will be investigated with a great deal of sympathy?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent this year's Annual Price Review implements Her Majesty's Government's long-term policy for the expansion of British Agriculture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the terms of the Agricultural Price Review implement the Government's policy of expansion announced on 12th November, 1968; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the prospects for future expansion of the agricultural industry, in the light of the recent Review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he is taking to expand agricultural production in line with the statement of Government policy made on 12th November, 1968.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of the Annual Price Review, he will make a statement on the Government's plans for agricultural expansion with a revision of the targets he set in his statement of 12th November, 1968.

This year's Annual Review determinations provide substantial incentives for the key commodities in the Government's selective expansion programme announced last November.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, despite all his protestations to the contrary, he has dealt a damaging blow to the farming community with his totally inadequate Price Review, and is he aware that, far from encouraging the much-needed expansion of British agriculture, it will probably have exactly the opposite effect?

I am satisfied that the determinations which I announced in the Price Review in relation to the priority commodities, beef, wheat, barley and pig meat, will have the desired effect and will enable the industry to be on course in 1972–73 in relation to those commodities, providing not only recoupment of costs but an injection of capital as well. The important need now is for the industry to realise that it can go ahead, but that will not be helped by the gloom being spread by the Conservative Party.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if he is to succeed in his object, a vital factor is the confidence of the industry, and is he not at least somewhat alarmed by the fact that the vast majority of farmers have no confidence in what is taking place?

I believe that when the industry has settled down and has studied the terms of the Review in detail in relation to the commodities, it will realise that the Review gives agriculture the tools to get on with the job. I am satisfied that what is important now is that there should be a concerted effort to give the industry confidence, and not to deprive it of confidence as the Conservative Party appears to be doing.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are at least two essentials for expansion, one, the injection of more capital into the industry now, the other, more effective control over imported foods; and does he agree that he is providing neither?

I pointed out a few moments ago that we are providing not only recoupment of costs but an injection of capital in relation to the key commodities. I agree that that is important, and we are doing it.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the industry as a whole is under-recouped by at least £6 million, on top of falling income, and that even in the priority products it is still unrecouped having regard to the total increase in costs which farmers had to meet last year? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look again at the necessity of providing extra capital facilities if he wants any form of expansion, particularly in the hills, where there was a bad winter?

I agree that the industry is being asked to absorb some of its costs, but we are providing in this Review just over 80 per cent. of the total costs, which by comparison with past Reviews is very respectable indeed.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the industry has not already studied the details of this Review and come to its conclusion? Does he realise that on two earlier Questions and on this one he has dodged the issue? What is the contribution being made by this Review to import saving?

The hon. Gentleman should go back and read the little Neddy Report and my statement of last November. The objective is that we should save imports by concentrating on the priority commodities of beef, cereals and pig meat. This we are doing. The Review determinations and last November's statement are pretty well in line with the "Little Neddy" Report. The Opposition, on the other hand, have at no time said what their objectives are or what they would have done in relation to priority commodities. They have been as vague as possible throughout all they have said, both in debate and at Question Time. If they think that they have thrown a smokescreen over the industry, they are making a big mistake.

Order. Answers ought to be reasonably brief.

In view of the unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at an early opportunity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the extent to which progress towards the net saving of imports of £160 million a year proposed in the Government's recent planning document will be facilitated or hindered by the conclusions of the Price Review.

In setting the import saving objectives of the expansion programme to 1972–73, which I announced in November, the Report of the E.D.C. was taken into account. Our Review determinations provide encouragement and resources for the key commodities for that programme. The progress of production under the programme is described in the Annual Review White Paper (Cmnd. 3965).

The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that not everybody now shares his hopes. Will he take the opportunity to discuss with the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs the soundness of the forecasts made in "The Task Ahead" and tell him that if there is to be any hope for continuing selective expansion material must be provided on which the hope can be based?

I am satisfied that what we have done in these determinations is to give the industry the right incentives during the first of the four Reviews between now and 1972–73. The determinations to which I refer are framed to encourage expansion of the priority commodities of beef, cereals and pigs. The amounts involved are £20 million for beef, £12 million for cereals and £5 million for pigs. This means an injection of capital of over £37 million for the main priority commodities.

