asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he gave to the expected level of potato imports before fixing the acreage quota at 85 per cent. for homegrown early potatoes.

The quota, which applies to all potatoes, was fixed by the Potato Marketing Board in accordance with its powers under the Potato Marketing Scheme, after consultation with the Agricultural Departments and the Farmers Unions. My Department's concern in this matter was to secure an acreage consistent with our policy of self-sufficiency in maincrop potatoes.

Is the Minister not concerned that the value of imports of new and processed potatoes in the last two years have been so much higher than the previous four years? Should he not urgently seek ways of giving home growers a bigger share of the market—indeed, all of the market in July—when we can grow all the potatoes that we need?

The object is to secure self-sufficiency, a laudable target. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would wish to exaggerate the situation. Cyprus, which is a Commonwealth country, is likely to send about 100,000 tons this year compared with 136,000 tons in 1968. This arrangement results from negotiations between British and Cyprus growers. The situation is satisfactory.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has received from farming interests about the operation of the National Agricultural Training Board; what reply he has sent; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has received regarding the future operation of the Agricultural Training Board.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity is responsible for matters relating to the Agricultural Training Board, and representations addressed to us would normally be transferred to her Department for reply.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that he ought to be interested in this matter? Does he not understand that there is deep hostility towards the Training Board? Are not the Government aware that, without the real co-operation of the farming community, the Training Board can never succeed? Will he do something to get the Government either to amend or abandon this?

Naturally my right hon. Friend and myself take a great interest in the subject. The hon. Member's Question asked about representations and our replies, and I have dealt with that.

Will the hon. Gentleman scotch once and for all the rumours that the fertiliser subsidy may be reduced to pay for the Agricultural Training Board? Does he not realise that if this happens it would not be in the best interests of agricultural efficiency?

This suggestion was put forward during discussions, because of the antipathy of farmers to a direct levy. The Government Departments concerned are definitely in favour of the direct levy system, and I can safely say that the fertiliser idea has been scotched.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase in home production he expects the horticultural industry to achieve by 1972.

The efficiency of the horticultural industry is mounting rapidly and I expect it to play its full part in the agricultural expansion programme that my right hon. Friend announced on 12th November last. Precise estimates for horticultural crops are not practicable because of the uncertainties of weather, consumer demand and technical innovation.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that that is a very optimistic statement? Have not the difficulties and costs of the horticultural sector increased steadily since this Government came into power? What provision has his right hon. Friend made in the present Finance Bill to alleviate this position? Will he give a specific answer?

I do not think that there is any room for pessimism. Horticulture is capable of substantial contributions to the economy. If we look for signs of progress, work aided by grants carried out in England and Wales, under the horticultural improvements scheme, since 1966 is estimated to have cost over £28 million—more than three quarters of this in the glasshouse section of the industry.

I am not interested in investment. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am the Parliamentary representative of the Vale of Evesham, and that all the growers in the Vale of Evesham are fed up to the back teeth with this Government, because their markets for British produce are systematically destroyed by foreign produce dumped at the height of the season? What is he doing about it?

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman is not interested in investment. If he is not, the industry is. Its share has been growing considerably, and we want to see it expanding. That is why the £28 million has been spent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase there has been in the transport costs for one bag of brussels sprouts on a 50-mile haul during the last 12 months.

My information is that over the period and the distance specified, transport costs from the main growing areas have risen by about one penny per 281b. net or bag of brussels sprouts.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his information does not accord with that which the hauliers, in my area at least, have given? Does he realise that they are prepared to guarantee that costs have risen for a bag of brussels sprouts from 8d. a year ago to as much as 1s. 0d. now? Is this not evidence of what we were discussing in the previous Question?

I do not think so. If the figures were correct it would be, but they certainly do not equate with the figures given to me.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the continuing high level of food imports in spite of the imports substitution policy, and the trade deficit of £52 million in February, what further measures of imports substitution by home produced food he now proposes.

Our agricultural programme is based on the expansion of home production, which is technically feasible with an economic use of resources. Our objective is to secure increased import saving of £160 million a year by 1972–73. Progress will be examined at successive Annual Reviews.

