asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from representatives of the meat trade concerning the consequences of his policy of introducing levies on imports of meat.

The Government's levy proposals for meat were discussed with a wide range of trade organisations, and we received representations on many different points.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern in the meat trade that consumers' patterns of purchasing will be seriously altered, to the detriment of that trade, following the introduction of the levies? Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the statement by Sir John Winnifrith yesterday that on our entry to the E.E.C., beef will become an occasional luxury? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that assessment?

I have not seen Sir John's statement of yesterday, but I see no reason why the patterns of consumption in this country should vary greatly. They do not in the Common Market, where prices are higher.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the changes involved in the Question will lead to a higher level of home-produced beef?

Yes, Sir. I think that this is very important. All the indications are that farmers are keeping a much larger percentage of calves than a few years ago, and this should enable the beef herd to expand very considerably.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of a joint of beef for the average family has gone up by about 75p during the last 12 months and that this is having an effect upon the pattern of demand? Could he tell the House by how much the levies will increase the cost of beef to the family?

The levies on beef will not increase the cost to the family at all, because they will come into operation only at a considerably lower level than the current market price. I agree that the price of beef has risen very considerably over the last year. This is because of a world shortage of beef and not producing enough at home. Supplies next year will be better, and I think that in two or three years' time supplies will be very good indeed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how United Kingdom farmers will now be recouped for annual cost increases in the event of United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community following the conclusion of negotiations.

I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 20th April.—[Vol. 815, c. 365.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern, at least on this side of the House, about the low level of farm wages in this country compared with other incomes? What remedy can the hon. Gentleman suggest if we are to adopt an agricultural policy which keeps farm prices unchanged for periods of up to four years or more while they are eroded by rising costs, which leads to a reduction in real net farming incomes?

It is difficult to give an accurate comparison of the recoupment in the E.E.C. Because of the different system there, precise comparisons are difficult. Prices in the Community were increased in 1971–72, and an increase is proposed again in 1972–73. I read with the greatest interest the hon. Gentleman's tract on agriculture, which I regard as extremely good advocacy for the value of home farming. However, when the hon. Gentleman says in it that it is small wonder that farmers in the E.E.C. should have demonstrated earlier this year, I could not but recall that in 1970 Whitehall Place was besieged and that a little earlier an effigy of the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) was burned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress made in the negotiations to secure a modification of the Common Fisheries Policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the latest stage of negotiations with the European Economic Community upon fisheries policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the most recent negotiations with the European Economic Community on the fisheries policy.

I have nothing to add at this stage to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 14th July.—[Vol. 821, c. 493–9.]

In view of the reaction of the European Economic Community to the Government's original proposals, based on retaining the six-mile limit, and the subsequent alternative put forward by the Government—retaining the present position until we enter the Community—may we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, first, that in no circumstances will the Government agree to watering down the original six-mile proposals, in respect of which they have already conceded a great deal, and, secondly, that we shall have a positive decision on this matter before the crucial vote in October?

As my right hon. and learned Friend said the other day, the important thing is to get the right decision. In respect of our own position, we believe that the 0–6 mile proposal is the correct one. When the hon. Member says that we have given away a lot in that, he is not correct.

Since the Minister represents a famous fishing port, as I do, why cannot he give the House a clear pledge that he will stand firm against any flag discrimination in the 6–12 mile belt? If he can give that assurance, will he assure the House that he will publish a White Paper after the September negotiations, telling us exactly what the issues are and what has happened?

If a decision is reached in the September negotiations, I shall certainly consider what will be the best way to inform hon. Members, because the House will be in recess at the time. Certainly, I shall consider what can be done in those circumstances. As for flag discrimination, our whole position rests on the fact that all countries—applicants as well as those which at present belong—should be treated alike.

Is the Minister aware that the main anxiety about his proposals regarding the 6–12 mile limit is that there will be overfishing in that area, and that although he proposes to retain national jurisdiction over the regulation of fishing in that area he has not yet made any specific proposals for protection and conservation? Will he be publishing detailed proposals, for example, regarding the size of mesh and the type of fishing to be permitted, prior to the House being asked to take a decision?

