asked the Secretary or State for Industry what progress has been made towards establishing a formula which requires public corporations to finance a specific percentage of capital expenditure out of revenue.

The Government fully intend that overall the nationalised industries should finance a higher proportion of their capital requirements from their own resources. Because of the varying circumstances of individual nationalised industries, it would not be appropriate to establish a set formula for self-financing.

Is it not the case that publication of and, even more important, compliance with such a formula would be in the public interest? Does the Minister not accept that it would serve as a further indication of the Government's resolve to discipline the expenditure activities of public corporations, as part of their contribution towards the battle against inflation?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the discussions on the Statutory Corporations (Financial Provisions) Bill last summer my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary indicated that the Government would be having discussions with the nationalised industries. It would not be appropriate at this stage, particularly in the Department for which I am responsible, to fix these targets. Discussions will be taking place in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement regarding the financial position of the British Steel Corporation.

The British Steel Corporation has announced a loss of £125 million in its half-year to September 1975, with the prospect of a higher loss in the second half-year. This is primarily the result of extremely adverse trading conditions. The Corporation is making every effort to limit its losses through cost savings.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that grave statement. Does he agree that the industry is now in a desperate situation, with borrowings this year amounting to no less than £1,500 million and with a prospect, as he has already intimated, of heavy losses this year, of—I am told—up to £200 million? What steps can he take with Sir Monty Finniston to improve the situation in this industry, which faces such a difficult time?

It is a grave situation, but I know that the hon. Gentleman realises that the British Steel Corporation faces the worst recession for 40 years. It is having discussions with the trade unions about cost savings. I hope that those discussions are successful. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

Is not another cause of this loss the low productivity in the British steel industry, compared, for instance, to that in Japan? Is not one way to correct this state of affairs for the BSC to introduce more productive machinery? What is the Minister doing to impress upon the Corporation the wisdom of that course? In particular, what is he doing about the improvement proposed at Llanwern?

On the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, the Llanwern inquiry has not yet reported to the Government. It would not be appropriate for me to comment until we have received that report. One of the factors, of course, is low productivity in relation to comparable industries overseas. However, the BSC is pressing ahead with its development plan, which is aimed at improving productivity.

Has the Secretary of State made it clear to the Chairman of the BSC that he will give him his full backing in any measure that he believes necessary to reduce these serious losses—or does the Secretary of State intend to interfere, as his predecessor did?

I intend to give the British steel industry the support that is required. It has suffered quite a lot from Government interference—not necessarily by this Government. The hon. Gentleman will know that during 1970 it was prevented from going ahead with its development plan because the then Conservative Government set up what was called the Joint Steering Group, which is a constitutional monstrosity. I am convinced that had the industry been allowed to go ahead then, many of the problems of low productivity could have been overcome much earlier.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the report in today's Guardian that the British Steel Corporation cannot raise the finance to support steel stockholding for 12 months from private enterprises in the City, and that the Corporation will be asking the Government for more money for an exercise that will save jobs? Will he comment on this signal failure of private enterprise to support public ownership, which could easily be described as a "strike of capital"? Will he explain to the House what he proposes to do?

I know something about the proposals of the BSC for countercyclical stockpiling. We are anxious that there should be counter-cyclical stock piling for the very reason that my hon. Friend has given, namely, that it would help to preserve jobs.

Will the right hon. Gentleman compare the results of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, in America, with the results of the BSC, because both corporations are similar in size? The British Steel Corporation has lost about £200 million this year, but the Bethlehem Steel Corporation will again make a high profit in spite of the American recession.

I do not know the exact circumstances of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but I know that we are just as anxious as he and the whole House are to ensure that productivity and the financial out-turn of the British Steel Corporation improve.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects his Department to conclude the first planning agreement.

The Department is having informal discussions with leading companies about the possibility of introducing planning agreements into certain key sectors of manufacturing industry. My right hon. Friend hopes to begin formal planning agreement discussion shortly, but at this stage it is not possible to make a precise estimate of the likely date when the first agreement will be concluded.

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is some concern on Government Benches about the delay in concluding the first planning agreement? Will he give an assurance that his Department will at all times "keep its finger out" on this matter? At the same time does he agree with the editor of the Sunday Times Business News of yesterday in condemning as totally irresponsible the antics of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on the aspect of planning agreements?

Any condemnation of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) will draw general consent in this House.

With the Industry Act on the statute book for only a few weeks, and implemented for only a few days, I hope that my hon. Friend will give us a little more time. We are pressing forward with planning agreement discussions because we share the views of all hon. Members on the Government side of the House that through such agreements we can get the kind of sectoral programme that is needed.

I am sure that the Under-Secretary would like to confirm that the planning agreement procedures are entirely voluntary and that the speech that I made, as opposed to the account of it which was included in the Sunday Times of yesterday, pointed out to industrialists only what must have been quite apparent if they had carefully read the voluntary statements made by Ministers of the present Government.

Of course planning agreements are voluntary. That has been reiterated again and again by Government Ministers in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the results of the negotiations over the level of duty-free imports of paper products from Scandinavia for 1976.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade expects to lay an Order before the House by the end of next week giving details of the quota levels for 1976. I can, however, say that there will be no general increases.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although the news that there will be no general increase is slightly better news than many of us expected, it will still do very little to assist the British paper industry? Is he aware that production is currently running at about one-quarter down on that of last year, that unemployment in the industry is growing, and that short-time working is widespread? In view of the situation in the industry, does he not accept that it is grossly unfair to British paper workers that a quota system should be maintained which allows only for an increase in the amount of paper imports into Great Britain? Will he persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade to seek urgent talks with the Scandinavian countries with a view to devising a quota system which more accurately reflects demand in the home market?

I very much agree with what my hon. Friend says about the problems of the paper industry. He will have noted what has been said following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September. I certainly acknowledge, also, that these are matters that require international discussion. My hon. Friend will know that discussions with the EFTA countries and with the paper industry and other interested parties in the United Kingdom have now taken place, but further discussions will be held, possibly in the spring of next year.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problems of the paper industry are further exacerbated by the problems of dumping in this country? Will he give an undertaking that any representations made to his Department will be looked at carefully?

We are aware that there appear to be imports into this country from some rather bizarre quarters, and we are certainly ready to look into them.

Do not the imports from Scandinavia consist almost entirely of newsprint? One should not get confused between the importations of newsprint, which are necessary, and other paper imports, which are affecting the paper production industry in this country.

This is certainly a complex question. What we have to try to do is, on the one hand, to give the maximum possible protection to our paper making industry while at the same time, on the other hand, ensuring that the paper using industry has the supplies that it requires.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will make a statement on the Shotton steelworks.

As I told the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) on 24th November, an announcement about Shotton steelworks will be made as soon as possible, but the problem deserves—and is receiving—very careful study.

Will the Minister say when "as soon as possible" will be? Is he aware that the continuing uncertainty is having a more than demoralising effect on all those who work at Shotton? Is he also aware that despite these difficulties industrial relations at Shotton have remained exceptionally good over the period?

I am certainly aware that an answer is necessary, because the uncertainty is obviously not helpful to morale in the industry. At the same time, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is better for us to consider this matter with the care and in the detail that it deserves, rather than to rush forward a decision that might be liked less than the uncertainty.

When considering any action to assist the Shotton steelworks or any other threatened steelworks, will my hon. Friend rule out any measures that would prejudice the fullest development at Redcar, the third stage of which is essential to the integrated scheme which itself is essential to a modernised steel industry in this country?

My hon. Friend has made clear, more aptly than I could, the many considerations that need to be taken into account. This is a multi-faceted problem. I assure my hon. Friend that the Redcar aspect is being taken into account, along with the many other aspects.

