asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the definition of marginal land.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated total acreage of marginal land in the United Kingdom.

There is no agreed definition of marginal land, but the term has been widely used to refer to land with a poor production potential. Land of this kind is to be found throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, but, if the definition is limited to poor land which is near to the less-favoured areas, in addition to the 7½ million hectares in those areas there may be 1 million hectares of such land.

Does not the Minister agree that there is considerable potential for increased agricultural production on marginal land located below the hill farming line? Does he not agree, further, that such areas could well qualify for assistance under the EEC less-favoured-areas directive? Will he make appropriate representations to Brussels to include these areas?

We agree that there is potential for increased production from these so-called marginal areas, and it is precisely for that reason that we asked officials to prepare a report looking at what might be done to help.

Has the Minister undertaken a survey of all the lands falling within the definition of the less-favoured-areas directive in the Community to see whether there is any land on the Community side which would fall within the definition of our own marginal land, thereby encouraging him to think along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks)? Secondly, is he aware that the NFU reckons that £1 an acre, or about £2·5 million spent on investment in the marginal lands, would prove very beneficial, especially in the light of the withdrawal of the various subsidies? And—

"And" indeed!

Certainly we are looking at this whole question, including what happens in other member States. However, I should point out that we operate the less-favoured-areas directive to great advantage in this country. We have an extremely high proportion of total agricultural area in the United Kingdom compared with other member States, and the rate of grant we pay compares favourably with the position in other member States.

Does not the Minister agree that there is a great deal of disparity between farming in the less-favoured areas and farming in the marginal hill areas, because the latter have been deprived of their subsidies in the last year or two? What specific plans has he in mind to help those farming in the marginal hill areas?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. The real problem is the enormous differential between the less-favoured areas, which receive generous grants and head-age payments, and the rest, where the marginal farmers are in some respects on exactly the same production level in terms of grant as the more prosperous arable areas. It is precisely for that reason that we are looking hard at the problem at the moment.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that we welcome his understanding that farmers in the marginal areas have a particularly hard task compared, perhaps, with those higher up the hill? Will he institute an inquiry to satisfy himself that the marginal land in this country is excluded from the less-favoured-area grants, whereas on the Continent similar land is included? For instance, will he remember that, whereas dairying is not permitted within the less-favoured-area grants in this country, in parts of France dairying is carried out with great vigour in these areas?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, as I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), we are indeed looking at that question. However, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that France, for example, has tried unsuccessfully to include Brittany in the less-favoured-areas directive.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made on the review of the export trade in live food animals; and whether he will make a statement.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) yesterday, good progress is being made with the examination of this trade. The results should be available to Ministers shortly. When they have been studied, my right hon. Friend the Minister intends to make a statement to the House on the conclusions reached and the reasons for them.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but will he accept that there is sustained and growing public concern about the export of live food animals on both welfare and economic grounds? Will he, as part of the review, pay special attention to the reported comments of the super-sleuths, the hon Members for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and Devon, West (Mr. Mills), who, despite taking at precautions to see that their trip was well publicised, including the presence of a television crew, were able to come back from a trip to see an exported consign ment of calves and to confess that there were loopholes about the eventual destination of the calves? This substantiates a lot of the evidence put to my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend by the RSPCA and other welfare bodies.

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is great concern in the country on this issue. It is precisely for that reason that my right hon. Friend announced this important inquiry.

Will the Minister bear in mind that there is a very real difference between the export of live animals for immediate slaughter and their export for rearing and breeding purposes? Will he also look carefully at the export of live sheep for immediate slaughter? My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) and I have come back only this morning from a trip to see what happens. It is totally unnecessary. Will the Minister also bear in mind that those of us who are concerned about welfare take trouble to ask permission to do the job properly do not act as spies and are informed of the full facts? We should not he able to do this if we went incognito.

Yes, we are looking at all these matters.

