asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at current levels of imports of meat, cereals and dairy produce, how much he estimates the United Kingdom will pay in a full year into the Common Market Fund in respect of these commodities.

An estimate on the basis suggested has not been made because it would be unrealistic and, therefore, misleading.

I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. No doubt he saw a recent article in the Financial Times in which a certain correspondent estimated that the cost would be about £800 million per annum, Whether this is an accurate or an inaccurate figure, does he not agree that this is evidence that we must become self-supporting in these three groups of commodities? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that the reason for this is that we must strengthen our bargaining position and save £200 million to £300 million per year? I should be most grateful if the right hon. Gentleman, in answering this question, could also assure the House that imports from Rumania, which have been agreed very recently as part of a larger deal, will not include—

Too long.

Order. Long questions prevent other hon. Members from asking questions.

goods in these three categories.

I can hardly connect the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question with the main Question. New arrangements for financing the Common Agricultural Policy are due to come into effect on 1st January, 1970. Therefore, it is misleading to proceed on the basis of the present arrangements.

If these estimates could be made and published in 1967, why cannot they be made now?

An estimate was made then. My right hon. Friend knows that circumstances have changed considerably since then. I would prefer to deal with that question when my right hon. Friend puts it to me later.

Is no attempt being made to bring the 1967 White Paper up to date?

Obviously it is kept under review all the time. In view of the substantial changes which are bound to take place as from 1st January, 1970, it would be unrealistic to try to do it at present.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the financial plight of the agricultural industry, following the weather conditions over the past 12 months, if he will immediately initiate talks on a special price review.

No, Sir, but we will review the situation when we see what the harvest is going to be like.

I rather expected that answer. If this is so, what will the Government do now to give extra cash to the farming community, because the Minister's only solution of a tax adjustment proved to be a big hoax?

We are aware that many farmers are short of cash because of last year's harvest. The results of this year's harvest are not yet known. We are waiting to see what the harvest is like this year before we decide what can be done.

I accept my hon. Friend's point, but does he think that the farming industry, given the conditions mentioned in the Question, can achieve the targets set out by the Government on 12th November? If not, will he lengthen the period or revise the targets?

My hon. Friend has a Question down on these lines. I will answer it when we reach it.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his right hon. Friend made certain announcements about administrative changes which the hon. Gentleman himself later admitted produced nothing new? Does the hon. Gentleman think that those changes will be adequate to meet what is an extremely serious situation?

We have emphasised to hon. Members opposite during our exchanges on this subject that if they have any individual cases of farmers, or for that matter collective cases, they can give us, we will study them very carefully.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to help farmers who have been unable to cultivate and sow their land because of the excessively wet spring.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to alleviate the hardship being suffered by farmers as a result of the adverse weather conditions during the past year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that farmers in the area surrounding Peterborough and Ramsey suffered further severe interference and loss through excessive rainfall in May; and whether he will provide help for those who have suffered further financial hardship.

My right hon. Friend and I went into this most fully during the debate on agriculture on 16th June. I have nothing yet to add to what was said on that occasion.

Is not the answer to my Question, "Nothing"? Now that the Minister's cruel and bogus promise about taxation relief has been exposed as a myth and groundless, will he not do something for a change, such as introducing new drainage schemes?

If the hon. Member was sure that the answer was to be "Nothing", I do not know why he wasted time in putting the Question. We have looked at drainage schemes, but they would not help farmers immediately. We are looking at the actual working of the schemes, and I have nothing to add to the various Answers to Questions which I have made on this subject.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the Price Review assumed average weather conditions in 1969? Since that assumption has already been proved wrong and conditions were very bad in the sowing season, why has the hon. Gentleman not other proposals to make?

Any Price Review assumes normal weather conditions, and figures are worked back to normal weather conditions depending on whether they are good or bad. But, as I have said, let us see what the harvest will be before we make up our minds that something must be done.

What drainage grants will be available to these farmers? Will my hon. Friend encourage drainage contractors to extend their field of activity?

All drainage grants on arable land are at 50 per cent., but on hill land where conditions are particularly difficult an extra 10 per cent. is given. If drainage went ahead too quickly the drainage contractors would be overloaded. Meanwhile we have no scheme of encouraging drainage contractors other than the fact that much has to be done and it is a fairly profitable occupation.

If farmers want more money when weather conditions are bad, do they give any of it back when conditions are good?

That is a pertinent point put by my right hon. Friend.

The hon. Gentleman said that my right hon. Friend's suggestion of an interest-free loan scheme has been rejected because it would create a precedent. Is he aware that in 1947 many precedents were created in a particularly disastrous year, including payments of subsidy on flocks prior to the disaster? Why is he not ready to create a precedent now?