It is much too early to think in those terms, because we have not yet reached agreement on what the future limit should be. When that has been done, it will be time to consider what conservation methods are necessary.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that where there is a necessity for preservation against overfishing, it is traditional for every country to give preference to those who have habitually derived their income from that course, and that that is not special pleading but is a general principle that applies in international law, whether in Iceland or South Devon?

My hon. Friend knows that because we were unable to reach agreement last week we have suggested that for the moment the status quo should remain. When we have fresh negotiations in September, points such as those put forward by my hon. Friend will be taken into consideration.

Although it may not be possible for the Minister to go into details in advance of the Luxembourg meeting in September, can he assure the House now that in the event of our entering the E.E.C. the Government will not settle for anything less than parity of treatment for the British fishing industry?

Certainly, the distant-water industry would feel very aggrieved if a settlement were made which precluded its fishing in certain waters but allowed other countries to fish in our waters. That is one of the issues that must be sorted out.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conversations his officials have had with the Hop Marketing Board about the draft regulations on hops submitted by the European Commission to the Council of Ministers.

In addition to frequent informal contacts, my Department's officials have had a joint meeting on this subject with representatives of the Hops Marketing Board and the National Farmers' Union.

That must be very recently, because the hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Hops Marketing Board told me three weeks ago that it had not had any contacts. As his right hon. Friend has just quoted the Brewers Society with approval, does he know that that Society said a few months ago that the effect of these proposals of the E.E.C. will mean the end of British beer as we know it? [HON. MEMBERS : "Rubbish !"] Those are not my words. The Brewers Society said it. Does the hon. Gentleman also know that if we went over to seedless hops, it would be at least three years before any could be produced in this country and that we would have to rely on lager-type hops from Germany in the meantime——

Order. That is three statements and two questions. The Minister may now reply.

The hon. Member is right : the meeting has been recent. Second, I am aware of the trials which are being done by the marketing board. The trouble is that a male hop is extremely persistent and takes about four years to get rid of, which is rather like the hon. Gentleman.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Worcestershire is a premier hop-growing county——

Rubbish.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Hops Marketing Board is the oldest, the most efficient and the most efficacious of all our marketing boards, and that we would take very unkindly to any change in its arrangements consequential upon entry into the E.E.C.?

I would merely say again that one has only to look at my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to realise that he lives in a major hop-producing area, whereas I noticed the other day that the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) is regarded not as a great beer drinker but as one who prefers dry martinis.

Would my hon. Friend rebut the terrible untruth that we have just heard about Worcestershire beer? Whoever heard of Worcestershire beer? As is well known, all hops come from Kent. Would my hon. Friend seriously consider this most important problem, since horticulturists are about to have a difficult time, as is generally recognised, and the Hops Marketing Board is of considerable importance in maintaining the stability of horticulture as a whole?

Without wishing to be drawn into the controversy as to which is the premier hop-producing county, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Hops Marketing Board's trials are being undertaken to see whether seedless hops can be used. The prospects are optimistic.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the provisions of the Treaty of Rome relating to Government subsidies on the cost of fuel to horticulturists.

Articles 92–94 of the Treaty of Rome set out the rules governing aids granted by Member States. There are no provisions relating specifically to subsidies on fuel costs incurred by horticulturists.

Is the Minister aware that there is a widespread belief in the glasshouse industry that its competitors, notably the Dutch, enjoy the benefits of lower fuel costs, due partly to hidden Government subsidy? Will my hon. Friend investigate this? Will he ensure if we join the E.E.C. that our growers are not placed in a less favourable position in regard to fuel costs than their European competitors?

The Dutch have withdrawn their interest-free loans towards purchases of fuel oil for heating glasshouses and the 75 per cent. rebate on fuel oil tax. I certainly subscribe to the second point raised by my hon. Friend in that supplementary question.

Never mind the E.E.C. Does the Department realise that many food growers in Central Scotland want to know what will be done for them here and now?

That is a matter for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts have been made during the European Economic Community entry negotiations to get wool reclassified as an agricultral product.

None, Sir.

That is a shocking Answer. Does it not mean that wool is classified as an industrial product and that there will be a marked fall in returns to the sheep industry?