The right hon. Gentleman has on several occasions used the phrase, "I am quite satisfied". Will he now accept from us that the trouble is that he is quite satisfied?

No.

Whether the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) accepts it or not is immaterial. I am addressing the Minister. It is not satisfactory. Can the right hon. Gentleman name any organisation connected with agriculture which has said that it is satisfied with the Price Review determinations?

The right hon. Gentleman must not take my words out of context. I said that I am satisfied that the determinations on key commodities will get the industry going to achieve our import-saving objectives by 1972–73. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be satisfied.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as well as cushioning agriculture, he has a clear duty to the millions of consumers? Will he recognise that he must watch his import-export policy very carefully in order to keep food costs where they should be—as low as possible?

I appreciate that, and one of the main objectives of any well-organised Annual Price Review is to stabilise food costs. As I said, in the case of this Review we have put no added burden on to the consumers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve methods of consultation with the National Farmers' Union.

The National Farmers' Union is constantly in touch with my right hon. Friend over a very wide range of subjects. I have no reason to think that it regards our arrangements and methods of consultation as inadequate or defective.

If the Minister is to have the full confidence of the industry, he must have good relations with the National Farmers' Union. Did he see that the National Farmers' Union recently said that it could no longer have any trust at all in the actions, words and promises of the present Government?

I cannot say that I read that report. All I can say is that the N.F.U. is quite happy with the arrangements which we have made now and over a long period of consultation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intends to take to help farmers recoup the drop in farm incomes.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made in the House on 19th March about this year's Annual Farm Price Review.

A statement of that sort gives no hope whatever to agriculture. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it was clearly shown from some figures produced last week that real farm incomes, taking into account the drop in the value of money, are now as low as they were 12 years ago?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is accurate in what he says, and it is important not to pay too much attention to a single year. That was the philosophy followed by his party when in office. It is important to realise that the underlying trend is steadily upwards, and real income in 1968–69 was approximately stable per full-time farm and on a normal weather basis. Those are the factors to be borne in mind.

Accepting the Minister's basis for argument, will he now not agree that the trend about which he talks, in both production and income, is far below what is needed to live up to the expectation which he raised in November and is insufficient to provide the import saving about which he spoke then?

The bad weather in most parts of the country during last summer has distorted the picture. I am satisfied that, with the Reviews of 1967, 1968 and 1969, we have put the industry on the right course for the expansion we need in four years' time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much increases in farm incomes implied by individual Price Review awards since 1964 have deviated from actual increases in farm incomes, with adjustments to normal weather conditions where appropriate.

The determinations made at particular Reviews cannot be directly related to yearly income changes which depend on many factors, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, besides the level of guarantee prices.

The Minister may huff and blow and say that he is satisfied about this and that, but what matters is the actual farm incomes of individual farmers. Unless these go up, he will not see the expansion which he wants.

Order. Supplementary questions must be questions.

If I may say so, that supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with the hon. Gentleman's original Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food imports have risen since January, 1966: and how the rate of increase of home production compares.

Food imports were some 4½ per cent. higher by volume in the calendar year 1968 than in 1966, and home agricultural output some 4 per cent. higher in the farm year 1968–69 than in 1966–67.

What was the hon. Gentleman's calculation regarding the position in 12 months as a result of the present Price Review?

One cannot make meaningful comparisons of short-term changes in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, but over the long term there is no doubt that the growth of output has exceeded that of imports.

Will my hon. Friend explain why these increases occurred and say whether he is satisfied that what is happening is in accordance with the selective expansion programme where-under our increased demands are to be met by domestic production?

These increases arose because of an increase in demand, but they are being met by an increase in production in this country.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the value in each of the next five years of imports of food which cannot be produced in this country; and if he will make a statement.

The value of imports of food which cannot be produced in this country fluctuates considerably from year to year on account of many factors, such as general trade fluctuations and the supply and demand situation overseas. The effect of these cannot be predicted at all precisely and therefore I am unable to provide estimates for future years.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very evasive Answer. Would he not agree that there is ample evidence that there are many commodities which, with a rising population, we are bound to import every year and that therefore the food import bill must increase considerably every year?