I have all the figures, which are very complicated and long, for the 1947 and 1953 floods. If my memory serves me aright, about 600,000 to 800,000 acres were flooded and under water. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the situation in Scotland and the hill areas was far more disastrous than it was last year. There was a disaster fund to which the Government contributed. The situation was altogether different.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of recent flooding, due to failure to dredge Littleton Brook, resulting in loss of horticultural production and danger to public health through flooding of sewerage installations and latrines; and whether he will make a 50 per cent. grant to the appropriate authorities for dredging Littleton Brook this summer, thus facilitating River Board responsibility from next autumn.

I wrote to the hon. Member last week and, as he now knows, a scheme for the improvement of Littleton Brook, designed to alleviate this flooding problem. has been prepared by Worcestershire County Council. My right hon. Friend received the council's proposals last month and hopes to be able to approve them for a 50 per cent. grant shortly.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that that 50 per cent. grant will be of the order of £1,000 and will be subject to the works being completed this year so as to prevent a repetition of the disastrous flooding which caused me to go paddling on Whitsuntide Monday afternoon and of the loss of horticultural production entailed?

I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's Whitsuntide afternoon. The estimated cost is over £2,700; 50 per cent. of that will be £1,350.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decline in meat imports, excluding bacon, he estimates will occur in 1969–70; how much additional meat will be supplied from home produced sources, percentum and as tonnage; what estimate he has made of the change in meat prices in 1969–70, as a result of imports substitution; and whether he will make a statement on meat prices.

Total carcase meat imports are not expected to decline to any significant extent in 1969–70. Additional marketings of home-fed supplies have to some extent been delayed by bad weather at the start of the season, but are expected to increase between now and the end of 1970. The meat market is likely to remain generally firm throughout the year, however, but precise estimates of supply and prices over the next twelve months are not possible because of the many variable factors involved.

That is a very evasive answer. Can the Minister not give us some tangible information in the context of these imports to show how his policy of import substitution is succeeding? What is it worth in terms of increased home production and decline in meat imports, which is the purpose of the Question?

It is very difficult to forecast, certainly in farming, exactly what the prospects will be 12 months ahead, but we expect a much larger contribution from our own home supply.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his current assessment of the financial position and prospects of the agricultural industry on capital and on income account.

Assessments were given in the Annual Review White Paper. I see no purpose in a reassessment now when firm data cannot be available and when it is too soon to judge how the year as a whole may turn out.

Is it not abundantly clear that agriculture is faced with an absolutely unprecedented financial crisis? In those circumstances, if the Government cannot give any positive help, why is it proposed to do positive harm by penalising the maintenance of agricultural land and buildings? Can the Minister say what he is doing, together with his right hon. Friends, to dissuade the Treasury Ministers from pursuing Clauses in the Finance Bill which will do positive harm to agriculture?

I agree that in certain cases and in certain areas farmers are facing financial difficulty, but it is not absolutely clear that this is the case in agriculture as a whole. If the hon. Member goes to parts of the country other than his own, he will know that some areas are looking remarkably well. There are high prices for stock and everything else. As to capital investment, the hon. Member should look at the figures, which have risen from £167 million in 1963 to last year's £211 million. So there is no lack of investment.

Is the Minister entirely unaware that farming income fell substantially last year, and that credit is extremely difficult to get, and extremely expensive if it can be got? If the hon. Gentleman still believes in the expansion programme, how is it to be financed?

As I have been trying to point out to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friends, if they know of any case where expansion will be restricted by lack of genuine credit for a creditworthy farmer and will let us know, we will look into it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many tillage acres are being left fallow this summer; how this compares with the trend in previous years; and to what extent over the last 12 months weather conditions have prevented crops being harvested or sown.

Information about the fallow acreage in England and Wales this year will not be available until the June census has been processed. In recent years fallow has been about 200,000 acres. It is expected to be appreciably higher this year. The higher fallow acreage and the reduced yield of crops last harvest are a measure of the poor weather conditions over the last twelve months.

Is it not the case that much of our land is in a worse physical state than ever previously recorded? Therefore, is it not essential that such things as drainage schemes and systems should be thoroughly and properly maintained? That being so, will the Minister consider the argument in the last Question, which is that it is vital that the Government should not discourage the maintenance of agricultural land and fixed equipment?

We will certainly not discourage it by any manner of means, but it is not the case all over the country. I know that there are areas, of which the hon. Gentleman has knowledge, which are in bad condition, but I emphasise that that is not the case over the country as a whole.

