asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ask the welfare division of the State Veterinary Service to publish a quarterly account of its activities.

The annual report of the Chief Veterinary Officer already describes the animal welfare activities of the State Veterinary Service. We doubt whether the expense involved in producing more frequent reports would be justified.

In that case, will the Parliamentary Secretary undertake to give in the annual report the precise number of visits undertaken on a routine basis to ensure the welfare of animals in various establishments?

We make specific visits to farms to investigate the welfare of the livestock. In addition, our veterinary staff look into the welfare problems of farms when visiting them for other reasons. We keep a record of specific visits. I shall give consideration to the hon. Lady's request.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects proposals for the future of potato marketing to be agreed.

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on 19th January—[Vol. 942, c. 654]—I am in frequent touch with the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board but have no meeting arranged at present.

The Government have had five years' notice that this would become a matter of importance on 1st January 1978. When may we expect something more concrete to come out of the discussions? When are producers likely to have a firm assurance of a price guarantee of a similar kind for the coming growing season?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that although the date of the ending of transition and harmonisation was known some time in advance, many other areas required discussion as well. Getting agreement with all the member countries concerned is not always easy. In the interests of the trade, we have said that the 1977 guarantee will be honoured. We are now discussing with the industry proposals for a new regime, and we shall be announcing arrangements for the 1978 crop as soon as possible.

Regarding the 1977 guarantee, I understand that the Ministry and the Potato Marketing Board have already taken off the market about seven times the estimated surplus, yet the average price remains about £36 a tonne, which is £10 below the guaranteed price. When is a guarantee not a guarantee? What has gone wrong? Is anyone evading the import ban?

The hon. Gentleman will know that on various occasions we have given assurances that the guaranteed price of £45·77 per tonne will be fulfilled for the year as a whole. We have engaged in a buying-in programme which is aimed at stabilising the market.

Does the Minister agree that we should work towards self-sufficiency in potatoes with a small surplus for export? Does he also agree that the Potato Marketing Board, or a similar organisation, offers the best chance of achieving that end?

The hon. Gentleman will know that discussions on these matters have been going on with the Community for some time. My right hon. Friend has on a number of occasions stressed the urgency of the situation in order that the industry should be aware of it. We want to ensure that the producer has the confidence to produce. We want as far as possible to guarantee reasonable prices, but we have to take account of other countries which supply us with some of their crop from time to time.

Does the Minister agree that it is very unlikely that any of these questions would have been necessary if Conservative Members had not voted so enthusiastically to take us into the Common Market?

My right hon. Friend is quite right on that point. He will know that getting agreement with the other members of the Community is not always an easy matter. At the same time, it is urgent that we should have some idea of the future of the regime and the kind of regime that we want for our industry, so that the producers can go ahead for the coming season.

Will the Minister of State be good enough to take this opportunity to put on record that he agrees with our view that if the powers of the Potato Marketing Board were to disappear the housewives of this country would be much more susceptible to shortages and high prices?

I am glad that the hon. Member agrees with our point of view that we want a regime that will take into account the factors that I have mentioned. The present system has up to now served us well and we want to ensure that an agreement is reached at the earliest possible time.

When my hon. Friend next meets the Chairman of the Potato Marketing Board will he ask him to explain why he is releasing potatoes at £30 a tonne to processing organisations taking 10,000 tonnes a year or more, thus placing at a disadvantage the smaller organisations, who are paying up to £46 a tonne?

The basic reason for the buying-in programme is to take surplus off the market and stabilise prices. Some of the buying-in programme assists the industry in relation to stock feed. We have had representations from the potato processors to help them in the present situation. I think that there has been a general welcome for the policy, which means that they receive some concessions in helping them in the problem that they face at present.

Is it possible at this late hour to give back to our marketing boards the statutory powers?

The powers that any boards will have in the future will depend upon the kind of regime and policy on which we manage to get agreement in the Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many live calves were exported from the United Kingdom in the month of January 1978; and to which countries they went.

The number of calves examined by Ministry veterinary officers and passed fit for export overseas during the four weeks from 1st to 28th January was 30,740. These animals all went to France, Italy. Belgium or Holland and were intended for further rearing.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Do those figures not cause concern to the Minister, not only on welfare grounds but in relation to the future of our home meat production? Does the Minister have to wait for the report from the committee that he has set up before taking action? I should like to see a ban placed on those exports.

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that this is a complicated issue, as many calves are slaughtered in this country every year. Even last year, when many calves were exported, about 500,000 were slaughtered. One has to consider whether it is better that the calves should be slaughtered or that some should be exported, in proper conditions of transport, for further rearing on the Continent.