In view of the situation disclosed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in his reply to an earlier Question, should not the consideration being given to this matter by the Government extend beyond the question of which plant is to remain and which is to shut, to reconsidering the whole strategy of concentrating on five major producers, one of which has a bad employment record?

The hon. Gentleman has been putting points such as this in discussing matters which are of great concern to his constituents. The kind of considerations that he asks us to take into account are considerations which would make our decision further off rather than nearer. If he is ready to accept that, we shall accept what he says.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what sums of public money have so far been advanced to British Leyland.

Following the Government's acceptance of the Ryder Report as a basis for policy, £200 million of equity capital has been provided to the company.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anxiety among car component manufacturers that Leyland, as part of its new investment programme, will manufacture components such as car heaters, which may put at risk existing manufacturers? Will he give an assurance that he will not allow these very large sums of public money to be used in such a way that they destroy existing firms and efficient suppliers?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this matter. Representations have been made to us by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, and I believe that representatives saw my right hon. Friend, Lord Beswick, a few weeks ago and expressed their concern to him. Since then we have been in touch with the National Enterprise Board and with British Leyland. A balance must be struck between British Leyland's buying in components from manufacturers and using its commercial judgment. Everyone concerned is aware of this. We are also aware of it and are taking it into consideration.

Will the Secretary of State remember that when it was decided to put substantial sums of money into British Leyland it was also firmly announced by the Government that no further money would be injected unless the results proved satisfactory? Therefore, what instructions has he given to Lord Ryder as to the rate of return he is expecting on the £200 million? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that in terms of both industrial relations and profit forecasts. British Leyland is achieving the return upon which the next tranche of the money must depend?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When the Prime Minister made his statement on British Leyland to the House, he said that some improvement would have to be made in productivity and in labour relations. There has been some improvement, but there is a long way to go. We have made that plain to Lord Ryder and to those who work in the industry. Equally, the unions themselves are co-operating and, I believe, want to co-operate. But if there is not an improvement, we shall certainly stand by the original statement made by the Prime Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he is currently taking, and what steps he proposes to take, to stimulate industrial investment on Merseyside.

We shall continue to do everything we can to stimulate industrial investment in the area.

That is really not enough, and not a satisfactory answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment on Merseyside is well above that of the national average and that, in particular, in Kirby the male unemployment rate is 25 per cent.? Does he accept that the people on Merseyside did not return a Labour Government in order that they should be put on the dole, and that the area should now be regarded as a crisis area? Will my hon. Friend make an urgent review of the whole of the Merseyside area, with a view to taking specific and relevant measures for the industrial regeneration of that area?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, as I appreciate the concern of all my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the Merseyside area. I believe that the measures that we have introduced—especially the measures that I announced the other day about the advance factory programme—will be of considerable value to Merseyside, in terms both of the advance factory programme itself and of the construction industry, in which, I know, unemployment is of much concern to my hon. Friends who represent the Merseyside area.

Advance factories in themselves, especially if they are left empty for about a year, are no answer to the immediate problem. Is it not clear that Merseyside is an area which requires immediate action of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk)? Will my hon. Friend look again at this problem, especially in terms of the construction industry? No fewer than 13,000 construction industry workers on Merseyside are unemployed. There are 22,000 people on the housing list in Liverpool alone. Surely this is a time when the Government really must introduce a crash programme to deal with areas like Merseyside.

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the latter part of his question should be directed to my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction. However, we are genuinely concerned about the problems of Merseyside and its high unemployment rate, especially in the construction industry. Like my hon. Friend, I share great hopes for the National Enterprise Board, which I believe can be of considerable value to the people who live on Merseyside. A regional office of the Board will shortly be set up in Liverpool, and I am sure that this will be of great value to the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what encouragement he proposes to give to small privately-owned businesses with export potential as part of his new industrial strategy.

The new industrial strategy is concerned with the well-being of industry as a whole, and policies for individual sectors which are devised within its framework will take account of the part to be played by firms of all sizes. Smaller enterprises will benefit from this approach as much as large companies.

Does the Minister accept that a sizeable sum of capital is needed for a small company to invest in developing new export markets? Against a background of crippling rates of personal taxation, CTT and wealth tax, what incentive exists for the small company to undertake that sort of expenditure now? Will the Minister consider the examples of both Ireland and Australia in terms of the whole question of export incentives?

The points that the hon. Gentleman made about taxation are often made in this House. These comments have been noted by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and appropriate action has been taken on them from time to time. My concern as a Minister in the Department of Industry is to ensure that small companies which can benefit from export services can be helped. Indeed, the small firms information centres and the Department of Trade help small companies, where they can, with their export drives.

Will my hon. Friend have a word with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade about this matter? What small firms engaged in export want is greater help from the ECGD—help that goes to the bigger firms at present but not to the smaller firms, which nevertheless employ many thousands of engineers and others whose jobs are at stake.

I shall pass my hon. Friend's comments on to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, because we are conscious of the important rôle that many small firms play in the export drive.

Does the Minister accept that although he may be conscious of the problem he is not doing enough about it? The real problem is that many small private businesses are being forced into bankruptcy because of the inaction of his Department and this Government. Why does he not speed up the work of the Requirements Boards to help these people develop their export potential?

A great deal of work is done to help small firms by the Requirements Boards, the small firms information centres, the counselling services and other services where we have direct responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to assist the shipbuilding industry to secure future orders and ensure its continued prosperity following his recent discussions with both sides of the industry.

My discussions with the industry are still continuing. I am not yet in a position to make an announcement.

Can the Minister explain to the House why, after two years in office, the Government still have no policy at all for the shipbuilding industry, apart from nationalising it? Is he aware that while he is obsessed with nationalisation the shipbuilding industry is sharing the problems of the rest of the Western European shipyards, and that the longer the tackling of those problems is put off the more difficult it will be for the industry? While the Government fiddle, our shipyards are operating in a vacuum.

Many of these issues will be discussed tomorrow, when we debate the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. I hope that we can get down to some detail during that debate, and certainly during the Committee stage, which we hope to start before Christmas. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be a member of that Committee and will have a chance to develop his point there.

I welcome this Government's action and the action of previous Labour Governments concerning the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, and point out the Conservative Party's complete neglect of those industries. Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend especially bear in mind the importance of keeping in touch with the work force in the area and review the position about orders for new ships being placed abroad?

It is part of our discussions and considerations that we should discuss the prospects for British shipbuilders with British ship owners, because some of the problems of lack of orders within our shipyards could be overcome if British ship owners placed more orders here. That is certainly a point that we have in mind and that we shall be developing.

One of the Minister's complaints about shipbuilding is the lack of investment. Is he aware that private firms in shipbuilding have invested £77 million over the past 10 years? Has he received an assurance of any sort from the Treasury that the cash outlined in the Bill will be available for investment in shipbuilding if, unfortunately, it is nationalised?

The cash will be available and in our judgment it will be adequate when the industry is publicly owned. However, the situation is extremely grave. I do not want to underestimate the difficulties. There are formidable problems in the shipbuilding industry. The world energy crisis has meant that there is a shortage of orders for tankers and the world recession has meant that orders for dry cargo ships are in short supply. We shall need the help of both sides of industry and the understanding and consideration of the House.

Will my right hon. Friend go a little further and tell us what discussions he is having with British ship owners? He is absolutely right when he says that if more British ship owners placed orders in British shipyards we should not be in half the difficulty that we are now.

I have not personally entered into discussions with British ship owners, but my officials are in touch with them and, if necessary, I shall get in touch with them direct.