I think that the hon. Gentleman meant to say "accurate" instead of "evasive". It is true that the volume of imports has increased marginally in recent years by about 1 per cent. but obviously, with devaluation, prices did go up, and that, of course, was another effect. But the volume increase was about 1 per cent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much he estimates capital investment in agriculture will rise in 1969 in real terms as a percentage of 1968 figures.

Such an estimate cannot be made with any precision. Investment is, however, rising strongly.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that not only the farmers themselves but technical advisers on financial matters are satisfied that there is no prospect of the capital being available which is required for the expansion programme?

That is just not so. Investment has been rising in real terms from an index of 183 in 1963 to 203 in 1968, and the figures which we see for this year suggest that it is rising at about that rate.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total United Kingdom farm production he estimates is being lost through exports of calves, store pigs and sheep.

Exports of store pigs to the Continent have so far been negligible, but my right hon. Friend is keeping a close watch on current developments in the trade. The current export of fat sheep, although more significant in relation to the seasonally low output, is no disadvantage to our long-term production policies. Calf exports, although not high enough at the moment to be a threat to our production policies, also call for continued vigilance.

Is this not another case of the Board of Trade acting without full consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture, and will the hon. Gentleman encourage the Board of Trade to think about import substitution instead of exporting our raw materials?

No, it did not act without consultation. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes us to kill off the export trade of British agriculture.

How many sheep were being exported to North Africa, and how many are going for ritual slaughter?

I should require notice of that question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what incentives he now proposes to give British agriculture to increase beef production in order to reduce imports from the Argentine.

The determinations at this year's Annual Review can leave no possible doubt about our intention to encourage the increase in beef production which is a key part of our programme for selective expansion. But whilst recognising the contribution this can make to import saving generally, it is not directed towards cutting out imports from specific countries.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the present incentives are still not enough if he wants real expansion? Does he accept that the imbalance of the trade figures has been three-to-one and was two-to-one last year? Above all, there is a terrifying risk to health. Would he introduce a form of levy system, which I am sure would help?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by "not enough". This section of the industry was given no less than £20 million in the Review.

Is the Minister aware that there will be no increase in production of fat cattle in East Anglia? Possibly there might even be a decrease, as the costs have risen so high.

In view of the substantial increases which have been given, I would not place great reliance on what the hon. Gentleman said.

Is my hon. Friend aware that no industry can expect to get everything handed to it on a plate? Hon. Members opposite seem to be arguing for the complete elimination of any risk in agriculture.

I remind the House once more that 15s. was given on the end price. Hill and beef cow subsidies went up another £1 on top of substantial increases last year. I know that this section of the farming community will be very much encouraged by those subsidies, and that the industry will be prepared to take the risks and consequences of weather conditions, as it must.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the result of his discussions with the Irish Government to reduce the amount of carcass beef coming into this country from Ireland and substituting this for store cattle.

Discussions with the Irish Government on the trade in cattle and beef are still continuing.

Have not the Irish already been given the green light to go ahead with further shipments of carcass meat? Surely the hon. Gentleman would prefer to see store cattle brought in?

No green light has been given. Two meetings were held on 27th and 28th February, and there was a meeting of officials on 25th March. Further meetings will take place, because we realise how important it is to the industry that this should be phased properly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he proposes to take to control the marketing of this year's home-grown early potato crop.

I do not think any special action by my Department is called for.

Why did the Secretary of State for Scotland say in Monday's debate, "… we have a voluntary arrangement"——

Order. No quotations in Questions.

Do the Government have a voluntary arrangement in relation to imports from Cyprus? If so, what are its terms?

I can say that one country entered into a voluntary agreement to restrict its exports to this country. It could be just as bad for that country if there were a collapse in the market price as it would be for our own people, and this is what we are trying to prevent.

Is the hon. Gentleman confirming by that answer what the Secretary of State said on Monday, and that that country is Cyprus?

What I am saying is that at least one country has voluntarily agreed to do so.

On a point of order. I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point which arises out of an earlier Question this afternoon but which I have delayed until now in accordance with your normal wish that we do not impinge on Question Time.

In answer to Question No. 18 the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave an answer which appeared entirely to contradict something said by the Secretary of State for Scotland in this House on Monday. May we have guidance, Sir, on what can be done to obtain clarification on which of the two statements is the true statement?