In the course of collecting those statistics, can the Minister give any indication of the condition in which those calves are shipped? Does he realise that there is much concern, particularly in areas such as mine, where they are shipped under gale conditions? Does the veterinary service have any say about the sea conditions under which the ships are allowed to sail? There is a great deal of confusion about it.

I agree that there is a very great deal of concern on this issue. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend set up the present inquiry.

Will my hon. Friend be more open about the matter with the Liberals—I know that the Government have to consult these people about all those various matters—and tell them the truth? The fact is that the Common Market, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) supports, along with his colleagues, prevents us from carrying out the measures that he would like to see.

Certainly my hon. Friend has a point, in that there are EEC implications in this area. These will be brought out in the report that we are having prepared on the subject.

Did the hon. Gentleman note that the original Question referred to the export of calves from the United Kingdom rather than from Great Britain? Did he take into account in his reply the number of calves exported from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and from thence to elsewhere?

No. The hon. Gentleman has raised a very fair point. In general, the concern expressed about the export of food animals relates to exports to Common Market countries other than the Irish Republic.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many producer-retailers of liquid milk there are in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

As at March 1977, there were 3,388 producer-retailers in England, 672 in Wales, 420 in Scotland and 10 in Northern Ireland.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply and for those figures. However, will he indicate to the House his right hon. Friend's view on the proposals that have come from the Commission for the future of the Milk Marketing Board, which in this country is so vital to the consumer and the producer? Does he not think that it is appalling that the future of the Board should be left in this position, so late in the day?

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that that appalling state of affairs must be laid at the door of his party rather than at the door of this Government. While we regard the proposals put forward by the Commission for the future of the Board as a satisfactory basis for negotiation, we share the industry's concern that they are in need of significant improvement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a large concentration of producer-retailers in my constituency and that they are very anxious about the present situation? They have small herds and small holdings. What guarantee will he give to them that their present producer-retailer type of trade will be allowed to continue in the future?

I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned, on behalf of his constituents, about the proposed ban on the sale of untreated milk. There is a very high proportion of producer-retailers in the Yorkshire-Lancashire area. The Government are giving consideration to this issue and will be having consultations with the interested parties in the very near future.

Is the Minister aware of the serious apprehension amongst dairy farmers in Somerset that his right hon. Friend will sell out to Brussels over the producer-retailer issue for liquid milk sales and that the Milk Marketing Board will be driven the same way as the old Egg Board?

Bearing in mind that the Conservative Front Bench's main criticism of my right hon. Friend has been that he has been intransigent in Brussels, it is a bit rich for the hon. Member to suggest that my right hon. Friend, of all people, is likely to sell out the national interest in this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans next to meet the EEC Commissioner for Agriculture.

I have frequent meetings with the EEC Commissioner for Agriculture.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Commissioner will he discuss with him the calculation of the unit of account itself? Does he agree that it is time that we considered whether the unit of account should be geared to the "snake" currencies, as this in itself produces higher prices?

If I were to say that to the Commissioner he might get a bit bored, because I have been saying it to the Council on a number of occasions. The fact is that since the representative rates of the United Kingdom, France and Italy are very near to one another and they account for about two-thirds of the population and about two-thirds of the agricultural produce of the Community, it would be a much more sensible basis to align prices with the lowest price of those three rather than with the price of the minority of one-third, or whatever it is, that is represented by the "snake" currencies.

Is the Minister aware that I could give him a list of things that he ought to discuss with the Commissioner? Will he concentrate his mind on dealing with the Anglo-French problem, which is serious, particularly for South-West producers? Will he try to encourage the Commissioner to work on this problem and open up the market again?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will send me his list. I promise him that I shall study it carefully. With regard to what I take to be at the top of the list, the question of the levy on British sheepmeat going into France and the discrimination in favour of the Irish Republic, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have asked the Commissioner to take action on this and he has done so. He has asked the French Government for a reasoned opinion, which I believe they have to supply by the end of this month.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Commissioner will he resist the demand for the abolition of the Milk Marketing Board? Does he realise that the system we have in this country has operated to the benefit of the consumer and the producer of milk? Does he further agree that we should resist the Continental system of purchasing milk in shops and should continue with the door-to-door sales system which we have had for many years?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. I view with considerable alarm, as I think the whole House does, the decrease in the door-to-door sale of milk throughout the Community. I believe that only the Irish Republic and ourselves are left with this system. The experience in the Netherlands was that the whole system went in a very short time. As a result of our efforts over the past year, the Commissioner has produced proposals. I do not believe that in detail they are as good as I would like them to be, but in general terms I think he recognises that in a Community overflowing with milk, if not honey, a strong liquid milk market is an important means of reducing a surplus.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Commissioner will he discuss with him the critical situation in which United Kingdom cattle finishers find themselves at the moment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are faced with a situation in which costs have escalated in the past three years, while the last modest adjustment of the green pound, though welcome, has in no way compensated for stock costs?

