asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce his decision on the negotiations on the 1976 sugar beet contract which has been referred to him.

Perhaps I should preface my answer by saying that my right hon. Friend is sorry for his absence, but he is attending the very important stock-taking meeting of agricultural Ministers in Luxembourg.

Although this is welcome news, is the Minister aware that this contract was accepted by only a narrow margin among farmers, largely due to the fact that part of the extra award to them, the £1 per ton that they were given on the guaranteed price, has been pre-empted in the sense that the first £1 increase from any further devaluation of the green pound or the next price review will go to the British Sugar Corporation and not to the fanners?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman himself will recognise that the price of sugar beet has been increased enormously over the last two years. It is true that the adjustment to the green pound made it easier for agreement to be reached, but agreement has been reached, and I think that we can look forward to an expansion in the sugar beet acreage next year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present level of butter production in the United Kingdom.

In the first eight months of this year, the latest period for which figures are available, United Kingdom production of butter was 35,323 tonnes.

How can the Government expect people to "buy British" when the Minister of Agriculture has done his best to ensure that there is very little of this country's fresh butter for the housewife to buy? Is it not a remarkable achievement on the part of the Government that this country, which is so rich in dairy resources, produced virtually no butter whatsoever in September, very little in October, and throughout the whole of year will produce only 6 per cent. of our total consumption? What steps will the Minister now take to restore the fortunes of our dairy industry?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the industry decides the allocation of milk for different purposes, and he will know that butter is not the most profitable of the outlets. The decline is due not simply to the fall in milk production but to more milk being used for liquid consumption and for cheese and for other products. My right hon. Friend has made a very substantial increase in the guaranteed price to the industry.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that that aid for the private storage of butter is being paid out of public funds in this country, and that as a result some thousands of tons of butter are now kept in storage away from the consumer?

I am unable to confirm that allegation. What I will say is that butter has not been one of the priority manufactures of milk products for some years, and we are producing more cheese now than ever before.

Is the Minister aware that many dairy producers in this country believe that they have lost the butter market to their counterparts within Europe? Will not the Minister agree that the dairy producers in this country need another 5p or 6p per gallon to cover their costs of production?

The hon. Member should realise that since we have been in power the guaranteed price of milk has gone from 26·27p per gallon to a level of over 40p per gallon now, an increase of 52 per cent. I feel sure that this will give encouragement to our dairy producers.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that once a farmer has gone out of milk production and is no longer, together with his employees, working a seven-day week, it will take more than a small adjustment in the price of milk to get him back again? Does not the Minister yet realise that the country simply cannot afford the foreign exchange to import the butter now being imported because milk production has dropped so catastrophically?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware, and the House should be aware, remembering the depressed state of the industry two years ago, that my right hon. Friend has probably done more for the dairy industry than has been done for any other group in our national economy. I feel sure that the action he has taken will help to restore the confidence which is necessary for increased production, as indicated in our White Paper.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the margins of error in the International Whaling Commission estimates of: (a) sperm whale populations in the Southern Hemisphere, and (b) sperm whale populations in the North Pacific; what are the margins of error in the International Whaling Commission's estimates of recruitment rates of these two populations; and what are the margins of error in the IWC's estimates of maximum sustainable yield and in the IWC's quotas for these two populations.

This is an extremely complex and technical matter and it would be more appropriate for me to write to the honourable Member at a later stage. Sperm whale data and population calculations are to be studied at a special meeting of the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission early next year.

Is the Minister aware that Opposition Members wish to preserve what is best in the world? Therefore, will he see to it that Britain sets an example to other countries by promoting mammal welfare and by outlawing those who overhunt the whale and put it in danger of extinction?

The Government are represented at the International Whaling Commission. This is an organisation that covers most of the major nations concerned with whaling matters. This country has not been engaged in whaling since 1963. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting a moratorium on all whaling, we believe that that is unwarranted, because the Whaling Commission has adopted an effective management procedure to control whaling. This was a matter concerned in the so-called Australian amendment at the recent International Whaling Commission's talks in London.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in answer to a question that I asked in the European Parliament, I was told that it was against a number of regulations introduced in 1965 or 1966 for any member State to have quantitative controls on the import of whale products? Where are the current regulations restricting the import of whale products into this country in conformity with those regulations?