If Mr. Speaker had to give guidance on the need for all politicians to be consistent in their answers he would have a very hard task. It is not the duty of Mr. Speaker to reconcile the answers of Ministers.

There is here a deliberate contradiction. May I invite the Minister to clear it up now?

I can clear it up. I was not certain whether the name of the country had been mentioned and I wanted to confirm it before making it public. It certainly was Cyprus. That is all I wish to confirm.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the present level of profitability of cereals; and what steps he is taking to increase the margin.

Substantial increases have been made in the guaranteed prices for wheat and barley for the 1969 harvest and the standard quantity for barley is being abolished. These measures, following the increases in the guaranteed prices and the abolition of the standard quantity for wheat in 1968, will increase profitability substantially and should give cereal growers the resources and confidence for expansion.

Is the Minister aware that although these increases are welcome as far as they go, they are not enough to offset the decreased yields in Dorset after four exceptionally wet years?

They are very substantial increases, and, coming on top of last year's, they are great encouragement. I agree that harvesting was bad last year, but no Government—I have never known one—can make all that allowance for weather.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost of the increased Bank Rate to the agricultural industry.

The extra cost in a full year on loans by the banks to agriculture would be about £5 million. About £3¼ million of this relates to current farming purposes, of which some £2½ million is in respect of Review products.

Will the Minister make a special additional Review allocation because of the extra costs which have arisen as a result of that £5 million?

No, Sir. The extra £3¼ million which I mentioned is not only for Review products. The rest of the £5 million concerns landlords' capital, taken into account in the 7 per cent. included in the Review for rent increases.

What instructions have been given to the banks to make capital more easily available to agriculture for expansion purposes?

The banks have been given instructions—if that is the right word—that agriculture has the same priority as export industries, and there is no difficulty for working capital. The banks must keep within the ceiling, and medium-term capital may be difficult, but farming is given the same chance as any exporting industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of additional costs due to devaluation was borne by agriculture for the year 1967–1968 and are estimated for 1968–1969.

I regret that it is not practicable to isolate devaluation effects from other factors which affect costs.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear this in mind at the next Price Review, if he is still in office, and make due allowance for it?

Yes, Sir, but I would substitute "when" for "if".

What benefits have accrued to agriculture because of the higher cost of imported foods due to devaluation?

I did not quite understand my hon. Friend's question. A lot of things, particularly food grains, did not rise in price after devaluation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on imports of dairy produce.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has now reached an agreement with the Irish Government over the importation of cheese into this country; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Members to the replies given by me to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 18th March and by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 20th March, to which I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 780, c. 63; Vol. 780, c. 148.]

When will the right hon. Gentleman have something to add? There has been a lot of talk for a long time. We were told that the Board of Trade is mulling the problem over, but meanwhile these stocks of products continue to mount. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has some sympathy from this side of the House in his immense task of overcoming the lack of knowledge, lack of sympathy and lack of understanding in the Board of Trade towards this industry?

I appreciate and share the hon. Gentleman's concern for milk producers in relation to the production of cheese and the large stocks which have been accumulating over the last 12 months, but it is right to point out that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade came to a remarkably speedy decision in relation to a prima facie conclusion on the anti-dumping application, and he is due to make a very important further announcement this afternoon.

Is not the value of this new agreement with Eire strictly limited, bearing in mind that virtually the same tonnage of cheese will still be imported? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Eire Government are planning to step up the production of other dairy products, particularly cream?

No precise figures have been given yet. The important point to remember is that there is agreement to limit exports of cheese from Eire to this country.

Does the right hon. Gentleman subscribe to the view expressed by the Prime Minister some years ago that the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement would do nothing to prejudice the interests of the farmers of this country?

The agreement is working well.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to implement the interim recommendations of the Northumberland Commission on foot-and-mouth disease.

I expect that the first part of the report of the Northumberland Committee will be published and presented to Parliament on 1st May. I shall make a statement of the Government's views at that time or as soon as possible afterwards.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation making compulsory the stamping of non-battery eggs with the farmer's licence number in red.

No, Sir.

As non-battery eggs cost more than battery eggs, and as many customers and stores are duped into paying high prices for dubious eggs, does not my hon. Friend think that shoppers who pay extra are entitled to an assurance that they are not contributing towards this detestable system of battery farming?