I am quoting from memory, but I believe that as a result of the devaluation and the general increase in the target price, prices will be about 17 per cent. up in March as compared with last year. This should be more than sufficient to meet the difficulties.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to reintroduce the lime subsidy; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to add to the assistance for liming currently available under capital grant schemes. Liming is a good investment for farmers, and my Department's Agricultural Development and Advisory Service regularly reminds farmers of the need for liming and helps them to plan appropriate programmes.

Does the Minister agree that if we are to increase production from the land the sooner we reintroduce the lime subsidy the better? Can he clarify the position about Europe? Are his counterparts in Europe willing to allow us to reintroduce the lime subsidy?

The hon. Gentleman is right to argue that it is an essential part of good soil husbandry that there be regular liming. The issue is whether it is necessary to pay a subsidy, in addition to those which we pay for reseeding and the basic upgrading of grassland, to obtain this adequate level of liming.

Since this lime subsidy ran for 40 years, from 1936 to 1976, and since it never cost the Exchequer more than £6 million per annum, may I ask the Minister seriously to reconsider asking the Treasury for this money, which I can assure him would be extremely well spent?

I have to acknowledge that the original reason for removing the lime subsidy was fiscal rather than agricultural. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, that was one of the decisions taken in the context of the limitation of public expenditure entered into as part of the negotiations with the IMF. We recognise the importance of liming and keep a close watch on its level. It is too early to say yet what impact the removal of the subsidy has had on the rate of liming.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to meet the Irish Fisheries Minister.

I have no formal plans to do so at present, but I meet him frequently.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Atlantic salmon is in serious danger of extinction? Will he take an early opportunity to meet the Irish Fisheries Minister with a view to producing a scheme to cover the Irish Republic, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England as well as other countries concerned, with the object of stopping the terrible drift-netting on our shores, estuaries, seas and oceans, since this is doing dreadful damage to this valuable species?

All questions of conservation are matters of importance, not just to the United Kingdom but to the whole Community. There is a special interest, obviously, between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, because of the Atlantic Ocean. The best form of conservation is for the coastal State to be able to do the conservation work in the waters around its shores. That seems to be the way in which this matter should be dealt with, not only in the case of this fish but in the case of all fish that swim around our waters or Irish waters.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the Irish Fisheries Minister, when dealing with the question of the common fisheries policy, that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who negotiated our entry into the Common Market in 1972–73, made a remarkable statement to The Times on St. Valentine's Day about launching a campaign some time next week to smash the Common Market and to form a merger between all the countries of the Market and the EFTA countries? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Tories and Liberals whom we have heard today on these matters, who dragged Britain into the Common Market against our best advice, are now, along with the right hon. and learned Member, presenting a sorry spectacle?

I have so much to read that I find it difficult to keep up with the reports of what is said by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and the denials that inevitably follow the reports. I do detect a slight difference of opinion, compared with the speeches that we heard some years ago from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and others.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his fight on behalf of fishermen, which might have been unnecessary if some of his critics today had done their duty, is meeting with admiration and support from fishermen generally? May I ask him not to be put off by the criticism made yesterday, suggesting that the United Kingdom was behaving like a spoilt child, since most children react violently—in a phrase which he might already know of—when their piggy bank has been rifled?

I could not have put it better myself. If ever there was a case when there was total and complete justice in the views which I think everyone in the House now shares, this is it. We intend to keep it that way.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets his counterpart, the Irish Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, will he ask him to confide the secret of his success? Does he realise that the Irish have almost complete parity between the Irish green pound and the pound sterling while the right hon. Gentleman was unable to get the modest realignment asked for by this House?

When I next meet the Irish Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries I shall comment upon his split personality. There are separate Ministers for agriculture and for fisheries. The hon. Gentleman refers to Ireland and parity. That is a long, interesting and detailed story. The fact remains that this House voted for a 7½ per cent. devaluation. It did not vote an immediate across-the-board 7½ per cent. devaluation because, as I well recall, the whole argument was about the livestock sector.