I am sure that the Secretary of State realises that his promise of a detailed discussion is welcome. This is the first time since February 1974 that this Government have shown any interest whatever in the details of a policy for this industry. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the new strategy that follows the nationalisation of the industry, the policy of specialising on three warship shipyards will not be changed?

I cannot anticipate the strategy which will be developed. The strategy for the industry in the first instance will be laid down by the organising committee in consultation with both sides of industry, but this will be a subject that will come under discussion during the Committee stage of the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take action to reduce overmanning in nationalised industries for which he is responsible.

Manpower levels are a matter for the boards of the corporations concerned in negotiation with the relevant unions.

Does the Secretary of State agree that overmanning undermines employment prospects in the long run, since if industries are uncompetitive they lose markets and jobs? Have we not seen this happen in the Post Office? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will not interfere in the freedom of action of chairmen of nationalised industries to do what they think best, in the long run, for the people employed in their industries?

If the hon. Gentleman has specific questions to raise about overmanning in a particular area of the Post Office, no doubt he will get in touch with the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation. The one thing that I want to avoid is to be involved in the day-to-day matters of the nationalised industries. It is not a matter for me. I think that that is well understood by the House.

May we consider overmanning in the top management of nationalised industries and, in particular, those whom we appoint as chairmen? I am thinking of people such as Sir Kenneth Keith, who, last week, in the Channel Islands—a tax haven—when addressing the Institute of Directors, took the opportunity to attack the trade unions and the Government's nationalisation policy. Is it not time we got rid of such people? That is where the overmanning is.

I think that Sir Kenneth Keith was appointed not by this Government but by the Conservative Party when in office. Questions of manning levels in the nationalised industries are best left to discussion between the boards of those industries and the unions concerned. If I were to go into detailed consideration of manning levels, the life of the top management of nationalised industries and of the trade unions would be intolerable. I do not believe that the House would welcome such a situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has received any application from Chrysler UK Ltd. for financial assistance.

As the hon. Member knows, the financial situation of Chrysler UK Ltd. is a subject of continuing discussion between the Government and the Chrysler Corporation. The feasibility of a number of options is being considered, and a report will be made to the House as soon as it is possible to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that the Government plan to make available £30 million to Chrysler, and will he acknowledge that, if that be so, the making available of such money at this time would be a scandalous misuse of that public money, both in its effects through the public debt on inflation and in its effect on the 20 million taxpayers, some of whom now are earning, after tax, almost less than is necessary for them to live?

I can neither confirm nor deny that £30 million—or £35 million—has been made available or suggested to Chrysler. There is a lot of speculation in the newspapers, and most of it is wrong. I can only say that the Government have been faced with an extremely difficult and grave situation, and in due course I shall make a full statement to the House.

Will my right hon. Friend take it that many of us on this side appreciate that, in dealing with Mr. Riccardo, Mr. Cafiero and Mr. Gillespie, he has a very difficult task, and that we sympathise with him in the difficult decision he has to take? Nevertheless, will he recognise that in Coventry and the West Midlands we now have unemployment approaching 10 per cent., and many of my constituents, especially those who work at the Chrysler factory at Ryton, do not know whether they have a job to go to next year? I ask my right hon. Friend to accept the need to make a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, for the sake of confidence among the workers, customers and dealers in Chrysler cars.

What my hon. Friend said is very helpful. He understands the seriousness of the situation and he appreciates, I know, that no precise information can be given today. I give him an explicit undertaking that a full statement will be made to the House as soon as possible.

Although one understands the gravity of the situation in which he is placed, will the Secretary of State, for his part, acknowledge that the time is coming when a statement may be overtaken by events, since dealers are rapidly losing confidence, and if the dealer chain disintegrates no attempt to save Chrysler on a national scale will have any impact? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the grave urgency of his making at least a holding statement, so that confidence does not totally evaporate in the dealer network?

Last week I put out a statement, which I thought would probably help the dealers, following the discussions I had with Mr. Riccardo and the Chrysler company. This is one of the considerations. I believe that there are about 800 exclusive Chrysler dealers in the United Kingdom, and I know that they are just as worried as are those who work in Chrysler factories. I hope to be able to make another statement as soon as possible. I cannot go beyond that now.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is the cost to public funds of nationalisation of the ship repairing industry.

Expenditure on public ownership of the ship repairing industry will not involve a direct call on resources. At this stage it is not possible to give a precise estimate of the amount of the compensation stock to be issued.

Is the Secretary of State aware that spread round the shoreline of this country there are over 100 firms involved in ship repairing, employing over 15,000 workers? Does he not agree that any sums of money would be better spent in promoting their interest in international markets rather than in outdated concepts of nationalisation?

I do not agree. Our policy for ship repairing has been made absolutely clear. Indeed, there are many shipbuilders, rather than ship repairers, who believe that ship repairing needs strengthening, in particular in our port areas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on Merseyside we had 18,000 ship repair workers in 1947, and that that work force is now reduced to less than 2,000? Is it not clear that the time has come for this industry to be taken over on a national basis? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one important need is to get the port facilities available for ship repair, which requires, if not immediate public ownership—which I believe to be essential—discussions between port owners and the nationalised ship repairing industry in order to ensure that we have proper facilities for ship repair? Further, does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the most important requirements is that the ship repairing industry be modernised, and that there should be discussions with the ship owners employers' federation to ensure that they do not use continental ports when facilities are available in this country?

I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend says. Discussions along the lines he suggests are taking place.

If it is not possible to give a precise estimate of the cost, is it possible to give a rough estimate?

It is not possible, because compensation for the ship repairing industry is to be determined by negotiation and, if necessary, by arbitration. At this stage it would be wrong for the Government, having to carry out that commitment, to give the estimates for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will take steps to assist the hosiery, textile and footwear industries in the Leicester area.

The Government are always ready to consider specific requests for assistance where these are compatible with our policies and our international obligations.

Will my hon. Friend take it that there is grave concern in Leicester at the continued decline of our traditional industries—a concern which is aggravated by the announcement of forthcoming redundancies just made by two electronics companies on the New Parks estate? Can my hon. Friend give a positive indication of the way in which the Government intend to help these traditional industries?

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that during this year agreements have been reached or restrictions imposed on major Far Eastern suppliers of knitwear and, for the first time, levels of imports for most of these items are controlled. Moreover, we announced in May that, following discussions with Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania, these countries would be reducing their exports to the United Kingdom of men's leather footwear during this year. The Department of Trade is considering requests from the footwear industry for surveillance licensing of imports and reductions of imports. I assure my hon. and learned Friend that we are well aware of the concern in his constituency and elsewhere.

If the hon. Gentleman is ready to consider suggestions, I suggest that he asks the Department of Trade why it has done nothing about dumped imports of cheap shoes coming into this country from Iron Curtain countries during the past 15 or 16 months. Why has the Department done nothing about that dumping? Will he hurry it along and make it do something soon? Irrespective of the industry's present difficulties in other respects, it is the import of cheap shoes manufactured behind the Iron Curtain at less than the cost of production in this country that is causing grave concern.

The hon. Gentleman could not have paid attention to the answer I gave a moment ago to my hon. and learned Friend. We have reached agreements with Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania about reductions of footwear imports from those countries.

The Prime Minister recently said that he hoped to make an announcement about selective import controls in days rather than weeks. Can my hon. Friend confirm that pressure in this matter is being put on the United Kingdom by America, the EEC and others? Will he recognise that if action is not taken soon the textile industries not only in Leicester but in many other parts of the United Kingdom will be in complete disarray, and the position, which is already very bad, will deteriorate yet further? Will this again be a matter of too little, too late?