Has the Ministry made an estimate of the effect on the revenues of the British industry that would follow cessation of the trade in live animals and substitution of the export of carcases?

This is important, and we are giving consideration to it. It is not simply a welfare matter. Employment and economic aspects are involved too.

The Minister undertook to report on this situation early in the new year. It is perfectly clear that he now has a considerable amount of evidence. Will he give some indication to the House about when the report is likely to be presented?

The hon. Member is right. We have received an enormous volume of evidence from a large number of organisations. This is not just a domestic exercise. We have to look closely at the position in the main countries to which we are exporting these live food animals. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pressing ahead as quickly as we can, but I think he would prefer a thorough investigation rather than a short, inadequate job.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest estimates available for the effect of Common Market membership on British food prices; what food price increases in this context are expected during 1978; and if he will list them in the Official Report.

I regret that I cannot assess the effect of membership of the EEC on our food prices because of the difficulty of predicting how prices would have moved if we had remained outside. As for 1978, the effect of the final transitional step on 1st January cannot be accurately calculated but might lead to an increase of up to 1 per cent. on retail food prices. I cannot, at this stage, forecast what further price increases may occur in 1978.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to confirm or contradict the appalling reports which are going around today that the Government are contemplating a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound? Does he not agree with me that the green pound is far too blunt an instrument and that the only effect of these changes would be to add to the housewife's burden and make the Goverment's incomes policy far more difficult? Does he not believe that, if there are farming producers with problems in specific areas, they should get more selective help than this sort of weapon?

Before I can confirm or deny reports, I must, of course, see the reports. I can tell my hon. Friend that my view on devaluation of the green pound remains exactly what it has been since 19th October 1976, when I first stated it to the House. It is that any movement in the green pound must be considered in the national interest, and in the national interest alone. On my hon. Friend's general argument that the green pound is a blunt instrument, I am bound to say that I agree. I regret that we cannot make it a good deal sharper.

Will the Minister say what estimate has been made of the loss of investment and jobs that has followed from the Government's refusal to allow British farmers to compete on equal terms with their EEC counterparts?

The hon. Gentleman must carefully define the term "farmers" here. The agriculture industry is a very large one. Some sectors of it, of course, are affected by the green pound. Large sectors of it are not. For example, sheep-meat is not, at the moment potatoes are not, poultry is not and horticulture is not. So we have to be much more selective, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) said. But, of course, against that we also have to weigh in the balance the national interest, which is the extent to which the consumers—the housewives—in this country may benefit from it. It is the balancing of these two difficult factors that is the main purpose of the job of a Minister of Agriculture at the moment.

Although my right hon. Friend has difficulties in doing the calculations that he was asked to do, has he not read the Commission's recent CAP office statement to the effect that the current levies on grains imported into this country and the EEC are at least the equivalent of the world price, thus making grain prices double what they would be if we were outside the Market? Would he not agree that, prima facie, that puts between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. on to the prices of bread, other foods and cattle food? Will he make the calculations to see what prices would be in circumstances which currently affect grain in the EEC?

I have made the point many times in this House that the question of common prices and, in particular—because, of course, it relates to this point, too—the creation of structural surpluses are elements of the common agricultural policy which need strong and violent reform. This has been the basis on which this Government have stood and with which they intend to continue. Of course, my hon. Friend is quite right in much of what he says. It will be my task over the next four years—or that of my Labour successor should I be moved—to see that we move to a sensible prices policy.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has reiterated his known views about the devaluation of the green pound, would he care to add to them and help the House greatly by saying whether he contemplates making any announcement on the devaluation of the green pound during or before Monday's debate?

Before considering whether an announcement should be made, we first have to decide what the policy may be. The policy on the green pound, as I told the Farmers' Club—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman read my speech, because it was a very good one—was that the whole question was under continued and continual consideration. It remains so.