While I appreciate that the figures are not yet fully available, will my hon. Friend tell us whether the advice coming from the N.A.A.S. inspectors indicates that more ground is being ploughed up in accordance with his own programme, which, I think, aims at 1¼ million acres of cereals by the end of the period?

We do not yet have the figures, and will not have them until we assess the June returns. We are now in process of doing that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the 1968 and the expected 1969 cereal harvests and the 1969 lambing season indicate that in cereals and in mutton the expansion programme outlined by the Government is being achieved.

Bad weather has given an initial setback to cereals and lamb production in some areas, but it is far too soon to make any valid assessment of progress towards the objectives.

If my hon. Friend finds that these objectives are not being achieved, would he consider, for instance, the 1947 Act procedure for giving a deficiency payment on lambs and sheep as at December of last year, rather than on the depleted flocks which have been left as a result of deaths in the lambing crop in the early spring?

As I said to the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) earlier, we want to get a proper assessment of the harvest and lamb crops and everything else. As there is a scarcity of lambs, the price will normally be high. But we want to be in a position to assess the position properly and not go in for guesswork, of which there is a lot at the present time.

Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that he suggested that I exaggerated when I said in the debate a fortnight ago that some lamb crops were down to 20 per cent.? Has he any figures now to suggest that that estimate was not right? If not, why not?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, his assessments were of flocks in Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would be in a better position to reply to that Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the present knowledge of the quality, weight and yield of last year's harvest and of the expectations of this year's harvest resulting from a wet and late spring, the estimated figure for the increase in farm productivity this year included in the 1968 Price Review is still his Department's official estimate.

The gain from greater efficiency is assessed on the basis of taking one year with another. We see no reason to change that assessment, and it would not really be useful to speculate about the outcome for the 1969–70 farm year, which has just begun.

But will not my hon. Friend appreciate that if in two consecutive years this efficiency factor does not operate, and if costs rise much more sharply than expected due to the extra feed and other costs faced by the industry, the resulting squeeze on profits and income will make the Minister's worthy efforts for expansion much more difficult?

I appreciate that the review of the efficiency factor was made in 1966 and again in the spring of 1969. If we see that two years will have a big effect we shall naturally have to look at the matter next time.

The Minister's answers to this Question and to the three previous Questions seem to indicate that he will give long-term consideration to overcoming the special difficulties of last year and this. Does not he see, after his visit to the East Midlands and East Anglia a fortnight ago, that we want something more positive than that if farming is to make the contribution we expect it to make?

Although I twice made official visits, I have also made unofficial visits, and the improvement since my last official visit is quite remarkable. [Interruption.] Well, it is. I just ask the hon. Gentleman to be patient until we see what the harvest will be like.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what credit is available to British agriculture for normal working capital to enable farmers to achieve the increased production that is required by Her Majesty's Government to help solve the balance of payments problem.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to enable farmers to have access to credit at reasonable rates of interest in order to finance the expansion in those sectors of the industry that he selected in the Annual Price Review; and if he will make a statement.

Total bank lending to agriculture and forestry at mid-May for working capital and other purposes was £512 million. Credit for working capital is also provided by agricultural merchants and other sources.

At the Annual Review, the Government gave a special impetus to those sectors selected for expansion. There is no real evidence that the programme is not being adequately financed from existing credit facilities.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Minister must have replied to the wrong Question.

I replied to Question No. 11 on the Order Paper.

Does not the Minister realise that unless he solves this problem of agricultural credit he will never get the expansion that the country needs in its present position? If he thinks that he can solve the problem without dealing with it, he is simply whistling in the dark.

I presume that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question relates to Question No. 11. If that is so, the reply is that if he has individual cases he should bring them forward, and we will deal with them.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that most of his answers have been incredibly unsatisfactory up to now and that he seems unable to appreciate the great hardship there is in the farming industry as farmers cannot get credit and achieve what they are asked to do? It is no good saying that everything will be all right at the end of the harvest, because it will be too late to help by then.

I do not think that any farmer I know expects to get the cash before the harvest. Apart from last year's conditions, which I know were serious, when we see this year's harvest we can appreciate the situation. I have probably seen more of the difficulty than the hon. Member has and I do appreciate the situation.

When the Government were asked to take credit for agriculture from under the ceiling which the Bank of England has imposed and put it in the special position which certain exporters enjoy, why did the Government refuse?

We have not refused. Farmers are in exactly the same position as exporters.

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 this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to relieve farmers from the difficulties caused by lack of adequate credit.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken and proposes to take to ensure farmers are given adequate borrowing facilities to carry them through their current difficulties.

None, Sir. Agriculture is a priority category within the credit ceiling, and I am sure that the banks will do what they can within their lending ceilings. Despite current difficulties, I have received virtually no evidence that creditworthy farmers are not getting the credit they require for essential purposes.