The Reorganisation Commission for Eggs considered this point and the Commission concluded that there would be no advantage to consumers in labelling eggs according to system of production. We saw no reason to dissent.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind and tell his hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) that the housewife does not want eggs stamped with anything at all?

It was for that reason that we had to remove the lion.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is taking to encourage the replacement of imported foodstuffs by increased home production; and what extra sum he estimates home agriculture will save on imports in 1969–70 over 1968–69.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of temperate zone foodstuffs he estimates the British agricultural industry will produce in each of the next five years.

Home agriculture now meets some two-thirds of our needs of temperate type foodstuffs. Because supplies and prices are subject to so many variable factors in the short-term, it is impracticable to give a meaningful estimate of import savings or of the proportion of home production to total supplies in individual years over a period.

We are confident, however, that this year's review will give the impetus needed at this stage to achieve our import saving objective of £160 million a year by 1972–73.

Surely the Minister, in fixing a figure of £160 million as a four-year target, must have some idea of the time-scale of achieving that objective. Is it to be £40 million a year, for example, or a rising curve? There must be some kind of time-scale to which he is working.

I agree that it will be a rising curve. The hon. Gentleman will remember that last year we were nearly one million tons short on cereals because of the bad weather. We could be a million tons out next year. Obviously, it varies over the years. Many factors are involved—bad lambing and bad calving, for instance. However, these are our predictions for 1972–73. Of course we could give the sort of figures for which the hon. Gentleman asks, but they would hardly be meaningful since they could so easily be put astray by the weather, for example, as the hon. Gentleman himself well knows.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that imported foodstuffs provide the British housewife with a wide variety of goods and, in the case of imported meat at low prices, help in stabilising the price of the weekend joint? Will he exercise caution and not give way to silly pressures from the N.F.U.?

Apart from being a little careful about the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, my reply is, "Yes, Sir".

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the all-pervading gloom among farmers found expression last week through Worcestershire farmers demanding the resignation of the Minister and through Devon farmers demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister? How does he expect his policies to succeed when no farmer anywhere in Britain has any confidence in any of his policies?

Time will tell.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the need to provide further credit to enable the agricultural expansion programme to continue; and whether he will make a statement.

Very few. Existing credit facilities, coupled with the support for the industry provided by the Government, should make sufficient capital available for the expansion programme.

Is the Minister aware that although the Government may not make any allowance for bad weather conditions, bankers must do so if farmers are not to go out of business? Does he not agree that bankers are handicapped in extending credit to farmers not merely because agriculture is the priority after exports, but because of the priorities within the existing bank ceiling, as a result of which some banks cannot lend to farmers even when they want to?

Farmers are not the priority after exports; they have the same priority as exports. Of course I agree that for medium-term capital requirements the banks have been asked to keep to a ceiling, but farmers have the same right to credit as other industries, as I said in an earlier reply.

Are not bank loans "through the ceiling" which has been imposed on them by the Bank of England?

Total bank lending to agriculture increased by £36 million in the year ending February, 1969, while other lending, through the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, has gone up by £24 million, so it is obvious that farmers are getting the credit they require.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether, following upon the Price Review, he will now gradually phase out the existing system of deficiency payments and substitute levies to fall specially on imported food which can be grown in the United Kingdom.

No, Sir.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that no farmer will have the confidence to expand production unless imports are controlled? Can he think of any better or more effective form of controlling imports than a system of import levies?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is already a considerable measure of import control to ensure market stability, but it would be disastrous for the economy of this country and of the Western world if high restrictive tariff barriers were placed around the country.

Is not it a terrible commentary on the Government's policy for agriculture that, after four years of so-called selective expansion in agriculture, we had to import nearly 5 per cent. more food in volume last year than the year before?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that we have met the increased demand for temperate foodstuffs by our own production. That fully justifies the Government's policy.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that levies by themselves would have little impact on restricting imports and would merely force up prices to the consumer?

I agree. Hon. Members opposite want a total switch to a managed market, and that carries great perils with it.

In view of the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), will he circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the basis of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body)? Will not the Minister answer? Will he not now give us the information instead of circulating it? Will he state the basis upon which he gave that answer?