No, not necessarily, because the members of the E.E.C. aid wool in other ways—for example, by large quality bonuses.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate discussions with the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community in order to establish European Produce Marketing Boards with similar powers as those in the United Kingdom.

It would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to take such action.

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that as far as he knows the existing marketing boards will be able to continue when we join the E.E.C.? If that is so, will it not be a logical progression for the E.E.C. to adopt our system of marketing boards, which has proved so very successful over past years?

I have said, and so has my right hon. Friend, on numerous occasions, that we see no reason why the marketing boards should not continue. Whether other countries will wish to adopt these boards, or whether, as was suggested at a London colloquium in April, there should be a European marketing board, seems to be a matter on which there would need to be a great deal of discussion.

Will the Minister be prepared to look sympathetically on any proposals made by the National Farmers Union in the United Kingdom for the extension of producer marketing boards to commodities to which they do not already apply?

We have told the National Farmers Union that we are prepared to consider any proposals it wishes to put forward to us on the subject of marketing.

Bearing in mind that if we join the Common Market it will be considered a home market, will my hon. Friend look at the possibility of giving the Potato Marketing Board power over the distribution of those potatoes hitherto regarding as imports but which will then come in the home market?

It is a point that I am perfectly ready to consider.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will specify the commodities of particular interest to British farmers which are fully guaranteed under the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Community.

There are arrangements to maintain market prices for cereals, milk products, sugar, beef and veal, pigmeat, oilseed rape, some fruit and vegetables, and eggs and poultry, but the levels of market support vary for the different products, and there is no support buying for eggs and poultry.

As the information my right hon. Friend has just given is of some significance to a great many farmers, can he not take further steps to see that that information is more widely disseminated?

I will do all I can. When farmers realise that there are intervention prices at a high level for many of the products I have mentioned, they will realise that they have a very beneficial degree of security.

Is the Minister aware that the 8 per cent. figure given by the Government in the White Paper as the likely additional expansion of home agriculture as a result of higher food prices compares unfavourably with the figure in the previous White Paper? Does that mean that President Pompidou's interpretation of what the Government have negotiated for agriculture is nearer the truth than what the hon. Gentleman has been claiming outside?

The figure in the previous White Paper was 3 per cent. to 10 per cent., and that is a pretty wide variation. We have given a specific figure of 8 per cent. I personally believe that the farming industry, because of renewed confidence resulting from what we have done, will do considerably better than that.

As my right hon. Friend has mentioned sugar, can he confirm the statement or prediction made by the President of the National Farmers Union that our sugar beet growers will have 60 per cent. of the market, and not 30 per cent.?

After 1974 a new sugar agreement has to come into operation, and at that time this country, along with other countries in the Community, will have an opportunity of deciding how much extra sugar they can grow, but I would not at this time want to be drawn on an actual figure.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has studied the estimate of the ratio between selective employment tax and overheads of retail and wholesale food distributors made by the National Grocers' Federation, a copy of which has been sent to him ; and what percentage reduction in food prices he now anticipates from the reduction in selective employment tax.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what analysis he has made of the effect of the reduction in selective employment tax on retail food prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the prices of basic foodstuffs have now been reduced as a result of the reduction in selective employment tax.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many food prices have now been reduced since selective employment tax was halved ; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the halving of the selective employment tax has now reduced food prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much per cent. the cut in selective employment tax has reduced food prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the impact of the cut in selective employment tax on retail food prices.

I have noted the comments of the National Grocers' Federation to which the hon. Gentleman drew my attention. While it is not possible to estimate precisely the effect on food prices of the reduction in selective employment tax, I have been pleased by the response of the many food traders who have made selective price reductions to pass on the savings to the customers.

Why is it that the Secretary of State for the Environment can make an estimate of between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. for the building trade but the Minister of Agriculture cannot make any estimate for the food trade? Is he aware that the Grocers' Federation says that the cut will mean only ½ per cent. off food prices? When S.E.T. was introduced some places, including motorway cafés and restaurants, made a specific increase of 7½ per cent. Is the Minister going to do nothing about this?

As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out in the House last week, Mr. Reeves Smith's various statements are by no means consistent. I do not think that further comment on them is necessary from me.