Whether it is too little or too late will depend upon my hon. Friend's judgment. What I can confirm is the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that an announcement about the Government's consideration of selective import controls will be made shortly.

My hon. Friend, of course, will be aware of our concern. I appreciate that he is saying the usual thing—that before very long we shall be hearing from the Department—but may I remind him that in the meantime people are on short time and more mills are closing? Does he mean that there will be controls on footwear as well as on textiles?

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that an announcement will be made shortly. I can also confirm that that announcement, whether or not it is satisfactory to my hon. Friend, will to a considerable degree be the result of pressure put on the present Government by my hon. Friends, on behalf of their constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will publish the terms of reference of the review of the Post Office.

My right hon. Friend has already done so. I would refer the hon. Member to his reply of 12th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the terms of reference which have been published do not allow any review of the activities of the Post Office outside the scope of the Post Office Act 1969? Will he undertake to publish new terms of reference that allow an objective review of the benefits or otherwise of the continuation of the Post Office monopoly in its present form, and the advantages or otherwise of allowing private enterprise to compete with the Post Office in certain of its activities, stating whether this would be to the public benefit?

We have heard that one before. The terms of reference were drawn up in consultation with a number of people, of whom it was the Post Office Users' National Council who made the original recommendation to us.

On the question of the monopoly, I can only give the answer that I have given from this Box on many occasions before—that if one wants to have a wide-ranging national service, this can be provided only by the Post Office, whereas the groups which the hon. Gentleman may have in mind can provide for only a limited profit-making service.

While we are on the subject of the Post Office, may I ask my hon. Friend why he will not give a general direction to the Post Office to allow old-age pensioners to send their Christmas cards at about 4p or 5p? Does he realise that it is impossible for old-age pensioners to send their Christmas cards at the present rate?

My hon. Friend is anticipating a Question that he has tabled later on the Order Paper. All I can say is that it is not a matter that will be discussed by the review body, though I am sure that the members of that body will note my hon. Friend's interest.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what guidelines he has issued to the NEB; and whether he will publish them.

As my right hon. Friend said on 22nd October, we shall publish the text of the draft guidelines as soon as we have completed the confidential discussions which are now taking place.

Is not it extraordinary that the guidelines have not been published, although the Government have announced their industrial strategy? Is not it important that these guidelines should be published at the earliest possible date? In the absence of these guidelines, will the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the policy of the NEB to buy into profitable sectors of manufacturing industry, and, if so, will the hon. Gentleman say which sectors the NEB has in mind?

It is the policy of this Government, under the appropriate Act of Parliament, that the NEB may buy into profitable sectors of industrial manufacturing. As for the hon. Gentleman's misgivings about the delay in the publication of the NEB guidelines, we are consulting various bodies, of which the CBI is one. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not saying that he does not wish us to consult the CBI.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the resources of the NEB, amounting to £1,000 million over five years, are grotesquely inadequate? Does he agree that something like five or six times that sum would be more appropriate?

I agree that it is necessary to make the maximum amount of money available to the NEB to enable it to carry out its essential task.

Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is not only the guidelines that are the subject of some mystery, but also the number of people employed by the NEB? When can we expect questions about the number of people employed and other matters affecting the NEB to be answered in this House?

The hon. Gentleman must not expect me to deal with a point of order which has been raised with Mr. Speaker. I have answered a Question on this matter, and we must now await developments following the point of order that was raised by the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) last week.

When will the hon. Gentleman realise that Members on the Opposition side of the House are getting heartily fed up with being asked to pass legislation when we are not aware of any of the ways in which that legislation will operate? As in the aircraft and shipbuilding legislation there is no strategy for those industries, so with the NEB there are no guidelines. Will the hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that one of the guidelines will be that the NEB will at all times have regard to the new industrial strategy of the Government?

Between 1970 and 1974 the hon. Gentleman trotted through the Division Lobby—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I cannot answer anything if I am being held down by yahoos. The hon. Gentleman trotted through the Division Lobby to vote for legislation of maximum imprecision and capable of maximum damage. It ill becomes him to attack the present Government on well-framed and sensible legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the Drypool Group in North Humberside.

The financial assistance of £325,000 provided by my Department opened up the prospect of completing work on most of the ships on the present order book. After taking full account of the views of the Industrial Development Advisory Board and the receiver, the Government came to the conclusion that the best employment prospects would result from allowing the receiver to negotiate with prospective private purchasers of the component parts.

Can the Minister say what he estimates the effect will be on employment levels, particularly in Beverley shipyard? If the Beverley and Selby shipyards are sold off to private enterprise, may we take it that they will not be subject to nationalisation?

An undertaking has been given by the receiver that he will try to get private purchasers for this group, which has gone into receivership. I cannot make detailed comments on the prospects for individual yards. I know that the receiver has had discussions with prospective purchasers of the Beverley yard, which I believe is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I am told that it may be difficult to find a purchaser who will continue shipbuilding at Beverley, but the receiver sees a prospect of the use of the site for other industrial purposes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision has caused great distress on Humberside among the people employed in the yards, particularly those in my constituency, and that it has been regarded as reneging on the original proposals published during the last Session of Parliament? Why is he not prepared to be open about the advice that he has received, so that we can see whether his judgment is well founded? Further, is my right hon. Friend aware that we cannot see that it holds out a great deal for the future of the shipbuilding industry as a nationalised undertaking if he thinks that these yards would be better in private hands?

I am prepared to consider this matter further with my hon. Friend, who has shown some concern. The impression has been given that this group is of long standing. In fact, it was not formed until 1973. There are eight units within the group, employing just over 1,000 men. They have lost money on 17 out of the last 18 orders which they obtained. They have not obtained orders for the past two years. It really made no industrial or commercial sense to keep it together, and certainly not to keep it within the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps he proposes to take to encourage the diversification of industry in North Staffordshire.

I accept that some diversification would be desirable, and this is a factor that we take into account in administration of the IDC control. But we must continue to give priority in the steering of new industry to areas with the most serious unemployment problems.

Does my hon. Friend accept that while unemployment is an important criterion it should not be regarded as the sole criterion for taking action? Is he aware that in North Staffordshire we have very serious economic problems and, although our unemployment record is not as bad as in some other areas, we are dependent on only two or three industries, and successive Governments have made the mistake of assuming that North Staffordshire's problems are the same as those of the West Midlands? They are not. May I ask my hon. Friend to visit the area and see the problems for himself, and then make his decisions about helping the region?

I agree that it is undesirable for an area to be so heavily dependent on one or two industries. My right hon. Friend will be taking an opportunity to visit Staffordshire, and I have visited the area in the last two or three weeks and discussed some of the problems with the people there.

Does the Minister agree that the criteria should include the question not only of short-term unemployment but of the long-term industrial structure? Is he aware that the long-term industrial structure in North Staffordshire needs diversification?

We take into account a number of matters when determining whether a region should be given intermediate or development area status. Unemployment is the main criterion, but dependence on one or two industries would also be taken into account in fixing IDC control policies.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House will know that over the years Parliament has been called upon from time to time to consider a Miscellaneous Provisions Bill concerned with agriculture. I cannot claim that this Bill ranks in importance with some of its predecessors. Despite the length of its Long Title it is a short Bill, but it covers a wide and interesting range of measures all of which are important if we are to keep up with a changing world.

As the title implies, there is no single theme, but it may help the House if I explain that the Bill relates to certain statutory organisations, takes account of some consequences of EEC membership and contains a variety of other items, including provisions relating to animals and their health and welfare.

Clause 1 provides for the winding-up of the Sugar Board and the transfer of its assets and liabilities to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a day to be appointed by Order. This step is necessary because the Board will soon have no further tasks to perform.