Now that the agricultural recession has begun, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Bank of England has written to the joint stock banks telling them that letters expressing pious hopes about priority agricultural borrowing should be virtually ignored and that they should not go beyond the Government's restrictions on credit policy?

As I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's first premise, I cannot answer the second part of his supplementary question.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that his reply will convince more and more farmers that the Government are totally opposed to the agricultural industry? Is it not about time that he did something to help the industry?

If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.

Whether or not my hon. Friend agrees with the premise of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), would he say whether it is true that the Bank of England has written the letter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which would appear to run absolutely counter to the Government's policy?

I will look into that point.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the House has received varying statements in the last year from different Ministers on this subject? The banks say one thing; Ministers say another. Would he ask one of the Treasury Ministers to make a clear statement to the House which will be understood by farmers and give them the facilities which they expect and need?

I disagree completely with the hon. Gentleman. The situation has been made perfectly clear to the agricultural community—that they have the same top priority within the ceiling. The purpose of the ceiling is to ensure that in the economic situation the borrowing is correct and for the right reasons.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the total bank advances obtained by farmers in 1963 and 1968; and what were the advances obtained in February, 1969.

Total bank advances to agriculture and forestry in Great Britain at mid-February in the years 1963, 1968 and 1969 were £401 million, £482 million and £519 million respectively.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that overdrafts have increased under a Socialist Government by £125 million, and when we add what merchants have also provided, we realise the serious position which British agriculture is in under a Socialist Government? This is deplorable. What are the Government to do about it?

There are different views about this. This is probably the faith which the banks have in agriculture and the faith which farmers have in this Government in borrowing.

As credit for agriculture is so expensive and hard to get, has a decision yet been made on the proposal to make available interest-free loans to farmers who are worst hit?

Credit for agriculture is not more expensive than credit for any other industry. My right hon. Friend has very carefully considered the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) of interest-free loans, but he cannot accept it. It would set a precedent with wide repercussions. My right hon. Friend has no power to make such loans, and the administrative difficulties would be very great indeed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now satisfied that all meat imported from overseas has been slaughtered in accordance with standards applicable to slaughterhouses within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

We do not impose methods of slaughter on supplying countries, but we periodically check on standards of production and hygiene, and take the necessary steps to remove from approved lists in the Official Gazettes any establishments which do not come up to hygiene standards in this country.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that according to a very good source of information—a senior meat inspector who travels very widely—much of the meat imported to this country is slaughtered under conditions which would be intolerable in Britain? Is not this form of hypocrisy detrimental to the British agricultural industry?

As I have said, we have no control over conditions in countries which supply us with meat. We may deprecate these methods, but we cannot change them. In a good many of the countries from which we import slaughtering is very humane.

Is my hon. Friend aware that slaughterhouses in the Argentine supplying us have been inspected and are approved?

Yes. As I said, some have been inspected and approved, but others did not come up to standard.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish a further White Paper bringing up to date the estimates of the effect on United Kingdom balance of payments to cost of living of joining the European Economic Community given in paragraphs 73 to 89 of Command Paper No. 3274.

Not at present, but my right hon. Friend will bear my right hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.

As the only change of circumstances since 1967 is that the bill has become much higher, will my right hon. Friend undertake to publish for the benefit of the House and the country the calculations which his Department is now making?

As I said in reply to an earlier Question, and as my right hon. Friend will appreciate, certain changes have to take place as from the beginning of next year. The Community itself has to decide what its policy will be in regard to the Mansholt Plan and other arrangements. My right hon. Friend will understand the difficulty in giving more information until these are settled.

When considering the possibility of entering the E.E.C. from the agricultural point of view, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to match the statement made on agriculture by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) on 10th May, 1967, when he gave a specific pledge about our party's attitude on horticulture?

When this comes to be examined it will have to be taken into account, but we cannot do so until certain action is taken elsewhere.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in Cmnd. Paper 3274, although there is speculation on the analysis of the effects on this country in joining the Common Market, there was nevertheless a calculation that the increase in cost of foodstuffs would be of the order of 10–14 per cent. and that is equivalent to an increase in the cost of living of 2½ to 3½ per cent.? This is a matter of serious concern. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to assure the House that we shall have a White Paper giving further calculations very shortly?

Of course these things have to be taken into account. Food prices affect the whole Community. Until we hear what is to happen in the E.E.C. we prefer not to make a decision at the moment.

As The Guardian has estimated this cost on balance of payments at £593 million net and the Financial Times estimated the cost to the consumer at £844 million, surely the right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to this House and the country to publish accurate figures as quickly as possible?