The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when I say that I was amazed that he saw fit to mention his speech to the Farmers' Club. It was not a box office success, according to all reports. Perhaps he will now try to answer my very simple question. Does he have it in mind to make a statement on the green pound during or before Monday's debate?

As for the box office, I was speaking as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the box office returns were not very much in my mind. It was the national policy that was in my mind. That national policy dominates what I say. Should it occur to me to make an announcement one way or another before the debate on Monday, I shall certainly inform the right hon. Gentleman.

I regret that my right hon. Friend has had such difficulty in making an estimate of the increase in food prices since we have been in the EEC. I suggest to him that he looks to the tremendous taxes and levies that there are on food that we import from third countries and also at the cheapness of food from third countries compared with the price of food coming from the EEC. In that way, might he not get an estimate of the increase which he can give to the House at a later date?

I was not really asked that question, Mr. Speaker. If I am asked how much food prices have gone up since we entered the EEC, I am perfectly prepared to tell the House that the increase is about 128 per cent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the effects of the ban on Icelandic fish landings on the United Kingdom fish processing industry.

I have been informed by the fish users that the ban on Icelandic landings is having a serious effect on the fish processing industry. This matter must be one of great concern. However, the resolution of the problem is for the various interests concerned.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he also aware, however, that the ban is having a serious effect on supplies of wet fish in this country? Does he really think that it is having any effect on the negotiations with Iceland, and is it a good thing or a bad thing?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the fishing industry, would take the view that the prospect of an early resumption of fishing off Iceland was pretty poor. Representations have been made to me by the processors about the effect of the ban. I think that the feelings of the men concerned in the unofficial ban are perfectly understandable, but I hope that they will take into account the added difficulties for employment and other aspects which it is creating.

Is the Minister aware that the shortage of fish, not only of fish from Iceland but of herring and other species, is causing grave concern to the processors, particularly in Scotland? Is he in a position yet to react to the suggestion I made to him in Committee that there ought to be a temporary scheme to keep the processors in business until we know what the outcome for the common fisheries policy will be?

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. It is vital that as far as possible we keep the structure of the industry in being until we know its future. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that import duties are being reviewed. This, of course, is a matter for the EEC. The review may be a way to help the industry in its present difficulties.

Is this ban on the landing of Icelandic fish the result of our objection to the unilateral declaration of exclusive fishing limits by Iceland? Is not this precisely what the Government's policy is relation to the rest of Europe?

The ban, which is unofficial, is, I think, due mainly to the understandable reaction to the fact that we are not allowed to fish near Iceland. In the long run, of course, it is not necessarily in the interests of the industry or of the producers, or of the processors in particular.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the President of the National Farmers' Union.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the President of the National Farmers' Union.

I have no specific plans, at present, for a meeting with the President of the National Farmers' Union, but I keep in close touch with the union.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the president, will he be aware that his skill in dodging direct questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will be no substitute for a clear assurance that he has sought an immediate devaluation of the green pound of at least 7½ per cent.? Before he goes, will he assure his hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) that the housewife's burden will be a great deal heavier very soon unless something is done to restore confidence inside British farming?

Get out of the Market. That is the answer.

The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) is making a number of rather sweeping assertions. The question of devaluation of the green pound is one that, understandably, the President of the National Farmers' Union has very closely in mind. I, too, have it closely in mind, because I have to balance the interests of agriculture, because I am the responsible Minister of the food industry, which has other points of view, and of the housewife, because I am also sponsoring the food which she will have to pay for. The balance of those three imperatives must always guide what I do.

Three years ago we had a White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources", which was intended to instil confidence in British agriculture but without sufficient money to back it up. Now we do not even have a White Paper. When the Minister meets Sir Henry, what will he tell him to give him confidence in the future of British agriculture?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has already seen a copy of the annual review, and that may well form a very interesting topic of discussion in what I understand may be the subject for Monday's debate. But I would not recommend the hon. Gentleman to quote too much from it. There is a great deal that I might quote from it.