I said something earlier that I must emphasise. Any action taken should be with the agreement of most nations, or we shall get unregulated procedures. But since March 1973 there has been a ban on the import of all whale products except the major products of the sperm whale. Sperm whale stocks are not in danger at present. We are seeking as much as possible to find substitutes. Until then, the present situation must continue. But there is no real danger to the species that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has in mind.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the likely future size of the British fishing fleet.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend to a very similar Question by the hon. Member on 23rd October.

Since the Minister is apparently unable to make an assessment, on what assumptions did he end the operating subsidy last week? How can he reconcile allowing the British fishing industry's catching capacity to be reduced drastically as a result of the laying up of vessels with our negotiations with our EEC partners and other countries in the North Atlantic Sea Fisheries Committee about the future fishing requirements of various countries?

I have to make an apology to the House. Instead of skipping the reply to Question No. 4, I read it in reply to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). However, the Question is much the same, and I have an equally good reply for the hon. Gentleman. My original reply should have been that any such assessment would be premature if made prior to certain knowledge of the fishing opportunities open to us in the future.

It appears that at the moment the British Government have no policy for fishing. We seem to depend on other people's decisions, and the Government will not give any outline of their proposals for our fishing industry, whether it be the deep water industry or the in-shore industry. They are very important industries which depend upon our having an effective fisheries policy. When are we likely to see something of it from the Government?

Let me outline a few of the principles on which we are proceeding. The House will realise that we are negotiating with Iceland about continued access to its waters. We had conversations in London a week ago with a representative of the Norwegian Government about continued access. We have made clear our views on the 200-mile limit. We do not believe in unilateral action of the kind taken by Iceland. We want agreement at the Law of the Sea Conference. As my right hon. Friend said clearly in Brussels last April, we also want a very early reconsideration of the common fisheries policy. These are markers. We cannot anticipate what the situation will be in relation to the negotiations which are going on quite urgently about all these matters.

In view of the fact that the Government have shown their total insensitivity to the problems facing the in-shore fishing sector, will not the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for an inquiry and an analysis of the fishing industry so that those concerned with production may know where they stand, not just for months, but over the next few years?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that inquiries are all very well. We want evidence of future trends. I think that it will be agreed that we are not yet in a position, nor is the industry, to recognise—[Interruption.]

Order. There appears to be a private row in progress. It must not happen.

The industry and hon. Members on both sides of the House are not yet able to recognise the future trends. But, in the meantime, the Government have acted. Not only have we introduced capital grants to vessels by raising the moratorium imposed by the previous administration; we have introduced temporary aid, which is of great benefit to the industry.

When will the Government realise that there is a point beyond which we cannot allow the fishing opportunities to which the Minister referred to be restricted and reduced by the unilateral action of other countries? Will the Government desist from throwing away any cards that they may possess by forswearing unilateral action in advance?

It should be recognised that while we deplore unilateral action by other countries, it would be improper for us to say that this was a course that we should pursue ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the best way to get orderly conduct amongst the fishing nations is to take action with regard to 200-mile or other limits by general agreement and not by the kind of action being taken at present.

Is the Minister aware that the fishing industry is sick and tired of the kind of waffle that we are having here today? Does he not realise that the Icelandic Government are extending their limits, that the United States Government now have a Bill going through Congress to increase their limits, that the Canadians are proposing to increase their limits, and that the Norwegians wish to increase their limits? Are we to be the last country to do so?

I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should be getting so excited. The Law of the Sea Conference is due to meet next February in New York. We believe that that will be the occasion to make our views known. But we have emphasised already that we believe in going to 200-mile limits by agreement. It is to the benefit of all to have general agreement on this rather than to take unilateral action.

Does the Minister agree that it is time we had a White Paper on the fishing industry so that the Government could put all the different views into perspective and so we could see exactly on what basis they would wish the common fisheries policy to be renegotiated? If that were done, we would know what was happening and be able to give some confidence to the fishing industry, which at present has no idea where it is going.

The House has debated the fishing industry on numerous occasions of late and is well aware of the Government's views on this matter. It is difficult to define the future shape of the industry until some of the factors are known. There are indications that the matters which are now in doubt will be decided in the near future.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made for the continuation of subsidies on fishing vessels.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) on 23rd October.