As I said, we are bound to take these things into consideration, but it would not be wise to do so until the Community has made up its mind. Then, obviously, any Government are bound to take account of what the effect would be in their own domain. This is the assurance I gave the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department is making of the consequences of the British and Commonwealth sugar producers of British entry into the European Economic Community.

The effect on British and Commonwealth sugar producers of United Kingdom accession to the European Economic Community would depend on the circumstances at the time and it is not at present possible to forecast what these might be.

Since, apparently, our application to go into the Common Market is on the table, would it not be wise to examine the situation as of now as it would affect Commonwealth sugar producers? I understand that it would be catastrophic for countries like Mauritius and Fiji, which depend upon the British market.

Yes, indeed. I can comfort my hon. Friend by telling him that we have these commitments to the Commonwealth of which I spoke earlier. We have already told the Six that we have a contractual obligation under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement until 1974. I think that this can be accommodated under the arrangements of the Six. Certainly, we would wish to discuss how the interests of the developing Commonwealth countries under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement could be safeguarded even in the longer term.

What has been the advantage to Commonwealth countries, particularly Mauritius, Fiji and the West Indian islands, of the Agreement in the last six years? How much would they lose if we were to join the E.E.C.?

They have had stability and assurance of a market, which has been distinctly beneficial to them. This we would wish to continue.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek powers to ensure that food described on sale as oven fresh has not been deep frozen and thawed.

The use of the description "oven-fresh" is subject to the general control of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence that food which has been frozen twice can cause food poisoning? Will he have another look at this matter?

I am prepared to look at it, but I remind the right hon. Gentleman that local authorities have power of enforcement and any cases of food poisoning that occur should be drawn to their attention.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total of beef cattle fattened at home in 1968; and what he estimates the totals will be in 1969 and 1970.

Just over 3,600,000 home-fed fat cattle were marketed in the United Kingdom in 1968. The number this year may be slightly lower, mainly because of heavier calf slaughter in 1967 and the aftermath of the foot-and-mouth epidemic; but the number of young animals now on farms leads us to expect a worthwhile increase in 1970 as part of our selective expansion programme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that prediction is not likely to be fulfilled, for two reasons? The first is the continuing high cost of credit to beef producers, and the second, and by no means the least, the sky-high prices for winter fodder last year?

Despite what has happened, these are our expectations. The figures that we have give us reason to be confident that we shall achieve what we want to achieve.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what preparation he is making to put into effect the ban on the importation of South American beef on the bone this autumn.

As from 1st October licences now in force for imports of carcase meat and offal will be revoked and replaced by fresh licences valid only for boneless beef.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is fundamentally important that there should be no postponement of the date of 1st October for the ban on boned beef, whether tariff reductions have been arranged or not?

We fixed the date of 1st October because we thought that it would give reasonable time for people to make their arrangements. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is looking into the tariff situation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is grave apprehension among housewives that, in view of the expected scarcity of meat supplies from home sources, there will be a substantial increase in prices as a result of the Government's unwise acceptance of the unfounded allegations in the Northumberland Committee's Report? Can he say how far the Government have progressed in coming to a decision to abolish the 20 per cent. ad valorem duty on boneless meat?

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering the last point and there will be an announcement shortly. On the point about housewives being apprehensive, we know that beef prices are high, but we do not expect them to get any higher. If we can get an adequate supply of boneless meat, we should keep prices fairly steady.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman not to listen to the voices behind him? Will he accept that the disaster to the nation caused by the foot-and-mouth outbreak last year cannot be compensated by the sort of action proposed?

The hon. Gentleman is sufficient of a democrat to listen to all voices. Whether one takes action after listening is a different matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to the agricultural industry of the recently announced increases in National Insurance contributions for 1st November, 1969, to 1st April, 1970, and in a full year subsequently.

The cost to the agricultural industry, taken as the cost to employers on behalf of their workers, is estimated at about £600,000 in the months November, 1969, to March, 1970, and about £1,500,000 in a full year.

In the same periods equal amounts will be contributed by workers themselves. For self-employed persons on their own behalf the figures for the relevant periods are £800,000 and £2 million.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that these increases will be taken into account in the price review? Does he realise that this is another additional burden which the farming industry must carry for at least five-and-a-half to six months without recompense until the price review comes? In the present circumstances this is absolutely intolerable.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, price reviews while his party were in power were always made on the basis of back prices. We are not doing anything different. Agriculture is not bearing any greater burden than any other industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the United States Food and Drug Administration to introduce new labelling regulations for food products and beverages, artificially sweetened with cyclamates, which will necessitate indicating the precise amount of cyclamate contained therein; and whether, in the interests of safety and public health, he will consider amending the current United Kingdom regulations relating to the labelling of such products.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the labelling proposals which the United States Food and Drug Administration is now considering. While we are continuing to keep the use of cyclamates in the United Kingdom under review, my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends see no justification for introducing similar provisions into our regulations.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this action by the United States authority shows the mounting anxiety which is felt about the increasing use of cyclamates? Would he not also agree that the consumer has the right to know what additives of this kind have been added to his food so that in the interests of his own health he can limit the intake in any given period?