Cannot the Minister stop giving these joke answers? Does not he recognise that the removal of S.E.T. to the extent that the Government have done it has had virtually no impact at all on retail food prices, and that it has been the non-event of the political year? If he wants to tackle inflation, does not he realise that he will have to get a grip on food prices? What is he going to do about it?

I shall give the hon. Member anything but a joke answer now. The halving of selective employment tax and the reductions in purchase tax, together—[HON. MEMBERS : "Ah!"]—are certainly measures which this Government have taken, whereas the previous Government did nothing but put up taxes.

Is the Minister aware that the old saying that what goes up must come down does not apply to food prices? Does not he realise that the reduction of S.E.T. has meant no reduction in the price of bacon, butter—indeed, the price of butter has gone up—cheese, eggs and other basic foodstuffs? Is it not time the country realised that what has happened is that the Government sprung a diabolical confidence trick on the retail housewives? Is the Minister going to do something about it?

The hon. Member's question shows his complete lack of knowledge of the subject. He would do much better to study the facts before asking such a stupid question.

I checked up today.

Is not this a rather ill-informed and ignorant question? Is it not a fact that the Grocers' Federation has only 6,000 members, does not represent wholesale grocers, and has no access to the figures presented by wholesale grocers? The hon. Member has got the wrong federation altogether. Can the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) tell us what he means by "retail housewives'?

As my hon. Friend knows, a large number of shops have made many worth-while reductions.

Why does not the Minister admit that most traders—particularly the large ones—were swift to impose price increases when S.E.T. was introduced but were very slow to make price reductions when S.E.T. was halved, thereby observing the injunction of the Government to stand on their own two feet? Will the Minister institute an inquiry into the relationship between prices and taxes?

No, Sir. The hon. Member is not being fair to food retailers, many of whom reduced their prices before S.E.T. was reduced.

Is it not a fact that when this tax was imposed the Labour Government's Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that there would be no increase in prices as a result, and hon. Members opposite accepted that? If that is the case and there was no increase in prices as a result of the imposition of S.E.T., how can hon. Members opposite logically expect prices to be reduced now, because the tax has been reduced?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Opposition can turn anything on its head.

Is the Minister aware that the cut in S.E.T. has done nothing for the eight million old-age pensioners who spend more than half their total income on food? Since he is beginning to brag about purchase tax reductions, would he now accept that the pensioners will get nothing out of that either? Does he not realise that the only people who have benefited from the cut in S.E.T. are the C.B.I. and the food manufacturers, who should have been directed to put the £300 million into reducing food prices and not into their own pockets?

The hon. Member has his facts wrong about old-age pensioners. As regards food manufacturers, I understand that the Executive Committee of the Food Manufacturers Federation has this morning agreed to recommend its members to accept the C.B.I.'s undertaking. The Brewers Society has also recommended its members to do the same. This means that we can look forward next year, I hope, to a better record.

May we have it firmly recorded that where world food prices have risen by 12 per cent. in the last year or two, largely through reasons of climate, they are likely next year to come down again?

I should like to think that world food prices would come down next year, but I will not speculate on that. All I know is that the increases in the prices of food at the moment are due, by between a third and a half, to increases in world prices and the rest to general inflation.

Would not the Minister agree that on any objective assessment, the effect of the cut in S.E.T. on food prices has been extremely disappointing? Although there have been individual cuts, which the Minister has quoted to his advantage, broadly the reduction has not been passed on to the consumer. Would he not, therefore, call a meeting of the retail organisations to make sure that the cuts which the Government have made are passed on to the housewife?

No, I think that the cuts are being passed on to the housewife. [HON. MEMBERS : "Nonsense."] A number of leading food manufacturers and retailers have this morning announced their intention of passing on to consumers the benefits of purchase tax reductions. Indeed, some have already taken action. This is one of the best things that can happen.

Has my right hon. Friend had drawn to his attention the Financial Times grocery price index, which shows an unexpected fall, it says, in prices this month, in respect of dry groceries, canned food, fish meat, bacon, fruit and vegetables? Does not this reflect the cut in S.E.T.?