The Sugar Board was established by the Sugar Act of 1956. Its prime task was to discharge the Government's obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The Board bought raw cane sugar from the Commonwealth producers at a price negotiated by the Government. It also had an important function within the United Kingdom. This was to average out the price of beet and cane sugar on the domestic market by a system of variable surcharges or distribution payments.

Finally, the Board supported the guaranteed price for sugar beet set at every Annual Farm Price Review by making payments as necessary to the British Sugar Corporation. The Board's operations under these headings were self-financing take one year with another. However, when we joined the EEC in 1973 sugar became subject to the common agricultural policy and the Board's functions ended one by one. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement ended in 1974 to be replaced by an agreement with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries within the framework of the Lomé Convention.

The Board has reduced its staff to about 15 people who are administering various schemes on behalf of my Department. These include the payments to sugar refiners in connection with the price which the Government guaranteed the ACP producers for sugar shipped in 1975 and the associated price equalisation scheme for cane and beet sugar. However, these tasks should be completed by the middle of 1976 and we can see nothing which should replace them. The dissolution of the Board will therefore be timely and should lead to administrative savings of about £200,000 a year.

The main asset of the Board which will be transferred to my stewardship will be its shareholding in the British Sugar Corporation of 2½ million £1 shares. The Board should have no significant liabili ties when dissolved but I will take over responsibility for the pensions of its staff which are paid from a trust fund.

I should like to take this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the work of the Board's members and staff over the 19 years it has been operating. They have done a good job and given excellent service.

Clause 2 of the Bill concerns the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Limited and increases the limits on Government advances to the Corporation's guarantee fund. The Corporation has, since it was set up in 1928, been the major source of long-term loans for the agriculture industry. It is important that there should be no doubt about the Corporation's capacity to continue offering this very important service to farmers.

The Government advances provide the necessary support to enable the Corporation to continue raising, on the market, the money which it lends on a long-term basis to farmers on the security of their land, so that they can buy or improve their farms. The clause provides for an increase in the limit on Government advances from the current £17 million to £30 million and also empowers the Minister of Agriculture, by Order made with the approval of this House, to raise the limit by up to a further £10 million making an upper limit of £40 million in all. Altogether, the advances provided for in Clause 2 should enable the Corporation to raise about £300 million for lending to farmers.

Clause 3 proposes some alterations to the statutory obligations of the Meat and Livestock Commission to consult with the producing and distributing sectors of the meat and livestock industry. When we were discussing the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Order in April, it became apparent that the Commission and the industries were dissatisfied with the present consultation arrangements. I therefore asked officials to examine these views with the Commission and to report to Ministers.

The review showed that there was scope for improving the arrangements for consultations with producers and with distributors. The new arrangements proposed in Clause 3 would place a statutory obligation on the Commission to consult directly with the relevant organisation whenever a matter arose which had a substantial effect on the interest of that organisation. This arrangement will replace the existing provision for consultation with the statutory production and distribution committees. The organisations to be included in the new arrangements will be designated by the agriculture Ministers. No alteration is proposed in the arrangements for consulting the consumers' interest, which will continue to be represented by the consumers' committee.

The new arrangements proposed should serve to strengthen and improve communications between the Commission and the meat and livestock industries and enable the Commission to respond more readily to their needs.

Clause 4 provides for payments towards the costs of maintaining a national system of proficiency tests for agriculture in England and Wales. Proficiency tests are the criteria by which agricultural workers may qualify as craftsmen for a premium, currently 10 per cent. above the statutory minimum agricultural wage. They are also useful in that they provide a form of qualification which can be awarded following courses arranged by the Agricultural Training Board.

The National Proficiency Tests Council, which devises the tests, has found it impossible to survive without a modest measure of Government support. In view of the way the Council ties in with the Agricultural Wages Board and the Agricultural Training Board, the Government have decided that the support which has been given for the last three years should be put on a regular statutory basis. The amount involved is about £25,000 a year.

Clause 5 provides for the introduction of measures to restrict the growing of male hops, with the aim of facilitating the production of seedless hops. Hops can be either seeded or seedless, seedless hops being produced by unpollinated plants. The United Kingdom is almost alone among hop-growing countries in not growing seedless hops, although there is an increased demand for them by British brewers.

Moreover the international hops market, both within the Community and in third countries, is effectively restricted by commercial preference to seedless hops. In order to supply the brewers and to maintain—it is hoped, expand—the export market, it is accordingly important that some English hops should be grown seedless.

Seedlessness can be maintained at an acceptable level only by eliminating male hops within a radius of up to three miles from the seedless hop garden, thus protecting the hop plants from potential pollination. This affects not only the male hop plants previously cultivated for pollination purposes but also wild and other hops that may be found on any private or public land in the areas.

Clause 5 provides for an area to be designated seedless by means of an Order, after consultation with representatives of commercial growers in the area. Provision is made for powers of entry and inspection within a designated area to identify male hop plants and, if necessary, to serve a notice requiring their destruction or treatment. As a last resort, Ministry officials may themselves be authorised to destroy or treat the offending plants.

This may sound a small matter. But it is not unimportant, and I am confident that the powers granted by Clause 5 will be welcomed by growers' organisations, which have, indeed, advocated these measures.

Clause 6 slightly widens the power to collect agricultural statistics under the Agriculture Act 1947, in order to meet the needs of the Government and the European Community. It brings in land which is being used for forestry and land which is not being used at all but which could be used for agriculture or forestry. In each case the land must be associated with an existing agricultural unit in the same occupation.

The Government, in common with all administrations since 1965, are committed in principle to support the plans of individual industries to change to metric systems of measurement. We propose, under Clause 7, to take powers to enable us to replace non-metric by metric units in agriculture and fisheries legislation.

In the agriculture sector, all the industries concerned have jointly decided to make the change during the farming year 1975–76. Amendment of individual enactments will follow consultations with the interests concerned on timing and appropriate units. On fisheries, the proposed power will enable batches of amendments to be made to local subordinate legislation where existing procedures are disproportionately lengthy and costly in relation to the minimal nature of the adjustments required. Power is also needed for amending general legislation.

Clause 8 provides new enabling powers to regulate the exportation of animals for the purpose of more effectively safeguarding their welfare. Under it, Orders may be made to prohibit the exportation of animals without a prescribed licence and/or certificate. Persons proposing to export animals may be required to furnish information relevant to the animals' welfare at and after exportation, in particular the intended ultimate destination of the animals and the arrangements for conveying them to that destination.

Existing welfare controls on exports are operated by the Department of Trade and the Agriculture Departments under a combination of statutory powers and administrative arrangements. As many hon. Members know, exports of pedigree breeding animals are allowed to all destinations, but exports of store animals and animals for slaughter are permitted only to the EEC and other countries with acceptable standards of animal welfare. This control is operated by a system of export licences operated by the Department of Trade acting on the advice of the Agriculture Departments.

The statutory powers at present available to Agriculture Ministers relate to the safeguarding of the welfare of animals before and at the point of export and during transit to the port or airport to which they are being consigned. However, there is at present no legal obligation on an exporter to give more than the minimum information about his intentions. In practice, veterinary inspectors of the Agriculture Departments ask for detailed information about the travel arrangements up to the exact ultimate destination of the animals being exported—that is, the farm or abattoir—so as to ensure that they will not be subjected to unacceptable stress in transit.

The new powers in Clause 8 to require information, and to institute discretionary licensing and certification will effectively supplement existing powers contained in the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. They will provide a firm legal basis for the controls aimed at protecting the welfare of animals, not only before export but during the journey to, and on arrival at, their ultimate destination abroad. I am sure that this proposal will be welcomed in all parts of the House as yet another indication of the concern for the welfare of animals exported from our shores.