The conditions in America are not the same as they are here. Consumption in America is very much higher than it is in this country. The United States Food and Drug Administration has recently recommended the same acceptable daily intake as ours.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that his reply was perhaps a little complacent? He refers to the intake in the United States compared with the intake in this country. It may well be that in five years' time the intake of cyclamates in this country will be comparable to the intake in the United States. Are we then to wait another five years for this information?

No. We are not complacent. We have examined the matter and keep it specifically under review. The Food Additives and Contaminants Committee has made recommendations to us. We shall be reviewing the situation again. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no complacency.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in considering price review calculations, he took account of increased interest rates on property paid by the farming community.

Yes, Sir.

Does that apply to purchases not only of land but also mainly of machinery and materials?

Yes, Sir. All interest rates are taken into account in the Price Review. The national farm is treated as if it were a tenanted farm.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to prohibit the export of puppies not accompanied by the owner unless it can be proved that they are over three months old.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable public anxiety about the mass export of very young puppies, especially when unaccompanied? Has he not had representations from the Kennel Club and other bodies? Will he look at this matter again.

Yes, Sir. We are looking at the whole subject. The hon. Member's Question, however, concerns puppies over three months of age. As he well knows, it is difficult to know the age of a puppy until its incisor teeth come through, which is usually between four and a half and six months of age.

Why not leave the puppies at home and export the owners?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in which years since 1962–63 there was a gain in foreign exchange for the United Kingdom as a result of purchases of sugar under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement when the negotiated price was below world price; and what was the gain in each year.

In 1963 and 1964, when we paid the exporters under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement about £39 million less and £7½ million less, respectively, than if we had bought the same quantities from them on the basis of the average world price during the year.

Is not the lesson of that answer that when world prices are unduly high the British consumer gains and that generally stability of price is good for world trade?

I agree, and that is what we have attempted to do under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement is of advantage both to the British housewife and to developing Commonwealth countries and is an agreement which might be followed in the case of other commodities?

Indeed. The Agreement has brought benefits not only to consumers here but to the countries concerned. Judging by what I have heard in the House, from both sides, I should have thought that it met the approval of the House as a whole, although there are, of course, a few exceptions.

Will my right hon. Friend resist the efforts that are being made to get the Government to change their policy in regard to international sugar agreements of various kinds, because they undoubtedly work in the interest of consumers here and of producers in countries which are utterly dependent on sugar production?

Yes, indeed. We have just entered into the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. We cannot do anything about it before 1971, but we have to have these long-term agreements with the Commonwealth if we are to get the things that we require.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the increase in the price of potatoes during the first week in June; and what replies he has sent.

Four hon. Members have written on behalf of constituents, one of them representing a fish frier's organisation. In addition, officials have dealt with eight written communications; of these, two were from fish friers' organisations, one from a wholesale potato merchant and the others from members of the general public.

The replies have said that immediately after the spring bank holiday markets tended to be under-supplied and this led to a sharp rise in price. They have explained the main reasons for the under-supply; that the very high prices were short lived; and that by the end of the first week in June farm-gate prices had fallen substantially as adequate supplies of old potatoes were available to meet the limited demand.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that sharp increases in price occurred during that week and were extremely disconcerting to the housewife? Is it not possible so to improve our marketing techniques that these very sharp increases in price do not occur?

Indeed. We do not like them any more than anybody else. In the week in question there were difficulties because we had a short working week following the bank holiday. There was certainly a diversion of farm labour to cultivation because of the wet spring. It should also be added that the Potato Marketing Board, in consultation with our officials, took prompt action to release most of the reserve stocks for human consumption.

asked the Lord President of the Council if, in view of the tax imposed on pet foods, he will arrange for doggy bags to be provided in all the refreshment rooms of the House of Commons as is done in restaurants in the United States of America, so that hon. Members and members of the staff and the Press may, if they wish, take away scraps to feed their pets.

I have been asked to reply. No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the main object of the Question was to suggest that the House might give a lead to cafés and restaurants outside, to encourage them to help old-age pensioners and others living on small incomes who have been hard hit by the purchase tax on pet food? Will he, perhaps, reconsider his decision?