I know all about that. Would the right hon. Gentleman apply himself to this simple and straightforward proposition? If his import substitution policy for food is the hilarious success that he claims for it, why is it that our balance of payments progressively declines month by month?

No one has referred to a hilarious success. The only thing that is hilarious is the hon. Gentleman. We are succeeding in getting continuous progress. Over the last few years the increased demand for temperate foodstuffs has increasingly been met from home production. I am satisfied that the selective expansion programme will continue to do good work.

In view of yesterday's unhappy trade figures, is the Minister not extremely disappointed with his inability at the Price Review to implement his policies of last November? Would he now take some special fresh initiative to help farmers to get ahead with expansion? In particular, will he apply his attention to the problem of capital and the very high cost of getting credit?

I appreciate the import-saving rôle that agriculture can fulfil. Our policies are directed to this end, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. We have concentrated on the main commodities for import saving—beef, cereals and pig meat. I believe that we can get the results. The right hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate that in agriculture we cannot expect results overnight.

Oh.

We must wait for a period of time. For example, the beef cycle is a three-year cycle, and everyone except the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) knows this.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of increased retail food prices to the consumer, consequent upon the increase of £340 million in taxation in the full year in the Budget and whether he will seek to re-imburse farmers for these losses.

While no precise estimate can be made of the total effect of the Budget changes on food prices, it is estimated that the extension of purchase tax to additional food items will increase retail food prices, as measured by the food index, by between 0·3 per cent. and 0·4 per cent.

Like all the other Answers given today, that is half-baked. There is nothing in my Question that alludes to purchase tax. Will the right hon. Gentleman now apply himself to all the taxation increases in the Budget—selective employment tax, purchase tax, corporation tax, petrol duty and the rest—and say what effect they are likely to have? Is it not a fact that retail food prices will rise by about 1s. 4d. in the £ during this year, due solely to these budgetary increases in taxation?

As always, the hon. Gentleman's calculations are different from everyone else's.

They are right.

The hon. Member should know that the Budget will have little direct effect on farmers—

Really.

—and that the increased costs arising from the Budget will be taken into account at the Annual Price Review.

Can my right hon. Friend say what the effect would be of imposing levies on imported food, as proposed by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), and of introducing an added-value tax applying to food?

The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), in asking this Question and in putting his supplementary to the previous Question, conveniently overlooked the fact that his party's policies would result in much higher food prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many proposed increases in food prices have been notified to him under the early warning voluntary arrangements since the recent Budget and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards these price increases in the light of the balance of payments strategy propounded in that Budget.

Ten notifications have been received from food manufacturing firms, many of them covering more than one item. It continues to be our policy that such proposals should be examined against the criteria set out in the current White Paper on Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy (Cmnd. 3590).

As the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are having such difficulty in persuading the International Monetary Fund that the Budget is really having the effect upon domestic consumption that the Chancellor alleged that it would have, would it not be much more satisfactory if the Minister totally abandoned this attempt at veiled price control?

I would not care to comment on the first part of the supplementary question. If the hon. Gentleman really wants an answer to that, he should address it to the Minister concerned. I have answered the Question which is on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how many years Great Britain is pledged to buy sugar from Jamaica at £52 a ton, in view of the fact that Canada pays only £21 14s. a ton for the same quality sugar; why the United Kingdom has agreed to pay Australia £48 10s. a ton; what quantities per annum Great Britain has contracted to buy; and if he will terminate these agreements.

We have an obligation to purchase just over 1·7 million tons of sugar a year from Commonwealth suppliers under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement at prices which are negotiated every three years as being reasonably remunerative to efficient producers and which are at present some £5 per ton below those quoted by the hon. Gentleman.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my figures came from the Economist, a normally reliable publication? In any event, even if we grant the hon. Gentleman the £5 per ton he mentioned, why should we be paying Commonwealth producers twice as much as we pay the Canadians when the Canadians have a standard of living twice as high as ours? Why should the same apply to the Australians, who also have an infinitely higher standard of living?

I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks because only last November he put his name to a Motion urging the Government to restore the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to its former eight-year term.