I now turn to Clauses 9 and 10. These clauses reflect the fact that wildlife can be a source of disease to farm livestock and poultry, and indirectly to man. Parliament has already granted powers in the Rabies Act 1974 to enable me to deal with outbreaks of rabies in wild mammals. At present we enjoy a large measure of freedom from bovine tuberculosis, which, I remind the House, was within the memories of many of us—and certaintly of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Stradling Thomas), who is a trained veterinary surgeon—endemic in our cattle and was an important source of tuberculosis in our population, in particular in children. That freedom is now being threatened by the existence of the disease in the badger population in certain limited areas in South-West England.

Although the immediate problem of legalising the use of cyanide gas where tuberculous badgers have to be destroyed was overcome last year by the amendment to the Badgers Act made under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act, the Government's powers to deal with this situation are still inadequate. Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill are designed to give Ministers the full range of powers we need to deal with problems like that of the tuberculous badger. They have been drafted in a form which would enable their application to any disease to which the diseases of animals legislation applies and which had become established in a wild species of mammal or bird and was infecting farm animals or poultry.

With respect, I regret that the Minister passed so quickly over rabies. I am deeply concerned at the absence of any publicity about rabies at the seaports on the Suffolk coastline. This is a matter of deep and immediate concern.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad that he has raised this issue. I shall certainly bear it in mind. Inevitably, publicity will come from his intervention. I shall follow up this matter and see that something is done. I mentioned the Rabies Act. I agree that we must be strict and that we must inform the public.

All of us hope that the problem of the badger and tuberculosis will prove to be unique, but it is very desirable that general powers of this kind should be readily available so that any developing situation can be dealt with promptly in the interests both of agriculture and of the wild species concerned.

I welcome the clause because it reconciles the concern felt by lovers of wildlife with the needs of farming and animal health. I am disappointed that the Minister has missed a chance here, although there may be a chink of light in Clause 10(1)(c). Would it be possible to bring in the voluntary pest and vermin control societies? The deficiency in the Bill is that there is no comfort for them. They are operating at no cost to the Government in controlling pests and vermin. The Minister said that he hoped that the badger situation was unique. There is a voluntary system in operation, with the occupiers of land attending to these matters themselves, but there is in the Bill only the slight possibility of their being enlisted. There can be no finer way than self-help—

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman bringing his brief intervention to a close?

I welcome the experience of the hon. Gentleman, who has veterinary qualifications. I shall look at his suggestion carefully. I know that it is not in the Bill, but where there can be consultations between voluntary organisations and my own officers and veterinary officers I shall expect them to consult. Whether it should be made mandatory in the Bill is something we can discuss in Committee. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to serve on the Standing Committee which considers the Bill, but that is a matter for the Opposition. I note what he has said, however.

I apologise for being absent when the Minister discussed Clause 8 but I had an urgent telephone call. I am concerned because there is no mandatory obligation on the Ministry to control the export of animals, although it may introduce certain rules and regulations. I hope that in Committee the Minister will consider introducing such a mandatory obligation.

I thought that this matter might arise. Inevitably it will be debated in Committee, and I hope that I shall not cause embarrassment to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and the hon. Member for Monmouth by suggesting that they should serve on the Standing Committee. It is, of course, a matter for the Committee of Selection. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gillingham, who takes a deep interest in animal welfare, welcomes what I have done. At least we have moved forward.

Clause 9 enables Ministers to make an Order specifying an area within which a disease exists in wildlife and is infecting farm animals and poultry. Inside such an area the destruction of the wild species concerned would be authorised, and certain ancillary powers would become available.

There are many safeguards in Clause 9. They include the fact that the disease must be being transmitted to farm animals or poultry in the area, and the destruction of the wild species named in the Order must be necessary to eliminate or substantially reduce the incidence of the disease in livestock.

There is provision requiring the Ministers concerned to consult the Nature Conservancy Council before making an Order, and I am prepared to consider consulting other bodies as well. I was once a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, which is an important body and has wide experience. It is right that it should be consulted.

The Order must be quite specific in naming the wild species and the disease concerned, and the method of destruction if this would in normal circumstances be unlawful. The Order must also name the area of land where the powers arising under it are to apply. Occupiers of land on which the wild species is to be destroyed must be informed beforehand, and there is a general duty on the Minister to carry out the work as safely as possible.

Clause 10 supplements Clause 9 by providing necessary powers of entry for authorised officers. These powers are available under the clause in order to carry out necessary investigations where the existence of disease in a wild species is suspected, in order to destroy members of the wild species in an area once an order has been made, and to monitor the situation once the work of destruction has been completed so that any renewed outbreak of the disease can be quickly dealt with.

I appreciate that the powers which I am requesting under these two clauses are fairly drastic, and their subject may even be distasteful to some people. However, I am convinced that they are necessary if we are to maintain the high standard of freedom from disease in our farm livestock population which we have attained at very high cost.

Clauses 11 and 12 introduce important changes in the agricultural holdings legislation. They will give increased security of tenure for the tenants of agricultural holdings. Complaints have been received from time to time of the harassment of tenants by agricultural landlords. Parliament took action in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1963, in response to earlier complaints, but those provisions did not go far enough.

The recent complaints, which came mainly from South-East Wales although there have been isolated cases in England as well, had a striking similarity to the earlier cases. It was alleged that some agricultural landlords were serving their tenants with notices to do work of repair, maintenance or replacement which were unreasonably long or required unnecessarily expensive work. As a result the tenants, it was said, were forced to spend an undue proportion of their time and money in carrying out the work demanded of them. The significance of the "notice to do work" procedure is that failure to complete the work in the time specified could lead eventually to the tenant having to quit the holding.

My Department consulted the NFU, the County Landowners' Association and interested professional organisations about the complaints. It became clear from the consultations that the "notice to do work" and "notice to quit" provisions were weighted too heavily against the tenants in two respects. First, arbitrators, before whom the tenants could challenge the items of work to be done and the time specified, were not allowed sufficient professional discretion. They could not delete or amend items which, though technically the tenant's responsibility, were unnecessary or unjustified in the interests of good husbandry or sound estate management.

Clause 11 therefore enables the Lord Chancellor by order to empower an arbitrator to delete any such items from a notice to do work, or to substitute a different method of work or materials for those specified in the notice.

Secondly, despite the seriousness of the penalty for non-compliance with a notice to do work, the tenant cannot contest the subsequent notice to quit before the Agricultural Land Tribunal.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this much-needed reform for tenant farmers, but why did he not see fit to extend the same protection for the working son of a tenant farmer in cases where the father dies or retires without having given his son some protection in carrying on the tenancy? Will my right hon. Friend give consideration to this aspect in Committee?

I am glad my hon. Friend thanks me for what I have done. The Bill does not cover what he requests. He may well wish to say in this debate that I should have done what he suggests, and I hope that he succeeds in catching the eye of the Chair. What I propose in the Bill for tenant farmers covers harassment and not what my hon. Friend suggests should be done.

Clause 12 enables a tenant served with a notice to quit for failing to comply with a notice to do work to serve a counter-notice on his landlord. The counter-notice will render the notice to quit inoperative unless the Agricultural Land Tribunal consents to its operation. If the landlord wishes to persist with the notice to quit, therefore, he will have to apply to the Agricultural Land Tribunal. The tribunal must consent to the operation of the notice to quit unless in all the circumstances it appears to it that a fair and reasonable landlord would not insist on possession. The fair and reasonable landlord test is, of course, one of the most important safeguards for tenants against unfair landlords under the agricultural holdings legislation.