My principal occupation at the moment is trying to improve the service and food to Members and their guests. When I have done that, I will consider the other possibilities.

Will the hon. Gentleman make certain that the food in the Refreshment Department is maintained at such a standard that it will be acceptable to dogs?

I have understood over the last week or two, at least from what I have heard from hon. Members, that there has been a considerable improvement. I have nothing further to say at the moment.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now announce his plans for improvements in catering services in the Members' Snack Bar.

I have been asked to reply.

During the coming Summer Recess improvements are being made to the kitchen and servery of the Members' and Strangers' Cafeterias. It is hoped that this will result in improved service and quality of food.

I am delighted to hear that, but is my hon. Friend aware that, whilst we sympathise with him in the problems he doubtless has, many Members are at the moment rather ashamed when they have to take guests into the Snack Bar? Is he aware that charges at the Snack Bar are often very much higher than they are in commercial establishments outside the House, and when he is making improvements will he make sure that there are not price increases?

I do not think my hon. Friend is quite accurate on the question of prices, but be that as it may, we are reviewing at the present time the whole problem of prices and the quality of food and service, and I am sure that by October, when the House comes back, there will be a great improvement.

When the arrangements have been completed, will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear how many guests a Member may take into that Room? Quite recently one hon. Member had four guests there, precluding other hon. Members. It would be helpful to know what the arrangements are.

We are in process of reissuing the rules and regulations with regard to the Dining Rooms and Cafeterias, and it is hoped that they will be published before the House comes back after the Recess.

asked the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has to improve facilities for Members of Parliament inside the Palace of Westminster.

The Services Committee is urgently considering a number of suggestions for improved facilities for Members. I hope that we shall report to the House before the Summer Recess.

With all the respect and friendship that I can muster for my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is not aware that I was asking not what the Services Committee intends to do but what proposals he has? Surely he will remember many things which he wanted to do as a beck bencher and which he now has the power to do.

My hon. Friend is right. I am Chairman of the Committee appointed by the House, and my hon. Friend is partly responsible in that sense. I must carry the Services Committee with me. We are considering this matter, and I will do all I can in it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that all I want is a selection of appropriate envelopes and paper, which has been available to hon. Members for the 32 years I have been here, delivered to Ashworth's, where I dictate my letters, and not to be told that I have to cart my own paper up there all round the Palace of Westminster? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be a good idea to consider whether the Services Committee gets the support that it should from the Government?

I know that the hon. Member wants to do many things. I am always anxious to help her. This is only one item. The Services Committee is considering the wider matter. I am quite sympathetic to what the hon. Lady wants.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that Members of the House representing Greater London constituencies can telephone their constituencies free of charge while those who represent more distant constituencies cannot? Would he not agree that this is an anomaly which should be ended at the earliest possible moment?

I am aware of this, and, as I have said, we are looking at these things very carefully. I have taken the initiative on this, and so has the Services Committee, and we are discussing it.

May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that, in the hope of assisting him in his efforts to carry the Services Committee with him, a Motion has been placed on the Paper today, with the signatures of 120 Members of all parties, calling for improvements in the services available to Members to assist them in doing their work?

I am aware of this. I have been a Member of the House for a quarter of a century now and I am aware of the needs of hon. Members. Members of all parties on the Services Committee are carefully examining the evidence and will come to conclusions. I beg hon. Members to have confidence in those hon. Members.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will extend to Members the provision of Government cars and other facilities made available to take the staff of the House to their homes when the House sits late.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will review the transport provisions for Members who are required to attend the House after midnight.

I will certainly bear this suggestion in mind, but there would be a greatly different scale of operation and costs involved in providing such facilities for Members. The facilities for late night staff cater for only about 35 persons on average, leaving on four or five routes to a constant pattern.

But is my right hon. Friend not aware that hon. Members who lack their own private transport are at very serious disadvantage when the public transport ceases in London after midnight, and will he not look at the matter again? Would he not agree with me that the basic requirement is to ensure that hon. Members receive treatment no less adequate than that extended to the staff—in the Catering Department, the Library or the OFFICIAL REPORT?

I know my hon. Friend feels deeply about this, quite rightly. I understand the point, but there are difficulties here. I will look at this again, but there are difficulties.

I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware of the considerable expense to which hon. Members are put by having to return home by taxi after midnight, but is he also aware that they are precluded from claiming this expense against tax? Would he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see to it that this is allowable for tax purposes? I regard this as an absurd anomaly.