Is it not true that during the time of sugar shortage in 1962–63 British consumers were getting their sugar at half the world price owing to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the purpose of the Agreement. It is designed to maintain level prices that are fair to both the consumer and the producer. I thought that that met with the support of practically the whole House.

While the Government rightly provide concessions to poorer Commonwealth countries, why is it necessary to pay £48 10s. per ton for Australian sugar?

Australia is part of the Commonwealth, and under the Agreement Australia gets rather less than some other Commonwealth territories.

While my hon. Friends are glad to hear the hon. Gentleman defending the Agreement so valiantly, will not he draw the appropriate conclusion from all this and agree that here is a real example of a levy system working extremely well?

I was merely asked about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I cannot remember ever opposing it. I am delighted to show my support for it, and I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the increase in artificial and filled milk, what steps his Department is taking to protect consumers from misleading descriptions when they purchase these synthetic products in restaurants, snack bars and retail shops.

None, Sir. The consumer is already protected by the Foods and Drugs Act, 1955, which makes it an offence to sell either of these products under the designation "milk".

As the hon. Gentleman is also responsible for food, is he satisfied that the consumer is not being tricked into thinking that he is getting wholesome liquid milk when all the time he is getting nothing more than an ersatz substance? Is it not time for the consumer to be protected from this sheer trickery?

There is a considerable amount of protection already in existence. For example, it is absolutely false and illegal to use the word "milk" if it is not milk that is being supplied.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the increased amounts of artificial milk used in restaurants, snack bars and domestic kitchens, what steps he is taking to protect the pool price paid to the British dairy farmer.

All the factors affecting returns to milk producers are considered at the Annual Review. Producers are protected by the guaranteed price for the standard quantity, which at present includes more than 80 per cent. of milk sold off farms.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this trend of using ersatz milk is having a serious effect on the prices paid to the dairy farmers and that this and increased costs, coupled with the Government's failure to control imports, are making the dairy farmers' condition very serious?

In such a situation we would try to give protection, but the cumulative effect over many years has not been more than a ½d. a gallon.

When my hon. Friend is considering milk prices, will he bear in mind the importance of this industry to some regions, and particularly to some development areas?

This is one of the things we have always to keep in mind. Within our agricultural policy we have a great responsibility to the dairy industry, but we also have to remember that there is a consumer interest as well.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis the increased costs of production falling upon those farmers whose buildings have been assessed for rates were taken into account in the recent Price Review.

Cost increases attributable to rates, which were of the order of £84,000, were taken into account on the same basis as other cost increases at the Annual Review.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this system must mean that a farmer who has been rated suffers higher costs than another farmer who has not been so rated? Is he really anxious to restore the situation to conform with the intention of the Act, and, if so, is it not possible to place a temporary embargo on the activities of his assessors, at least until this matter has been straightened out?

As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, this is a difficult and complex problem. At present it is being urgently considered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. I would only add that the increase in rates is a very small part of the total figure for increases. It is less than 0·2 per cent., but I recognise the importance of the problem.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is an increasing problem for farmers in England and Wales? When he has completed his discussions with his Government colleagues, will he publish a White Paper containing his conclusions and a statement of what can be done to make this system fair throughout the country?

I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but, as I said, this is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to whom I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase he now estimates will take place in the dairy herd this year, following the Government's announcement in November on the expansion of the industry.

The March, 1969, census results for England and Wales showed an increase of 101,000 dairy cows compared with March, 1968. The numbers of heifers in calf are higher than a year ago, and the indications are that the expansion will continue.

If the number of dairy cows is increasing but if, at the same time, the consumption of liquid milk is falling, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do with the surplus of milk unless he introduces severe import control of dairy produce?

As the House knows, milk production this spring has been affected by poor weather conditions. It has not been rising at the expected rate. To the extent that any reduction in the pool price results from an increase in the dairy herd for beef purposes, this will be taken into account at the 1970 Annual Price Review. Hon. Members will be interested to hear that the Milk Marketing Board for Scotland expects the average pool price to increase by ¼d. per gallon.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the advice given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that it is no use giving incentives to farmers to produce more milk unless one can drink the liquid milk that is produced? Does he agree with that philosophy, particularly bearing in mind the import-saving potential, notably in butter and cheese, of this industry?