I would emphasise that harassment is not a widespread problem in England and Wales—far from it. But no one would condone harassment, and even one case of a tenant being forced or frightened out of his tenancy is one case too many.

Clauses 13 and 14 contain similar provisions relating to Scotland. As in England and Wales, there has overall been a good relationship between the agricultural landlord and his tenants in Scotland and harassment of the type I have described has not in general been a problem. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has nevertheless thought it reasonable to provide for tenants in Scotland equivalent protection to that being given in England and Wales.

Clauses 13 and 14 give effect to this. The provisions differ somewhat in detail from those in the clauses relating to England and Wales because of some differences in the existing law, but the effect of Clause 13 will be to extend the powers of arbiters in Scotland, in any harassment cases which may arise, generally in the same way. Similarly the effect of Clause 14 is to make notice to quit, which may be given in connection with a failure to do works, contestable before the Scottish Land Court.

Clause 15 stems from a recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee. The Agricultural Departments need the power that it confers if they are to be able to enforce recovery of the whole of any capital grant which has been falsely claimed. Any recovery action would be subject to the appeal procedure already contained in Section 29 of the Agriculture Act 1970.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, this is a short Bill and one that contains a wide variety of provisions. Nevertheless I am sure the House will agree with me that it is an important and worthwhile measure. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to the House.

We are grateful to the Minister for having spent a fair amount of time explaining the provisions of the Bill.

At the beginning of my remarks I must declare an interest, which is already known to the House, namely, that I farm and have an interest in the ownership of land, all of which I farm.

I was surprised to read the details of the Bill when it was first published. I heard of it a little time before it was published and I expected to see within it matters of great importance following up the White Paper which the Government produced seven months ago entitled "Food From Our Own Resources". That White Paper set targets for our food-producing industry which, although not adventurous by any standards, suggested a growth in food production from our own resources of about 3 per cent. a year between now and 1980. I think the Minister will agree that the performance of the food-producing industry has been a failure so far in those terms, because the September figures produced by the Ministry of Agriculture show that the size of the dairy herd was 5·8 per cent. down on the year, the beef breeding herd was 3·5 per cent. down and the pig herd was 7·1 per cent. down.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the Bill, which has been approved by the National Farmers' Union. It is a useful measure. If the hon. Gentleman wants to argue about the broad policy on agriculture, it may well be that he will be able to do so on some future occasion, but not during a debate on a Bill such as this. If the hon. Gentleman wants to vote against the Bill, let him say so.

I hope that the Minister will not make my speech for me. I have been on my feet for only two minutes. The right hon. Gentleman has produced an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the first he has produced since his Government came to power. He has told us that it is an important Bill, and, therefore, it is perfectly in order for me to spend a few mintues at the beginning of my remarks looking at the whole context of the food-producing industry and what the Bill contains.

Mr. Gloom!

It is no good the Minister saying "Mr. Gloom" to me. He might explain the figures and why it happens that this year production of food from our farms, which is what the Bill is all about, will be down by 7 per cent. If I am Mr. Gloom, will the Minister explain why the recent Country Landowners' Association report shows that 60 per cent. of planned investment in the industry has been abandoned or postponed.

A 7 per cent. reduction in food production this year rather than a 3 per cent. rise means that food production at the end of the year will be 10 per cent. down on the target set out in the Government's White Paper. That means that for the remainder of the time between now and 1980 the Government will have to think in terms of increases in food production of over 5 per cent. per annum rather than 3 per cent. as laid down in the White Paper.

When the Bill was mooted, many hon. Members listened to the Queen's Speech hoping to hear that the Bill would contain provisions explaining how the Government's target would be implemented. We fully expected that the legislation would be relevant to the task which the Government had set, but there was no mention whatever of the Bill in the Queen's Speech. The only mention of agricultural legislation in the Queen's Speech was the proposal to abolish tied cottages, which in my view will depress food production even more, and the only reference to the Bill was the reference at the end of the Queen's Speech that:

"Other measures will be laid before you".

Therefore, we are bound to say that the Government themselves cannot attach too much importance to this Bill if it was not even mentioned in the Queen's Speech.

The Bill contains some important measures, including those to do with the safety of livestock and exports. Indeed, the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation provisions are important for the industry. Although I do not mind the hon. Gentleman making party political points now and then, I hope he will discuss the Bill objectively. Let him get on with it instead of being cheap.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman went to the Smithfield Show this morning, but I have only—

It is a jolly good show.

I have been on my feet for only five minutes. The Minister has now interrupted me twice. I hope he will allow me to get on to the matters which he has raised.

In the general context of the home food-producing industry, the Bill only tinkers about with matters which are on the periphery of important decisions that should be taken. It makes no attempt to deal with declining home food production, which, apart from the seasonal autumn surge in milk production, shows little sign of recovery. I understand that at the Smithfield Show this morning the Minister said that confidence had returned to the industry. I hope he is right. However, I cannot help feeling that the recent increase in milk production was more to do with the weather than with him.

The hon. Gentleman never said that when the weather was with him.

I do not know what is getting into the Minister today. I have never known him so restless. I am sorry if I have caught him on the raw.

Important items are covered in the Bill. It affects many organisations and many functions of the Ministry. It is the sort of Bill which will give rise to the necessity for long and vital matters to be discussed in Committee. I should like to point out to the Minister—I am sure he already knows—that the constitution of the Standing Committee is a matter not for me but for the Committee of Selection of the House. However, so far as a great Second Reading debate is concerned, the Bill is a poor thing and is more concerned with bureaucracy than with altering trends of production or the prosperity of the countryside.

The Minister said that there are three clauses at the beginning of the Bill which deal with outside organisations. First, Clause 1 contains the proposal to wind up the Sugar Board. We do not argue with that proposal. We understand that the Board has become outdated with the lapse of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and the application of the common agricultural policy of the Community to this country. Since 1956 the Board has acted to equalise the supply and the price of sugar when they have been subject to fluctuations. The problem now arises—I hope that we shall hear something of this in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply—of how that work will be continued to equalise both supply and prices. It will be very vividly in the memory of the Minister that tremendous fluctuations in supply and prices occurred during the years 1974 and 1975. I hope that we shall be told to what extent the Board's work in trying to even out those fluctuations will be perpetuated in the future.

I turn to Clause 2, and the Government's proposals to strengthen the work of the Agriculutral Mortgage Corporation. We welcome these steps. We believe that the Corporation has played an important part in the development of the agriculture industry over the years. It is surprising to realise that 9 per cent. of our agricultural land today is subject to loans and mortgages on it provided by the Corporation. One might have thought that with the difficulties of land ownership over the course of the last year or two, when land prices have dropped dramatically and interest rates have risen dramatically, there could well be a number of farmers who had bought land in the recent past at high prices and who now find themselves in immense difficulties because of the fallen price of that land and the fact that interest must be repaid at extremely high rates.

I observe in the Corporation's accounts that last year £18,000 was written off for bad debts, but that £328,000 was set aside for future debts. The Corporation assures me that the worst is probably over, but I hope that the Government will constantly keep in touch with the situation, which could be one of continuing difficulty if land prices continue to fall.

Many farmers today find themselves short of capital. Many more will find themselves short of capital as a result of the implementation of the capital transfer tax, the wealth tax and the development land tax. Although it is the present Government who have landed the industry with this future liability to heavy taxation, I hope that they will be prepared to try to help the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation to tide farmers over difficult periods when there is a heavy tax liability to pay.

The Corporation has evolved a co-ownership plan whereby undivided shares in farms could be made available for outside capital, with an agreement that the farmer could buy back that interest after either 10 years or every five-year period after that. This is an interesting way of finding relatively cheap money to tide farmers over serious difficulties. I gather that the Corporation is anxious to proceed with this scheme. It would be helpful if the Government gave us some view of their attitude to these proposals.