May I, for the sake of accuracy, ask the right hon. Gentleman to remind himself of the terms of the motion which was discussed in the House? It was for a 7½ per cent. devaluation of the green pound forthwith.

That is perfectly correct. But it has always been the case—it was the case with the Italian green lira, which came up at the same time as the green pound—that certain parts of the devaluation are staggered. Sometimes it is done at the opening of the marketing year, and sometimes it is done for all commodities at once, but usually it is staggered. What has happened in this case is that it has been staggered.

Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the point of our anxiety is that on this occasion the House of Commons voted specifically for a devaluation of the green pound by 7½ per cent. forthwith, and that in an extraordinary way his colleagues on the Council denied this country what they seem to have given automatically in every other case?

The right hon. Gentleman just does not seem to appreciate the point. Nor does he seem to have read his own motion, or the Liberal Party's Early-Day Motion, or, as far as I remember, the Scottish National Party's motion, all of which drew attention to the livestock sector. His allies on that occasion were concerned to protect livestock. They did not want to protect the cereals producers. A 7½ per cent. devaluation right across the board would have undone all the good that was done in giving a devaluation to the livestock producers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what would be the estimated effect on the retail price index of a complete devaluation of the green pound, assuming the devaluation were spread over two years.

I estimate that if the change were made now there would be an increase in retail prices of the order of 1 per cent. to 1½ per cent. or 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. on the food price index, over and above the effects of the recent green pound settlement.

My right hon. Friend no doubt agrees that that is a convenient stick with which to beat the Opposition, but how far does he agree that a gradual devaluation over a period of time is probably both politically and economically inevitable? May I ask whether, in the figures that he quoted, he has taken account of the likely effect of such devaluation on our own increased home production in line with our White Paper policy?

Very much so. Indeed, a moment ago my hon. Friend may have heard me quote from the speech of the Editor of the British Farmer and Stockbreeder, in which he said that it would hurt agriculture if he were to devalue very speedily.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although she may have little understanding of the green pound, and be in good company in so doing, that most pragmatic of all our constituents, the British housewife, has legitimate cause for concern when she reads in the newspapers this morning that interventionist pricing is producing beef, butter and barley mountains in this country? Has the right hon. Gentleman any explanation to offer?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. May I say "Welcome to the club"? A number of us have for years been attacking the intervention system. Having said that—perhaps it is a reasonable comment on the way in which the CAP is being operated at the moment—the fact remains that the butter hill in the United Kingdom represents 4 per cent. of the Community's butter storage, while that in the Federal Republic of Germany, with its prices so much higher than ours, represents 60 per cent. The hon. Gentleman can draw the moral.

Has my right hon. Friend also noticed the statement in the Commission's agricultural report for 1977 that EEC prices of wheat, barley and maize are now more than double the world prices which we would have to pay if we were not members of the EEC?

That is an argument that we have had in the past, and no doubt it will go on for some time. The fact remains—I agree with the implications of what my right hon. Friend is saying—that the right way to attack the structural surplus is at the end price. That must be done, and that is what the Government are trying to do.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present level of German butter imports into this country would never have been achieved without MCAs, and that they would not have been there if the green pound—real pound discrepancy had been ironed out?

That is probably true, but we are a deficiency country in butter. We can manufacture a good deal more of our own, and that we must do. I agree with that, but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, because I suspect that very soon he will be in a minority of one on this matter, that a mood is coming about, and has been seen clearly during the past few weeks, which has looked at the MCA discrepancy and found the right basis on which to proceed. It is to get a common price level which really reflects what the Community ought to be paying, and not the basis under which it operates at the moment, which is the basis of the "snake" currency.

On the question of MCAs, will the right hon. Gentleman register the fact that we on the Opposition side of the House are profoundly disappointed with the puny efforts of the Commission in thinking out this problem?

This is one of the rare occasions on which I find myself in total agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. He will no doubt remember that last September the Commission promised to look into the whole question. It has taken five months, which, as I pointed out to the Commissioner, has given us for the first time the actual gestation period for the mountain to produce a mouse.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the proposals in the 1978 EEC prices review.

I agree with the general emphasis on the need for price restraint but I have doubts about a number of points of detail and I am not convinced of the need for any increases for products in structural surplus.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the staged devaluation of the green pound in itself is leading to an increase in imports, particularly of dairy products and butter? Without wishing to join the club, or of being accused of doing so, may I ask whether he agrees that this is detrimental to the British dairy industry, and whether he can do something about it?