My hon. Friend must realise that that is a different matter, but I will look at the whole question of amenities for hon. Members. I am not unsympathetic.

asked the Lord President of the Council what proportion of Members, excluding Ministers, now have the sole use of an office in the Palace of Westminster.

Seventy-eight Members, excluding Ministers, have single rooms in the precincts; that is, about 15 per cent. of the membership of the House, excluding Ministers.

Does not the Minister agree that these facilities are not primarily for the comfort and convenience of hon. Members but for the efficient discharge of their duties as Members of Parliament? Will he say when the hon. Members who require these facilities will be able to take them up?

That is why not long ago we had a major debate on the new building which would solve this problem. I accept what the hon. Member has said, but this was the situation long before I was Leader of the House.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that high priority should be given to the provision of a separate room for the Chairman of each Select Committee of the House, and that this is much more important than providing separate rooms for back benchers who have no responsibility?

I accept that. I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. Representations have been made to me, but I have to balance the priorities.

Will the Leader of the House bear in mind another point of view, that putting every hon. Member into a separate room may undermine the real influence of Parliament, end the community spirit and weaken the exchange of ideas between Members? I see no proof that putting people into little holes will improve the services which Members give.

Speaking purely for myself, I think that the hon. Member is wrong. I would hope that when we improve accommodation, and this depends on the new building which is a long time away, this will help hon. Members who so wish to have an individual room. Much as I like the hon. Member, I should hate to work with him.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will propose a Standing Order to provide time for debate on reports of select committees of the House, within 40 Parliamentary days of their publication.

No, Sir. But I will continue to do what I can to ensure that a reasonable proportion of the available Parliamentary time is allotted to debates on such reports.

Will the Lord President recognise that Members of all parties do a great deal of work on these Committees, and that, while in many cases the Government may be quite right in resisting their recommendations, at least the House should know why and do some progress chasing?

That may be so, but my hon. Friend must realise that, including Special Reports, there were 55 Reports from Select Committees last Session, and there have been 31 so far this. I cannot arrange 31 full days. I try to adjust priorities.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the position of the Select Committee on Agriculture, which reported a long time ago? Is he aware that the Ministry of Agriculture, having got its way by getting the Government to wind up the Committee, has now not even had the courtesy to reply?

The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) should not make remarks like that. He knows full well that I have great sympathy with what was done in that Committee, but it was appointed for an experimental period, and he must await decisions.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to appoint a Select Committee on Defence, in view of the recommendation by the Select Committee on Science and Technology.

I have carefully noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. I do not, however, anticipate any further new Specialist Select Committees this Session.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there are many issues of an extremely complex nature facing this country, such as the dumping of chemical weapons in the sea, multi-rôle combat aircraft, which simply do not lend themselves to Question and Answer, or, indeed, to verbose debate? They are very definitely matters which affect this country, and would be properly dealt with by a Select Committee.

I am aware of this, but I cannot go beyond what I have said.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the original supplementary question mean that he does not rule out the possibility of such arrangements next Session?

I have already said that we must wait to see how these Committees work out. I have always been in favour of this kind of approach. I have never been opposed to the idea. I am not a reactionary on this, but I think we should be sensible and wait to see how this form of Committee develops, and then we will come to a decision, which we must report to the House, and it will be for Parliament, in the end, to decide.

asked the Lord President of the Council in view of the fact that certain booking offices of British Railways have been instructed not to issue tickets against Parliamentary travel warrants, and that this involves some hon. Members in double booking at extra inconvenience and difficulty, if he will discuss this matter with British Railways with a view to finding a solution.

At certain branch line stations, as a measure of economy, full ticket issuing facilities have been withdrawn, because of lack of demand. This means that warrants cannot be exchanged for main line tickets at the stations. At the particular station used by the hon. Member, this new system was wrongly applied, due to a misunderstanding, but there should be no further difficulty in exchanging his warrants.

I will see what can be done to help Members generally.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for the vigour and energy with which he has pursued this matter and hope that the message has got down the wires to the booking clerks? But could he make further representations to British Railways on this, that it should accept warrants, as it ought to do, or accept warrants in lieu of tickets on the train, and stop this absurd double booking nonsense, which is highly inconvenient?

I thought I gave a sympathetic reply. I will do what I can on this.

asked the Lord President of the Council on what criteria he proposes the appointment of specialist committees of the House of Commons.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 2nd April.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation with regard to specialist committees is quite unsatisfactory, that there are areas of interest to many hon. Members which are inadequately debated, such as foreign affairs and defence, and for which there ought to be Committees? Ought not the whole matter to be looked at again when, clearly, there are no clear criteria for appointing Committees, and when we do appoint them we do not have time, apparently, according to my right hon. Friend, to discuss their findings?