Will my hon. Friend repeat comments that he has already made to ensure that the Opposition are enlightened? Will he confirm that the pig sector is the most hard-pressed sector of British agriculture at present, that that sector would not necessarily be helped by changes in the green pound and that the prime need for the pig sector, and possibly for beef, is early and substantial changes in monetary compensatory amounts? The Opposition are not helping in this regard.

My hon. Friend has put the matter very clearly. It is the beef and the pig sectors that are suffering most at the moment, and, understandably, they are doing so from a large competition of MCAs. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), I said earlier that the trouble with the green pound is that it is a very blunt instrument. If one could use a national means of this sort, or any other national means, selectively, it would be a great deal of assistance.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), except with a familiar dirge. Cannot he say whether, in his view, the point has been reached that the interests of the consumer and of the livestock producer are converging, or have converged, since both have an identical interest in the preservation of a healthy and competitive livestock industry? If we go on in this way, with Ministers putting off the inevitable, the problem will get worse and worse, and the right hon. Gentleman will be to blame.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is converted to my point of view, which all the way along has been that the interests of the producer and of the consumer coincide. When, as happened at the Farmers' Club meeting of which we have both spoken, someone said to me "You are an excellent Minister of Food but an"—expletive deleted—"Minister of Agriculture", I tried to point out that, in fact, the interests of the two go together. But there is another way in which the interests go together, and the right hon. Gentleman must direct his mind to it. All the evidence shows that if the price of foodstuffs goes up there is a corresponding fall in consumer demand. The farmer must be aware of that, too.

When my right hon. Friend is next in contact with the President of the NFU, will he discuss with him the problems of glasshouse growers? Does he agree, with regard to fuel costs, that the Dutch are still enjoying a very unfair advantage and that our EEC partners have been most unfair in holding up progress towards a fair equalisation of fuel costs? Does not this illustrate the disadvantages for horticulture of our being in the EEC?

There are a number of balancing advantages and disadvantages here. I am well aware of this point. If I were not, my hon. Friend, who has been a marvellous champion of the growers in his constituency and who has always made the point fairly, would see to it that I was. But there are a number of considerations to be taken into account, one of them being that progress is being made in this field, and one hopes that the results will eventually turn out to be right.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he anticipates proposals will be brought forward by the EEC Commission for a sheepmeat regime.

The EEC Commission is expected to produce proposals before the start of the new marketing year.

In the meantime, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that he would be better placed to ensure for British sheepmeat exports to France treatment comparable to that which the Irish receive if it were not a fact that he enjoys the unfortunate reputation within Europe of being less concerned to improve the common agricultural policy than to wreck it?

No, Sir.

Is the Minister in a position to give an assurance to the sheep farmers of this country, if the shcepmeat proposals are forthcoming in April, that he will do everything in his power to retain for them the guaranteed price deficiency payment which has served our producers and consumers so well for the last 20 years? Will he further agree that it is now time to persuade our counterparts in Europe to abolish the intervention system and return to guaranteed prices for every commodity that we produce?

I can promise the hon Gentleman that until there is a sheep-meat régime the guarantee system will remain. I cannot go as far as he would like, for the simple reason that I do not know what proposals the Commission may have in mind. I am determined to see that what I regard as three basic essentials are preserved. The first is that the producer shall have a fair price. The second is that the consumer shall he protected from unnecessary and large increases in price. The third is that New Zealand imports shall be preserved and safeguarded.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that many right hon. and hon. Members opposite from the Tory and Liberal Parties who are now so frustrated and angry at the CAP were the strongest advocates of joining the Common Market, and does he agree that the only choice left to them is to remain political masochists or join us in helping to get Britain out of the Common Market?

I am not an expert on changes of mind on the Opposition Benches. As I look around, I occasionally see hon. Members opposite whose views I do not think have changed very much over the years.