All these things are helping now. It ill becomes hon. Members opposite to complain, when we cut S.E.T. and purchase tax in the way that we have, that this is having no effect on prices. They know perfectly well that it will have an effect.

Can the Minister clarify whether he really believes that the cuts are being passed on to the housewife? In that event, why cannot he give an estimate of the number of new pence in the pound for the shopping family basket as a whole by which prices have come down? Alternatively, does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Gilling-ham (Mr. Burden), who implied that there was not much to be had from the cuts anyway?

I said that that was what the Labour Party had said—that there had been no increase.

These cuts are being passed on. If hon. Members will take the trouble to walk down any High Street, they will find what is happening.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage increase in food prices that has now taken place since 18th July, 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a further statement on the increase in retail prices for food during the 12 months ended 18th June, 1971, or the nearest convenient date.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what movement there was in retail food prices as shown by the Food Index for the period 18th May to 22nd June, 1971.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the Food Index has risen from June, 1970, to the latest available date.

I would refer hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and others on 29th June ; no later figure is yet available.—[Vol. 820, c. 193–4.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to examine the statement of the Secretary of State for Social Services last Thursday that, of the pension increase of £1 in September, 74 per cent. had been absorbed by rising prices? As food is the predominant item of a pensioner's expenditure, when will he get rid of this complacency towards increases in food prices and introduce concrete proposals to stop manufacturers putting S.E.T. cuts in their pockets?

There is no complacency on this subject. I hope that after the C.B.I. initiative and the Government's action yesterday, hon. Members opposite will join in trying to restrain wage increases, which constitute one of the major factors in food price inflation.

Other than minuscule price reductions on those articles of food which attract purchase tax—such as confectionery, soft drinks, pet foods and ice cream, which are not basic foodstuffs—what was there in the mini-Budget yesterday which could halt these catastrophic increases in the price of basic foodstuffs?

In fact there was a great deal. If one can bring under control all those costs which go into the food manufacturing industry, there is a good chance that it can keep its prices stable.

In view of the fact that the figure for the food index on 22nd June, when it is published, will show a rise in retail food prices over the 12 months since June, 1970, of about 12 per cent., and since the Food Manufacturers Federation has said that it cannot keep to the 5 per cent. ceiling on price increases asked for by the C.B.I., on what will the Minister rely during the next 12 months to ensure that we do not get the sort of retail food price increases that we have had during the last 12 months?

The hon. Gentleman could not have heard me say that the executive committee of the Food Manufacturers Federation has this morning agreed to recommend its members to accept the C.B.I.'s undertaking.

Will the Minister answer the question? These food price increases are bearing particularly heavily on the less-well-off people, and the Minister is responsible. Will he now say what specific action he intends to take about this during the next 12 months and, incidentally, will he give a forecast of the likely increase in food prices in the coming 12 months?

I will not give a forecast of food price increases in the next 12 months. All the efforts of the Government are designed to reduce the increases in the price of food, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, whose Government were responsible for putting up prices by taxation.

Is it not a fact that shop assistants, who are among the lowest paid sections of the communitly, have rightly been given wage increases and, I am happy to say, are to receive equal pay? I am sure that the whole House will endorse that. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that this means increased costs for shop owners?

That is true—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are only too prepared to cheer increases in costs, but they are quick to get on to me when prices go up.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase of 12 per cent. in the cost of food over the last 12 months is causing the most acute hardship to a large section of the community? Would he say precisely what recommendations the Food Manufacturers Federation has accepted? Has it made any reservations in what it has said? Would he be a little more forthcoming on this issue?

The Food Manufacturers Federation has accepted the C.B.I.'s undertaking, which refers to an increase of 5 per cent. over the next 12 months. The C.B.I.'s document is long. It is available to hon. Members, but if the right hon. Gentlemen would like me to do so, I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates are in his possession of the change between the first quarter of 1971 and the second quarter of 1971 in international food prices ; and what estimate he has made of the effect that this is likely to have on United Kingdom food prices.