I gave the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) a full reply. Hon. Members opposite should pay regard to the possible consequences of the policies advocated by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Beef Recording Association has not yet been formally wound up when its functions have already been taken over by the Meat and Livestock Commission.

As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 26th February, there have been a number of financial and accountancy matters to be settled. Winding-up is now expected to begin next month.—[Vol. 778, c. 299.]

Would it not have been even more straightforward, if the Meat and Livestock Commission is to take over the functions of the Beef Recording Association, to wind up the Association at the same time? Is there not otherwise a danger of, for example, a duplication of effort which would be extremely expensive?

I do not think so. It is primarily the responsibiltiy of the directors of the Association to wind it up. In a take-over like this there is bound to be an overlap between the two, but it is not necessarily duplication.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give an assurance that no wild or tame animals coming into the possession of pest control officers of his Department will be handed over for vivisection.

I can give an absolute assurance in respect of tame animals. In the case of wild animals, however, it is occasionally necessary in the course of my Department's research into pest control methods to conduct experiments involving minor operations under anaesthetic on live animals of pest species. Animals have also been supplied to other recognised research institutions.

Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that these wild animals will not be used by his Department under anaesthesia or turned over to laboratories without licences being obtained from the Home Office to carry out such investigations?

None of the establishments which gets animals from us is anything but licensed for the job.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that in some instances pest species were turned over for these purposes. Will he tell the House of what those species consist?

They are mostly rodents and wood pigeons.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he intends to take to help the agricultural industry bear the increase in costs incurred by it during 1968–69 which result from the policies of the Government.

This year's Annual Review determinations have provided the resources for the key commodities in the Government's selective expansion programme. Cost changes were taken into account at that time.

As the Minister must now accept that agriculture has nothing like recouped its costs in the past year, how does he expect it to be able to meet increased food demands by home production when it could not meet those demands last year? As we had to import extra food last year, how does he expect agriculture to meet an even bigger demand in the coming year?

We have had a good run on the subject of costs this afternoon and I have given a precise explanation of the position. Agriculture has been asked to bear some of its costs, but much less than was the case under the Conservative Party. For example, between 1952 and 1964 agriculture had to bear 63 per cent. of its increased costs against 21 per cent. during the last five years.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that one of the measures which he intends to announce in the next few weeks is the introduction of levies for beef?

There is no justification for that question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposed reorganisation of the deep-water section of the British fishing industry; and what representations he has had from the White Fish Authority and the various sections of the industry.

Yes, Sir. Associated Fisheries and the Ross Group have today announced that the trawling, but not the other, interests of these two companies are being merged in a new company on whose board the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation will nominate a director. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has decided that this is not open to the objection the Monopolies Commission saw in 1966 to a merger of all the interests of those two companies.

We welcome this outcome of the I.R.C.'s work and the prospect of improved efficiency which it has opened up.

Will the Government make a financial contribution in this merger? What effect will it have on the smaller trawling firms?

No Government finance is involved. The merger will be done through the I.R.C. We cannot forecast what effect it will have on small firms, but we hope—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees—that it will make for a better and more efficient British fishing industry.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the deep-sea fishing fleet lies in bigger units and more efficient skippers and men, with mergers of this kind and the consequent injection of capital into the industry?

I agree. I am sure that the merger will make for greater efficiency and greater opportunities. The opportunity has been taken of looking after the interests of the employees of both firms in the merger.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the effects on the British fishing industry of the breakdown of European Free Trade Association talks on frozen fillets.

Since there was in these talks no agreement on the early removal of the tariff, the British fishing industry will continue to enjoy the measure of protection which it affords.

Will the Minister say whether the annexe to the Stockholm Agreement will be discussed with our E.F.T.A. partners? I understand that this has to be done before next year.

Yes. As I announced on an earlier occasion, the programme or régime for 1970 must be discussed before that time arrives. The discussion will take place later in the year.

In connection with the Minister's reply to the last two Questions, will he have regard to the necessity of giving better protection to the British fishing fleet against poaching by foreign trawlers?

It can hardly be said that that supplementary question arises from the two preceding Questions, but I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we do all we can to give the greatest protection to our fishing fleets.