Does not the Minister realise that the price for sheep-meat in Britain reacts to the price of beef? If that is so, how can he maintain that sheepmeat prices are unaffected by the level of the green pound?

I was really talking about the direct argument that we are having on whether a devaluation of the green pound would assist this sector or that. I was trying to point out that sheepmeat exports and trade inside the Common Market are not affected by the green pound.

Does the Minister approve of the French-Irish sheep trade deal? Is he aware of the importance of the French market, and particularly the Paris market, to Scottish agriculture? What steps will he take to increase exports of sheep from Scotland to the EEC?

The French export market, which, I think—I hope I have the figure right—represents 50 per cent. of our export of sheepmeat, is an important market. It is equally important that there should be no discrimination against us in the name of—shall I say—European free trade or anything else. It is for that reason that I have asked the Commissioner to take steps to see that this discrimination is brought to an end.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to take agricultural land into public ownership.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to nationalise agricultural land.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any intention of nationalising agricultural land.

As I told the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) on 15th December 1977, my right hon. Friend the Minister has no proposals for the nationalisation of agricultural land.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the threat that land might be nationalised is very damaging to the confidence of farmers? Will he give an assurance that he would not remain a member of the Government if his party adopted the nationalisation of land in its election manifesto?

I suppose that the Government's success is such that the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman are now being increasingly driven to the conclusion that the only shot left in their locker is to run the "Reds under the bed" scare. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Government have no intention of nationalising agricultural land.

Many farmers are still suffering from a loss of confidence and great consternation as a result of the alleged remarks of the Minister's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, that individual farmers could not be trusted to look after their own land. Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask the Minister, who is or, perhaps more hopefully, was a member of the Tribune Group, to ask the Tribune Group to pass a resolution against the nationalisation of land so as to restore confidence?

It is an abuse of agricultural Question Time to waste valuable minutes with that sort of rubbish. The hon. Gentleman is referring to a statement apparently alleged to have been made by my hon. Friend at a fringe meeting, which I attended, at a Labour Party conference. My right hon. Friend adressed himself to this matter last year.

Will the Minister give us an assurance now that this matter will be dropped for ever, not just for the next General Election? Secondly, will he encourage his hon. Friend to write another article in Tribune to make it clear that he does not support his first article in which he said that he was in favour of the nationalisation of land?

I shall give no such assurance. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to answer on behalf of the Government. These questions—certainly the hon. Gentleman's question—are addressed to the future policy of the Labour Party. Of course, there is a distinction between the objectives of the Labour Party—which I totally share—and the current policies of the Government.

Will my hon. Friend firmly reject the unfortunate combination of empty heads and closed minds on the Opposition Benches and consider publishing an open discussion document for the industry and interested parties on the pros and cons of the State becoming landlord of agricultural land, so that we can separate investment in agricultural land from investment in agriculture, which causes many problems, especially when engaged in by the financial institutions?

Yes. Conservative Members should recognise that, in so far as the Labour Party has plans or has published proposals on this matter, they relate to the voluntary transfer of land in lieu of capital transfer tax. But my hon. Friend is right. There is concern about the increasing rôle of financial institutions, which have no direct interest in farming, buying up more and more land. It is precisely for that reason that my right hon. Friend has set up the Northfield Committee to look into this issue and how we can create more opportunities for bona fide aspiring young farmers to farm the land.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we are grateful to have from his lips the knowledge that there is a difference over the possibility of the nationalisation of land between the Labour Party and the Government? The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, whose words were quoted a few minutes ago, stated that in his view land nationalisation was the only solution because farmers could not be trusted to look after the long-term fertility of the land. In view of the disquiet which that has caused in the farming industry, will the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking that this is not the Government's policy?

It is absolute nonsense. I reject utterly the suggestion that a working farmer cannot be entrusted to look after the fertility of his land. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, if a Labour Government were ever to implement radical proposals in this area, it would be on the basis of an election manifesto commitment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present situation on monetary compensatory amounts, particularly with reference to the pigmeat situation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the pig and pigmeat product industry.