Detailed information about international food prices is not yet available for the second quarter of 1971, but there were during that period significant increases in the prices of certain commodities which we buy from overseas, and these are bound to have some effect on retail prices.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that by far the most important factor affecting the rise in United Kingdom food prices is the level of international food prices? Since, in the nature of things, these are outside the control of any Government in Britain, Labour or Conservative, is it not intellectually dishonest for any hon. Member to ascribe the blame for rises in food prices to any particular Government in this country?

Between one-third and one-half of the increases in food prices have been due to increases in world prices. It may be of interest to hon. Members to know that in the period 1964 to 1970 export prices of the primary producers throughout the world fell by 1·9 per cent. In the short period from the first half of 1970 to the first quarter of 1971 they rose by no less than 7·4 per cent.

The Minister said earlier that between one-third and one-half of the increases in food prices were due to increases in international commodity prices. How does he arrive at that estimate? Will he tell us more about it? How does he apply this to retail food prices, including packaged goods, which form the bulk of consumers' purchases, in seeking to apply the figures to the whole range of retail food products?

If the hon. Gentleman wants a detailed reply to all those points, he should table a Question, and I will do my best to answer it. Broadly speaking, if one takes the increases in world prices of commodities, such as butter, beef, cereals and so on over the last year, one can see how the components are made up.

Does not this clearly show to the House and the country how important it is to have increased home production in agriculture? If in the last five or six years production had increased, we should not now be so dependent on overseas supplies.

That is quite true, and I am glad to say that agriculture is now responding with increased confidence. I am certain that production will go up considerably.

In so far as the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, in replying to earlier Questions, that there have been rises, particularly in meat prices, and that old-age pensioners have been particularly hit by these increases, may I ask him to have discussions with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services with a view to seeing that a further and immediate increase is given to old-age pensioners so that their pension is capable of absorbing the rises in the price of food stuffs which are so essential to them?

That is not a question for me, but I am, of course, in constant touch with my right hon. Friend. I recognise, as the House recognises, that this is a serious matter for all sections of society, and in particular for old-age pensioners. Because of increases in world prices we are going through a very difficult period. I hope very much—I cannot be more confident than this—that we are just about at the peak.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy for reform of the land drainage system.

I am ready to consider any specific problems that the hon. Member may have in mind.

Would the Minister agree that just as rain falls on the high ground as well as on the low ground, and on the just and on the unjust, so the burden of drainage rates should be spread evenly to cover all freeholds in a local authority area?

I recognise that there is a problem with upland water. Indeed, I have great trouble coping with my neighbour's water. However, if a drainage board gets a lot of upland water, it can apply to the river authority for a contribution towards its expenses, and if the river authority refuses, it can appeal to my right hon. Friend.

Will my hon. Friend always bear in mind that if we depart from the principle of those who benefit paying the rates, we shall be in serious trouble? Will he also bear in mind that the recommendation of the Central Advisory Water Committee, particularly in referring to multi-purpose authorities, is not necessarily a recommendation which would commend itself to those of us who know a lot about land drainage?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what practical steps he will take to increase and to encourage the consumption of lamb and mutton, in view of the advantages to British agriculture of a large sheep population.

The Government have already taken practical steps, by giving substantial encouragement to increased supplies from home production. It is for producers and the trade to help consumers to appreciate the merits of their products.

Is not this a very serious matter for the housewife, particularly as mutton and lamb is reasonably priced? It is also very serious for British agriculture. Will my hon. Friend therefore do all he can to interest the consumer in mutton and lamb, so that the sheep population may increase?

It is highly important for the good husbandry of the country to get more sheep on the land again. The efforts made by the Welsh and Scottish quality lamb associations are going on the right lines on consumption. I will undertake to do all we reasonably can to draw attention to the fact that lamb is, in my view, delicious, and a jolly good buy.

Can the Minister say whether the mid-year returns indicate what sort of response there has been from the sheep rearers to the changes in the Price Review?

The hon. Gentleman may perhaps have noticed that at the opening lamb sale in the borders of Scotland last Thursday the average price was up by £1.70, and I am glad to say that mine was up by £2.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to encourage the sheep and lamb population is by seeing that there are more flocks in the hills—by encouraging hill farming, and getting more sheep up there?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is not drifting into what I thought was the wrong thinking of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes). It is no good having sheep only on the hills : there must be a good outlet for them on the low ground.