Does the Minister recognise the apparent inconsistency on the part of the Government who for convenience will back-date the award to the fishermen by three weeks beyond the date on which it was agreed, but who will not back-date the award to the shareholders of Nation Life? In the light of the subsidy, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing fury among the majority of Cornish inshore fishermen, who do not enjoy the subsidy, when they see their fishing grounds constantly and consistently raped by the fishermen of Scotland who do enjoy the subsidy?

I should hesitate to get involved in the kind of argument that the hon. Gentleman has put forward. I recognise his concern. I think that he is referring to vessels under 40 ft. whose owners have not had the subsidy. In reply to that serious aspect of his question, the answer I must give is that, in deciding what subsidy to give from January until December this year we have had to have regard to helping the sector that provides between 90 per cent. and 95 per cent. of the white fish. We have helped a substantial part of the industry by doing that.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time we reviewed the whole principle involved in the giving of subsidies to the fishing industry? Let it be made quite clear that the giving of subsidies should be tied to improving working conditions in the industry, conditions which are highly dangerous and of a most deplorable kind. No subsidy should be given until the conditions of the worker are improved.

I recognise my hon. Friend's concern. There are two points to be made. First, the temporary financial aid was a quick form of help to the industry when it needed help. Secondly, the subsidy is intended to be phased out in December. The second point, about which my hon. Friend has rightly expressed concern, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. My hon. Friend will be aware of the steps taken to increase safety and to improve conditions on vessels generally. These steps have been welcomed by the industry.

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to repudiate the offensive remarks of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd)? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is riot possible for fishermen in one part of the United Kingdom to keep fishermen from another part out of their area? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! Long live the Union."]

One of my objectives in life is to keep my hon. Friends happy. I do not intend to become involved in pursuing that objective with Opposition Members. As regards a moratorium, it would be unfair at present to take any action on the matter. The subsidies that we have announced are intended to help the industry over a difficult period.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals have been made to the EEC Council of Ministers and Commission to secure a major reorganisation of the Common Agricultural Policy.

The Commission's stocktaking report provides a valuable basis for the Council to consider further changes in the common agricultural policy to supplement the improvements which have already been made over the last 18 months. As my right hon. Friend indicated to the House in the debate on 17th October, he will be pressing for measures to implement the broad approach he outlined to the Council on 28th-29th April.—[Vol. 897, c. 1719–1822.]

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that in the reorganisation the principle should be established that those who create surpluses have a major financial responsibility for their disposal? In that context, does he agree that neither the British dairy farmer nor the long-suffering British taxpayer should be disadvantaged by the existence of massive stockpiles of dried milk?

Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government believe that there should be coresponsibility with the producers for surpluses that are created. We must crack down hard on structural surpluses in the Community. At the same time, where we are efficient. it is consistent with the policy to expect us to get a bigger share of the Community market and I am confident that we shall achieve this in dairy products.

Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a grave affront to many people in Britain that we milk cows to produce butter, to turn into cattle feed, to feed back to the cows, so that they can produce more milk? At a time when on television we see starving millions in the rest of the world, should we be deliberately destroying food?

Yes. I agree with my right hon. Friend. I accept the substance of what he has said about skimmed milk powder, but I must add that there are some instances and some systems of production in which we use skimmed milk powder. That has always been so and I am sure that my hon. Friend will expect that to continue.

Is the Minister aware that we are somewhat surprised about the undue prominence at current meetings of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection? Has the Minister had an opportunity to look at the tape in the last two hours reporting what the right hon. Lady said at the meeting this morning? She said on the one hand that there was a need for a better deal for consumers, but, on the other, that there was a need to strike a balance between the security of food supplies and consumer prices. Is the Minister aware that the right hon. Lady's influence over the past year or so has largely contributed to the catastrophic decline in livestock produc- tion and therefore the food production of this country? As a consequence of the right hon. Lady's statement, will nothing be done to halt this decline?

The statement that the hon. Gentleman has attributed to my right hon. Friend puts very well the Government's policy in this area. We have to strike a balance between the consumer and the producer. That is what we are doing in milk and other commodities. We recognise that farmers have had enormous increases in costs and that is why we have put the milk price up twice in the past few months—if we include the increase which is due to take place next month.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the future of the dairy industry in Great Britain.

The Government's conclusions on the possible development of milk production over the next few years are set out in the White Paper "Food from our own Resources".

Is the Minister aware that the system of the gentleman in Whitehall who determines the milk price has now been shown to have been a failure over many years? He has always been too slow and too stingey, with the result that there has been a fall back in production. Has the Minister drawn the right conclusion—that it is time to return to a free market in milk as the only possible way to equate supply with demand?