The important thing is to see that the amount of milk produced meets a given demand at a particular time. That is why farmers should be assisted in the regulation of the market, not only in the production of milk for liquid consumption but in the production of milk products as well.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further proposals he has for increasing the British dairy industry's share of the home market.

The measures taken by the Government at successive Reviews have resulted in an expansion in the dairy herd and home production that in addition to supplying all our liquid milk requirements, enables us to meet a substantial part of the increasing demand for milk products.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer. Does he agree that the British industry has a very disappointing percentage of its own market in dairy produce? Has he any further proposals for reducing the amount of cheese and skim milk powder coming into this country?

I agree that there are problems in relation to the milk products market. However, when one considers the situation in this country and the situation across the world in relation to milk products, one realises that we are doing rather well.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a great deal of disappointment among farmers generally at his not having been able to complete his negotiations in relation to cheese? He mentioned our major suppliers. Does not he acknowledge that some of our minor suppliers in Europe have increased their supplies to this country considerably and that he has not so far announced any effective restrictions on those increases? Will he make a statement about that?

The right hon. Gentleman is exaggerating when he says that large-scale supplies are coming from our minor suppliers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is not the position. It was important for us first to get agreement with our major suppliers. We are now in the process of negotiating with the minor suppliers; and we hope to conclude these negotiations soon.

Is it not a fact that there is even greater disappointment among Common Market countries about the levy system as it applies to butter?

I indicated, without specifying any other country, that there is considerable concern in the developed countries across the world over the milk products situation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what increase he estimates will take place in the hill sheep flock this year, following the Government's announcement in November on the expansion of the industry.

Over the past few seasons there have been steady increases in the hill flock in response to subsidy and price incentives. The 1969 Review decision supplementing the 1968 determination should reinforce this trend.

Does the hon. Gentleman now realise that a 5 per cent. reduction in the amount of mutton imported would permit an increase of 1 million ewes in this country, and would not that be the right way both to solve this problem and to cut imports?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have an agreement with New Zealand. However, I am anxious to see a reasonable expansion of the hill flock. I think that the increase in the guaranteed price which was made this year of 1½d. per lb., in addition to last year's increase of 2½d. per lb., is the right sort of incentive to achieve the result we want.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that it will be inadvisable to reduce imports of mutton until we can be satisfied that there is a sufficient increase in our sheep flocks?

I agree with my hon. Friend that a balance must be held and that we must make certain that there is an adequacy of meat of good quality at reasonable prices for the British consumer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has of the amount of agricultural land which will be surrendered for industrial or housing development in the current year; and if he will give the acreage of agricultural land which was taken in this way in the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968.

asked the Minister of Agriclture, Fisheries and Food how much agricultural land has gone out of production during each of the past three years owing to development; and how much is estimated will be taken this year and next year.

The loss of agricultural land to urban and industrial development in England and Wales was approximately 42,000 acres in 1964–65, 42,500 acres in 1965–66, 50,000 acres in 1966–67 and 35,000 acres in 1967–68. I cannot make any precise estimate for this year and next, but I would not expect it to go very wide of these ranges.

Whatever the demands of housing and industry, are not we, as a comparatively small island, engaged on a rake's progress in the amount of agricultural land that we are allowing to be swallowed up? Is it not time the Government did something positive to protect agricultural land?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he must appreciate that we have a population of about 55 million, which is rising. If he has any suggestions for housing them and for providing them with roads, schools, playing fields and so on, except by some use of agricultural land, I will welcome his proposals.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has now made of the effects of the Budget on the agricultural industry.

I estimate that the Budget measures are likely to add about £1,000,000 to the direct costs of agriculture in a full year.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask him if he really believes that the Budget, taken with the recent Price Review and the present level of interest rates, will help British agriculture in its import-saving rôle?

I calculate that the Budget will not have any effect on the import-saving targets that we have set for agriculture. The hon. Gentleman specifically referred to interest rates. He will be aware that interest on loans for business purposes is still chargeable against income tax.