Pig producers' returns have improved in recent months. Pig prices have risen and feed costs have fallen. Higher pig prices have, however, brought difficulties for the curing industry, which has to compete with imports benefiting from unfairly high monetary compensatory amounts. The European Commission's report on the distorting effects of MCAs should be submitted to the Council of Ministers later this month. Naturally, I hope that this report will support the belief held by my right hon. Friend and me that the way pigmeat MCAs are calculated must be changed.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, short of giving his right hon. Friend the almost impossible task of making sense out of the common agricultural policy, it should be made clear to the Opposition that it does not help the pigmeat industry in particular or our national aspirations overall to revalue the green pound? We know that he has to do a deal, but his negotiating posture should be to give as little as possible on the green pound and to maximise the amount that he can get on renegotiating the MCAs.

I think my hon. Friend is correct. He will recall that over a year ago my right hon. Friend secured an 8 per cent. change in the MCAs, and he has used the green kroner devaluation to get assurances from the Commission. We are hopeful that in the near future we can press successfully for a recalculation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this issue affects not only the farmers but the pigmeat industry as well? Many of us recognise his dilemma, that if he wants to help the farmers he has to hurt the housewives—which did not apply under our guarantee system—but this is only another vicious by-product of our being a member of the EEC. Nevertheless, could my right hon. Friend outline in some detail what is being done to help the farmers and what progress, if any, he has achieved in trying to obtain changes in the MCA system?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in this subject, and it is true that my right hon. Friend has considered the interests not only of the pig producers and the industry but of consumers as well. In reply to his question about how we have used the Community system to help farmers, I can tell my hon. Friend that, in addition to the 8 per cent. change, there was the 3 per cent. change last year in the green pound devaluation, there was the assurance on the green kroner devaluation, and, of course, the subsidy of £17 million helped the industry, which would have been very much worse off had we not got that. These factors should be borne in mind.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister noticed that, if he had looked a little further down the Order Paper—

Order. That is a wicked waste of time.

When the Minister makes his statement, will he preface it with his belief that no amount of tinkering with MCAs or green currencies will ever really work and that the only answer is to scrap the common agricultural policy and return, as the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said, to a system of deficiency payments?

My right hon. Friend is facing reality in this situation, and he has pressed quite firmly over a period of time for a review of the MCAs. I believe that the country should keep this issue in perspective, because, as our annual review says, apart from the modest improvement as a result of better prices and lower feed costs, there are encouraging signs of a modest expansion of the breeding herd in the coming year.

Is the Minister aware that what has plunged pig producers into their present state of gloom is the appalling increase in the price of feeding stuffs—from about £25 a ton to £110 a ton in the space of four years? The main reason why this has come about—he realises that feeding stuffs—

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question rather than give information?

The main reason, is it not, is that import levies are now having the effect of taxing them by 58 per cent.?

I accept some of the hon. Gentleman's submissions in this respect. It is quite true that the unfair payments which are being made to Holland and Denmark, in particular, on the export of their products are causing severe competition to our own industry. But we agree that the best way to tackle this is by selective action in relation to MCA devaluation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board.

I am in frequent touch with the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board but have no meeting arranged at present.

Is it not about time that the Government made a statement on the Board's future? After the chaotic situation at the end of the past season, this question is impinging upon the confidence of producers as they have no knowledge of the Board's future.

My right hon. Friend has applied very strong pressure in the Community in order to get the new regime under way and defined, but there is still some way to go in negotiations. We have given assurances to the potato industry that the guarantee for the 1977 crop will be honoured.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless the uncertainty about the marketing of next season's potato crop is removed very soon, there will not be enough potatoes to market?

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise, it is important that any changes in the regime must still result in the producers having confidence to produce and in ensuring at the same time reasonable prices for the consumers. Those are the basic points in our negotiations.