The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is rather novel, because the industry has been well served over the past 40 years and the Milk Marketing Board has played an important rôle in the regulation of our milk supplies and so forth. The expectation of the monthly milk cheque by our farmers is one sure thing that gives them confidence. The changes in the green pound and the other measures to which I have already referred are also likely to increase confidence in the industry.

What size of national dairy herd do the Government wish to have?

I remind my hon. Friend of the objective of our White Paper, which is to increase milk production in the period up to the 1980s by about 620 million gallons. We must be judged on our policies on the longer-term prospects.

Does the Minister realise what a pathetic answer he has given? Does he not know that the milk producers regard the White Paper as a sick, palsied joke? When will he do something about it? What about the people who produce cheese and other products and who are being thrown out of work in many areas because of the Minister's policies?

If the hon. Gentleman reflects, I do not think that he will say that the answer I have given is pathetic. Soon after coming to power in February last year my right hon. Friend increased the returns for the milk industry by approximately £100 million. There have been a number of changes since then. The change that we announced in the House only a week or two ago amounted to giving another £50 million to the industry. I should not have thought that I had given by any means an inconsiderable answer. I am sure that it will instil and increase confidence in the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that his recent announcement on the milk price will enable the recent decline in production to be halted.

As my right hon. Friend indicated in his statement on 15th October, we are sure that the further increase in the guaranteed price of milk will help to meet the milk producers' difficulties.

Has any significant number of farmers facing the practical problems of recovering from disasters during the last few months expressed any view to the Government other than that their recent action is far too little and too late?

It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to sneer about it being too little and too late. It is a general comment which I identify with most Oppositions on these matters. In the four changes in the green pound since we took office, compared with no change in the green pound when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, we have recognised the needs of farmers and milk producers in relation to the needs of consumers. Having awarded another £50 million only a few weeks ago, I can hardly think that that will do nohing to inspire and restore confidence in the industry over a period.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the guaranteed price system, which was in operation for years before we entered the Common Market, would have been more advantageous to the milk producer than tagging along behind and accepting this stupid common agricultural policy into which the Tory Party took us?

I note my hon. Friend's comments on that matter. In any changes affecting milk in the Community we want to reserve those aspects that have served this country very well over the years.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has considered means other than price for helping milk producers.

Milk producers do benefit from the existing measures to assist farmers, notably capital grants, the disease eradication programmes and the advice of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service. As indicated in the White Paper, "Food from our own Resources", we are prepared to consider whether there are further measures which it would be right and practical to take in furtherance of the Government's policy objectives.

In the light of Shelter's research into the agricultural tied house, which has shown that those who are promoting its abolition are both ignorant and unrepresentative of the farming community, will the Minister withdraw any support for a policy which is wholly damaging to the dairy industry?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the consultative document which was issued some months ago. Consultations with the industry ended in October. The industry's submissions are being considered. We have also made it clear that we do not want any changes likely to be harmful to the industry. At the same time, we want to give farm workers the kind of security which others enjoy and to which they are entitled.

Does my hon. Friend agree that in the action taken in recent years, particularly the recent announcement made by his right hon. Friend, dairy farmers have been protected more against cuts in their real living standards than the vast majority of ordinary working people?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. There have been continuing reviews of these problems and we have been responsive and sentitive to them. Changes which have been brought about between annual reviews have given the industry the kind of support that it needed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what alternative employment has been provided for creamery workers now that the supply of milk to these factories has been substantially reduced.

I understand that manufacturers of dairy products are making every effort to retain as many workers as possible. The provision for alternative employment opportunities is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is agreement on both sides of the House that something must be done to reduce the level of unemployment? Does he accept that those who are made redundant in the countryside find it virtually impossible to obtain other work? Does he also accept that his answers earlier today will give those without jobs in the countryside absolutely no encouragement at all?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. The situation varies in different parts of the country. My right hon. Friend has been in touch about this matter with the workers, the trade unions and the manufacturers in the industry. I am satisfied that employers have done their best to keep redundancies to a minimum. However, I feel sure that the recent announcement about guarantees for milk will help to bring about an upturn in milk production and thereby eliminate this problem.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will pay an official visit to the central veterinary laboratories at Weybridge.