Is it fair that a good farmer who is overdrawn at the bank can no longer obtain tax relief on loans made on his overdraft while a bad farmer who has allowed his buildings to fall down is allowed to get tax relief for capital improvements?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me have the details of any specific cases of which he knows—

Read the Finance Bill.

—I will certainly look into them. In my view, the number of bad farmers in Britain is a very small percentage of the total. The good farmers are making good progress and, as I said, they will still get tax relief on the interest on loans for business purposes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will implement the recommendations of the Northumberland Committee's Report.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 1st May announcing the Government's decisions on the Report.

Does the Minister recall that on that occasion he said that only boneless meat would be imported, and that the bones themselves were a dangerous carrier of this virus? Is he aware that bones can still be imported from these countries where foot-and-mouth disease is indigenous? Does he realise that they can be used for industrial purposes, one of which is the manufacture of fertilisers, which would seem to be very dangerous? Will he investigate this situation?

I shall be glad to investigate that point.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to bear in mind that the only way in which the British housewife can obtain good quality meat at a reasonable price is by his early announcement that he has adopted the recommendation of the Northumberland Committee of an early reduction of the 20 per cent. ad valorem duty, which would need to be practically abolished if he is to achieve that aim of good quality meat at low prices?

As I said in my statement on the findings of the Northumberland Committee, we shall be discussing the various rates with our traditional suppliers within and without the Commonwealth. I can say no more than that at present.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish his conclusions on the current series of narcotic bait layings in England and Wales.

The operations involving the use of stupefying baits for the control of wood pigeons will not be completed until after the end of August. When the operations have been completed, we shall need some months to assess the results.

As the last series of tests worked out at a cost to the taxpayer of £1 per pigeon killed, does not the hon. Gentleman think that it might be better to return to traditional methods, such as shooting, for the destruction of these birds, and bring to an end this indiscriminate spreading of poison round the countryside?

The experiment—and it was an experiment—was closely controlled by our officers. When all the costs were totalled and divided by the number of pigeons killed, that would be the cost but, as I say, it was an experiment and was not done on a commercial basis. The new experiment is being done on a much wider scale, and the cost per bird should be much less. We, and the N.F.U. have been in touch with the shooting organisations with a view to promoting the use of the more traditional methods to see whether they will be more successful.

asked the Minister Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the figures of herds and cattle now free of brucellosis; whether he is satisfied with the progress being made in eradicating the disease; and if he will make a statement.

Up to the end of April, 4,027 herds, comprising some 420,000 animals, had been registered as accredited under the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme.

Is the Minister aware that the progress of eradication is slowing down, and that many vets believe that unless there are some incentives the scheme will come to a standstill? Now that the pedigree herds are in and a lot of the retail producers are in, there is not the incentive for others to join. Will the right hon. Gentleman look again to see how encouragement can be given to the farming industry so that eradication can go forward a little faster?

I am very anxious that this scheme should go forward as quickly as possible. I would not agree that there is any danger of the scheme slowing down or that progress is slow. The hon. Gentleman will know that this is a very difficult disease, requiring a complex series of tests and considerable veterinary and administrative supervision. I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman to see progress made, but he and the House must realise that before we can come to the stage of complete eradication we must build up a reservoir of brucella-free animals for replacement. This is the only way in which it can be done.

I acknowledge that some progress has been made, but is the Minister aware that there is great concern among farmers in general that we are lagging behind other countries? Will he seriously look at the possibilities of extending the scheme by area eradication—I agree that we cannot go the whole hog at the moment—and possibly linking it with compensation? Would not that help things along?

I have looked at the possibility of area eradication, and have had applications from certain areas for consideration of an experiment or pilot scheme of this kind, but the advice I have received from my experts is that this is not practicable at this stage, that the progress we are making now is satisfactory and that, for the reasons I have given, the way we are going about it is satisfactory.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will hold consultations with European Economic Community and European Free Trade Association countries with a view to defining the contribution Great Britain can make to solving the problems of agricultural surpluses and deficits in those countries;

The United Kingdom already plays a full part in the international organisations which are concerned with developments in agriculture and with the agricultural policies of European countries, and these matters are best pursued in such bodies.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the publication of the Mansholt Report has given rise to intense concern in the agricultural community, particularly in Germany and France, and that this is taking the form of opposition to any idea of extension of the Community? Will the Minister see what can be done to counter that feeling on the Continent, so as to smooth our way, if we intend to join the Community?