I turn to Clause 3 and the proposals for the Meat and Livestock Commission. Again, we do not object to the winding up of the production and distribution committees. We understand that they were not entirely satisfactory consultative bodies. Indeed, I have been told by bodies outside the consultative committees—the National Farmers' Union, for instance—that the present level of consultation is not meaningful. Although I do not wish to enter into an argument whether or not it is meaningful, I hope very much that what is proposed now will improve the consultation that takes place.

I have to ask, however, why the Government are not also proposing to wind up the consumer committee. One has heard suggestions that the Government take the view that there are not adequate groups of consumers to consult. The House ought to be told why the consumer committee alone is to be left. None of us on the Opposition side of the House has any desire to harm the position of consumers in these matters, but it is rather surprising, if it is true, that the Ministry says that there are no adequate groups of consumers to consult. I was interested in the Minister's Press handout on 20th November, which reads,

"Representatives of the National Consumer Council, the Consumers' Association, the National Federation of Consumer Groups, the Housewife's Trust, the Co-operative Women's Guild, the Co-operative Women's Guild (Scottish Central Council) and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, met today to discuss food and agricultural production and support policy in connection with the Annual Review of the agricultural industry."

If the Ministry itself believes that there are adequate groups of consumers to consult on these matters, I do not quite understand why those same groups of consumers should not be considered adequate in relation to the Meat and Livestock Commission. An answer on that matter would be helpful.

I turn now to the three clauses concerned with animal health. First, on Clause 8 we are in support of the Government's measures to strengthen the welfare arrangements for animals that are exported. Many of us on the Opposition side of the House feel that the export trade should continue, although there are some individuals who do not share that view. We were dismayed at the unfortunate set-back in welfare arrangements which came to light in March this year. We all welcomed the step that the Minister took to avoid a repetition of that situation. If these proposals strengthen the welfare Regulations, we warmly welcome them and we hope very much that they will allay the fears of many people who are concerned about this export trade.

I turn to Clauses 9 and 10, which deal with the spread of disease by wild species of animals. We have heard and read statements made by the Minister's Department about the threat of the spread of tuberculosis by badgers. I was glad to hear, this afternoon, that the Minister has said that he is prepared to amend—I imagine—the Bill to extend consultation to the Nature Conservancy Council. It seems to me that in the future, with programmes such as the brucellosis scheme to eradicate other diseases, it could come to light that other types of animals could spread these diseases. One might, for instance, find that there was a danger of disease being spread by deer. Given circumstances of that sort, I should have thought that it would be a good thing if the Minister undertook, in the Bill, to consult the deer societies, for instance, on these matters.

However, I am not quite so pleased to read the provisions of Clause 10. The Minister anticipated some of my views when he spoke of the great power given to him under the clause in respect to entry for his officials upon land where there is fear that diseases are being spread or where an eradication programme is being carried out. I do not believe that we could agree to Clause 10 as it stands. I think it is fair to say that subsection (2) provides carte blanche for the Minister's minions to wander through the land, shooting anything in sight or digging holes wherever they want, if they suspect—and only suspect—that a disease exists in various species of wild animals. I am sure that provision for a good deal more notice and consultation should be built into Clause 10. As it stands I find it most unacceptable.

I turn to the other clauses of the Bill that deal with the Minister's powers. These clauses are primarily concerned with the growth of bureaucracy, and Conservatives are natually concerned when they see a growth in the Government's power to interfere unless that power is absolutely necessary.

Clause 5 deals with the control of hop growing. On the face of it, this seems to be a worthy project, which we support. As the Minister said, it would allow this country to grow seedless hops to fulfil possible export orders, and certainly this is in the interests of English hop growers. However, to create zones—as the Minister said he would have to do—in which there were no male hops being grown, needs a large degree of ministerial muscle. I hope that these very strong powers will be used sympathetically. I hope that the only areas which are designated are those in respect of which there is a good deal of consent by hop growers before the programme begins.

Certainly.

I welcome the Minister's statement.

Above all, we must try to avoid resentment by growers within designated areas. This would be especially difficult if the international market for hops continued to be as depressed as it is now, because it would mean that growers who were disgruntled would see no immediate advantage in these proposals.

I turn to the proposed ministerial powers over metrication, contained in Clause 7. These provisions give the Minister power to use metric units. I gather—very few farmers are aware of this—that the February Farm Price Review next year will be in metric terms. As I understand it, farmers are totally unprepared to be told in about two months' time that milk prices will be expressed per litre and that livestock prices will be expressed by kilogramme. They are not at all prepared and, so far, not at all educated about how to translate those prices into prices that they are used to.

I hope that the publication of the February Farm Price Review is not awaiting the provisions of this Bill, because before these metric units can be used we must get the Bill through this House, it must go to another place; then, under the provisions of this clause, there has to be consultation with interested bodies and, finally, an Order has to be laid before the House. I give the Minister warning that I see no chance of his being able to complete that process before the February price review. I hope very much that that review can be produced without waiting for the provisions of the Bill.

I am concerned about metrication and about the lack of an overall Government plan for this process. I am opposed to the piecemeal approach to metrication. So far we have had very little detail of the Government's overall strategy and overall timetable. I give the Minister notice that unless a firm statement is made by the Government as a whole before we discuss this clause in Committee, the position will be much more difficult for us. We must see the move to metrication in farming within the whole national context, and we must have details of the timetable for these matters as soon as possible.

Clauses 11 to 14 are concerned with the change in the law on agricultural holdings. These provisions have been included because of cases of alleged harassment. So far, I am sorry to say that we have not had enough details about what the Government mean when they talk about these cases. The Minister told us that he had consulted both the NFU and the CLA, but I was interested to see what both those organisations put in the briefs which they so kindly sent us. The NFU said that

"there appears to be no evidence that this is a widespread and frequently encountered problem."

The CLA said:

"No evidence has been produced to the CLA."

Let me make it clear that we would not oppose measures to protect tenants from unfair harassment over minor matters, but, first, we must have more evidence of this. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some details of this when he concludes the debate. I hope that in Committee we shall have much more evidence on this matter. Parliament must always be wary about changing the law concerning legally binding agreements between two parties. This proposal implies new powers being put into the hands of one man—an arbitrator—to change tenancy agreements. On the strength of the Bill it is difficult to see how he could decide that provisions which appeared in tenancy agreements were "unnecessary and unjustified". We could not condone new legislation which turned out to be a bad tenants' charter. I am not suggesting that the provisions of these clauses do constitute a bad tenants' charter, but we want to know just what is implied by them in a good deal more detail. We shall need to have very careful discussions in Committee before we can realise the full scale of this problem.

The hon. Gentleman has said that he has not seen any evidence of the need for these clauses. Putting that on one side, will he tell us whether he supports the inclusion of these clauses in the Bill?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was listening. I did not say that I had not seen evidence; I said that the CLA and the NFU said that they had not seen evidence. I shall come to the Opposition's attitude in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to do so.

In reply to one of his hon. Friends the Minister said a word about suggestions for making tenancies pass from father to son. Of course, we are sympathetic to the position in which sons find themselves. However, we must remember that at this moment almost one-third of new farm lettings go to near relations. Let farms are now virtually the only way in which young men can get into farming for the first time. For young men wanting to start farming the task is becoming increasingly difficult. As the cost of tenants' capital, machinery, fertilisers and working capital in general rise higher and higher it becomes increasingly impossible if they also have to find money to buy the land. Therefore, it is important that we should be careful to keep the path open to young farmers through let farms.