My right hon. Friend is not and nor am I planning to make such a visit in the near future. However, I did visit the Central Veterinary Laboratory early this year.

During his visit, did the Minister notice the extremely inadequate safety standards at the Laboratories? Is he aware that in recent years there have been nine cases of brucellosis being contracted by members of the staff? Is he also aware that as recently as this summer members of the staff risked their own funds to go to the High Court and that the Ministry had no alternative but to admit liability? Why is it that at the Weybridge laboratories the most dangerous work is carried out in the oldest and the most non-purpose building? When will some specially constructed safety equipment be installed?

The figure cited by the hon. Gentleman is not the one that I have, but I will check it. The hon. Gentleman has made some very sweeping allegations relating to safety precautions at the laboratories. I cannot answer his specific allegations, but I undertake to see that they are examined. We have received no evidence which in any way shakes our confidence in the director and chief veterinary officer at the laboratories.

Is it not a fact that the State veterinary service has for too long been in great disarray, that it has been underpaid and under recruited and that its average age is grossly too high? Will the Minister tell us why, after nearly two years in office, he has done nothing about it?

How ignorant can the hon. Gentleman get? Is he not aware of the enormous transformation that we are achieving in the State veterinary service?

Tell us about it.

I will tell the hon. Gentleman what has happened. We have enormously increased recruiting and massively increased salaries. We took over a service that was in a disgraceful state. These are the facts, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to ask leave to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures have been taken to protect United Kingdom fruit farmers from imports of apples from EEC countries at prices which undercut home producers.

During the transitional period United Kingdom apple growers benefit from annually decreasing charges on imports under the accession compensatory amount arrangements, which were designed to align our prices gradually with the lower levels in the original Community.

Does that mean that when apples are dumped on the English market, makeshift or jerry-built arrangements will have to be made to protect our growers?

The hon. Gentleman must accept that we are now part of the Community apple market—

Unfortunately.

and that any structural surpluses must be tackled on a Community basis.

In view of the laudable sentiments evinced by my hon. Friend earlier when referring to the apple mountain, will he undertake to take some practical steps to investigate whether it will be possible to get hold of some of these apples for people in this country? Many housewives in Belper are appalled by the destruction of these apples when they are having to pay high prices.

My hon. Friend has made a fair comment. We have to discriminate between a structural and an acceptable surplus of apples. We must appreciate that when we have self-sufficiency in a commodity it means that, for seasonal reasons, sometimes we shall have too little and at other times too much. I take my hon. Friend's point about the destruction of food.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures have been taken to ensure a market for timber felled as a result of Dutch elm disease.

Proposals for extending the market for timber felled as a result of Dutch elm disease are under active consideration. We hope to make an announcement in a few days.

Is the Minister aware that the Forestry Commission has today published a report on the progress of the disease, which amounts in some countries almost to the death certificate of the English elm? Does he agree that we must try to get the best out of this national disaster by using the timber? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the first nine months of this year we imported £250 million worth of timber, even though the timber market is in the doldrums? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as many as 5½ million trees will be rotting in the ground?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the report of the Forestry Commission, which came out today. I accept the substance of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am sure that he will understand that there are considerable difficulties in placing additional elm in an already depressed market. We are having discussions to see how we can best proceed.

Will my hon. Friend consider making approaches to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment with a view to recompensing local authorities, which are having to dispose of trees suffering from this disease when the owner of the property concerned cannot do so himself?

My hon. Friend is right in that many local authorities, to their credit, are now taking on this responsibility. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to give any commitment involving additional public expenditure at this stage.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the yards of many timber merchants in Wiltshire and Somerset are already over-full with elm? Is he aware that they cannot cut down any more because they have not the space for the trees? Does he appreciate that this has happened because the market seems to have disappeared? Has the Minister heard that it is being rumoured that the market has disappeared not least because the National Coal Board has stopped purchasing elm? Will he give an undertaking that all statutory bodies and nationalised industries will be given every encouragement to purchase elm timber as and when possible?

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking. As he has acknowledged, this is a difficult problem. Indeed, it is a national catastrophe.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this disease has no racial connotations in that it has reached the Glasgow district? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that sufficient steps are being taken to continue all attempts to eradicate the disease, especially as it is moving so far north?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The disease is moving north, although the really serious damage is being done in the southern part of the country. We are anxious to take all possible steps to prevent the disease from moving even further north.