The report has obviously been brought to our attention, but as we are major food importers we cannot be accused of causing the surpluses. On balance of payments grounds alone, we could not go on importing food to this extent just to help those countries to dispose of their high surpluses. We have to plan our agriculture to meet our own requirements and I hope that in the course of conferences which it has been my privilege to attend on many occasions we can persuade those countries to adopt similar policies to those that are already in force here.

Before issuing any comforting words on their agricultural policy to European countries, will my hon. Friend bear in mind their impact on our own agricultural industry?

I had hoped that I was doing that when answering the last supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes taking to preserve the rook from extinction in view of the important contribution it makes to controlling pestiferous grubs.

None, Sir. There is no evidence that the rook is in any danger of extinction. It is widely distributed in large numbers, and breeds in all counties of Britain.

Is my hon. Friend aware that during the past year I have seen two rookeries in Warwickshire completely destroyed because, as I believe, many farmers blame the rook for the sins of the crow—[Interruption.] Of course they do: they do not know the difference. Will he look again at this problem?

I presume that my hon. Friend knows the old country saying that if one sees one rook it is a crow, and that if one sees a lot of crows they are rooks. But I do not think that we need worry unduly. I do not suggest that my hon. Friend's story about the rookeries in Warwickshire is not correct, but experience shows that rooks do other damage and eat other things than crop pests. There may be a particular reason for destruction of these two rookeries, but if my hon. Friend has any particulars to give me I shall be delighted to look into the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a White Paper giving the progress to date of the 1965 selective agricultural expansion programme.

The 1965 selective expansion programme has been rolled forward to 1972–73. Progress was outlined in the 1969 Annual Review White Paper (Cmnd. 3965).

That does not answer the Question. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there has been a total increase in production since the 1965 forecast of only 3 per cent. over the last four years, compared with a forecast of 3 per cent. each year? In view of this tremendous shortfall, is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present situation? If not, what does he intend to do about it?

The major shortfall was in 1968–69, a year in which there was a very bad harvest in every respect. It is ridiculous to look at agricultural production on the basis of only one year. As I was in the middle of pointing out to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) two days ago when you, Mr. Speaker, stopped me, but the right hon. Gentleman knew full well what I was wanting so say, we tend to bandy figures about too much. We must consider the general picture, which is one of increased production over the years.

If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary wishes to look at the general picture, perhaps he will look at the White Paper once more and see that there is only one year in that period in which we have met the target in regard to the selective expansion programme. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the trend is wholly unsatisfactory? Will he urge upon his right hon. Friend the need for real incentives to get the expansion programme going?

The right hon. Gentleman should look at the increase in the beef herd of 22 per cent. The dairy herd and the pig herd are increasing. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to bandy about figures, he should look at his own party's record from 1953 to 1958, when the index of net output started at 103 and finished at 102.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage growth of farm income in real terms, and of net agricultural output between October, 1964, and the latest convenient date, respectively.

For 1968–69, when output was seriously affected by bad weather, farmers' aggregate net income, adjusted to real terms by the Consumer Price Index is forecast at about 13 per cent. less than for 1964–65, and the volume of net output, using 1954–57 prices as a base, about 1 per cent. more.

How can the Government justify paying farmers 13 per cent. less for producing 1 per cent. more? Is this in accordance with the prices and incomes policy? What do the Government intend to do about it?

The hon. Gentleman, like any other hon. Gentleman, can be very selective in the years he uses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not objecting to it. My only comment is that the hon. Gentleman compared a year in which the weather was very good—1964–65—with last year in which, as everybody admitted, the weather was very bad.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will further review the profitability of beef rearing and fattening in the United Kingdom with a view to promoting increased production from farms, in view of the expected shortfall in foreign supplies.

The profitability of beef rearing and fattening was fully taken into account during the recent Annual Review, when substantial encouragement was given to cattle production. It is too soon to judge what effect recent Government decisions will have on beef imports, but there is no reason to expect any significant shortfall in total supplies.

Is there not bound to be a cut-back in the supplies coming into this country? Do not all reports from the beef-rearing areas show that the measures taken in the Price Review just will not produce the increased production and the expansion that the hon. Gentleman wants, because the measures simply were not good enough and there is not sufficient profitability to provide the capital required for this expansion?

I said that the falls would not be significant. The effect of the Price Review has been the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of producing fat cattle has never been higher than it is at present? What is he doing about it? What attention is he paying in particular to the problems that those who fatten on grass have to contend with?

The lesson to be drawn from that is that the industry is so confident that it is paying higher prices than it has done previously.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to facilitate an increase in the supply of beef-type calves for fattening coming from the dairy herd in Great Britain.

We already do a great deal, by advice and financial incentives, to encourage dairy farmers to breed calves suitable for beef. I am sure they will have taken note of the increase in the guaranteed price for fat cattle at this year's Annual Review and are planning to meet the resulting demand for good rearing calves.

Have not the figures for beef-type bulls at artificial insemination centres declined? Is not the reason for this that beef fattening farmers simply will not be able to make a sufficient profit from fattening, so the demand is slackening off?

I cannot at this time give the answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. If he is sufficiently interested, I shall be only too happy to give him the reply.

Has not the increased price for fattening cattle caused the price of calves to rise, thus directly benefiting the farmers?

That is what I hoped I had conveyed in my answer to a previous supplementary question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that meat carcases imported into the United Kingdom from the Brazilian State of Rio Grande do Sul are only from animals which have been humanely pre-stunned before being slaughtered.

No, Sir. Although we support the international work O.E.C.D. is doing to promote humane slaughter, we would not feel justified in attempting to impose our own standards on other countries unilaterally.

Why not? Why must we import presumably very small quantities of beef from Brazil if the animals have not been pre-stunned before slaughter?

We allow in this country for religious reasons types of slaughter other than pre-stunned humane slaughter. We could not unilaterally impose standards irrespective of the percentage of meat which comes from Brazil.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will commission and publish a Departmental study on the cost/benefit effectiveness of the present system of Exchequer financed agricultural support assuming alternatively a fixed and floating exchange rate.

No, Sir.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that considerable sums of public money are voted for Exchequer agricultural price support and it would be highly desirable if a cost/benefit exercise were carried out to determine if these are providing value for money, both for the taxpayer and for the agriculturist? If his Department will not conduct this exercise, is not this exactly the type of subject which is suitable for a Select Committee on Agriculture?

I should hate to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman on questions of exchange rates and a floating £, because my knowledge of these questions is not very great. But any study of the type the hon. Gentleman suggests would depend greatly on the limits within which the exchange value of the £ was assumed to float. If it could float considerably either way, the study would not be very worth-while.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the fact that the codes of welfare recommendations for livestock which he plans to prepare under Section 3 of the Agriculture Act, 1968, are not compulsory, if he will use instead his powers under Section 2 of the Act to make provisions by regulation.

My right hon. Friend has already announced some proposals for regulations. The Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee will advise us on any other matters where regulations appear justified.

Will not my hon. Friend take note of the views of many of us in the House who are deeply interested in the subject of animal welfare? Does he realise that we do not regard the powers which are already given as being of sufficient consequence? Will he look at the matter more closely?

We recognise that there is a wide variety of opinion, not only in the House but elsewhere, on this very complex subject of animal welfare under modern methods. We have a very high-powered advisory committee to help us. I assure my hon. Friend that everything is being done to balance all the views. One important point to bear in mind is that farming profits could be affected to a considerable extent if some of the recommendations were implemented to the full.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disappointment in the country that the Department's approach is so hesitant as he showed in his reply and that it is not aiming for the quick implementation of the Brambell Report?

In the right hon. Member's word, this is a very hesitant subject. Since the Brambell Committee was appointed, we have gone a long way to produce these codes of practice and several Regulations which the Minister has already accepted. This is a very complex subject and not easy to deal with.

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