I think that in the short term it is bound to lead to an increase, just as, for example, the ending of the butter subsidy might have done, and the fact that the butter subsidy is progressively to decline. In the general run, however, there is no doubt that when the green pound takes effect it will immediately be of assistance to the livestock producers, and particularly to the dairy farmers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that green rates were introduced by the French and Germans long before we became members of the Common Market, that every other member country has a green rate, and that it is highly doubtful whether the CAP can survive without green currencies?

I think it is right to say that the only member of the Nine that has no green rate is Denmark. I think it is also right to say—I hope that I am not traducing anybody—that the only enthusiastic supporters of the automatic seven-year elimination of the representative rates are the Danes. I detected a considerable lack of enthusiasm amongst my colleagues in the Community once they were put face to face with the real possibility of the green rates being phased out.

What representations is the Minister making to the Germans to revalue the green mark? As a member of his club, may I suggest that perhaps the Germans might be, in the hackneyed words of the Opposition Benches, "dragging their feet" on that issue?

It is interesting to note that if one adopted the suggestion of one of my hon. Friends a moment ago, of one European unit of account equalling one agricultural unit of account, the Germans would be far and away furthest from the norm, far above us or any other country. I have pointed out in the Council that it is the higher rate of common prices dictated by the "snake" that is really causing all the structural difficulties.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say when the prices review negotiations will be finalised this year?

I cannot say when they will be finalised, but I think that they will start to be finalised round about the first week in April. I do not want to upset the hon. Gentleman, but I believe that price negotiations have been known to go on until June.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current state of negotiations in the Council of Ministers with regard to the recalculation of the basis of pigmeat monetary compensation amounts.

My right hon. Friend has taken every opportunity to press in the Council for a change in the calculation and has been encouraged by the support of the French and Italian Ministers. But the opposition remains. The Commission's report on its study of the distorting effects of the system of monetary compensatory amounts was submitted to the Council this week and provides a further opportunity to press our case. The issue is likely to be one that will be considered in the CAP price-fixing negotiations.

Has the right hon. Gentleman emphasised that the Danish and Dutch share of our market in tinned ham has reached an unacceptable level? Is he fully aware of the severe difficulties of the pigmeat processing industry? Is it not the case that his Government's attitude towards the EEC has severely hampered the chances of altering the calculation for MCAs to make it similar to that of the poultrymeat and egg industries?

I should have thought that my right hon. Friend's attitude to the Community would be welcomed by all who care about our own industry. It is true that the pig industry in particular has been subject to these problems, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the recent 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound has cut MCAs on Danish bacon imports by £44 a tonne, or 18 per cent. The other 2½ per cent. that will follow will mean altogether a rise of £66 a tonne, or a 28 per cent. variation. However, my right hon. Friend is still pressing for a recalculation of the MCAs.

Whilst I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that calculation of the pigmeat MCAs is extremely unfair, may I ask whether he read the report in the Financial Times this morning that the Commission's study of the chaos in the British pigmeat industry lays the blame almost entirely on this Government's refusal to devalue the green pound and their total incompetence in controlling inflation in this country?

Those two statements are politically unrealistic. My right hon. Friend has pressed consistently since October 1976, with the 8 per cent. change, the revaluation of the green pound last year and the £17 million subsidy to the industry, which had to be stopped when the Community intervened. He has been pressing since. The hon. Gentleman will realise that farming has made its contribution to combating inflation, but the industry benefits from the fact that inflation has come down from the 30 per cent. of a few years ago to near-single figures today.

Rather than continue fiddling with MCAs and the green pound, would not the Minister do better to read today's Press reports that the Dutch Labour Party is reconsidering its faith in the Common Market? In view of the permanent damage done to our pigmeat industry, the permanent damage done by the common fisheries policy to British fishing interests, and the regulations coming out of Brussels which are damaging our livestock hauliers' livelihood, will the right hon. Gentleman now persuade his own party to reconsider its faith in the Common Market and come out of the whole blooming jing-a-ring?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that some of the propositions that he has just put may be longer-term ones. United Kingdom agriculture cannot wait for longer-term proposals. My right hon. Friend is pressing very hard to ensure urgent aid for the industries and the aspects of agriculture that are in dire need of help at present, especially the pig industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the opting-out provision now being proposed as part of a new constitution of the Milk Marketing Board.

The European Commission's proposals on the milk marketing boards would enable individual producers with up to 150 milking cows to opt out of a board scheme and retail their milk directly to the final consumer. This is one of the areas where I shall be seeking changes when the proposals come before the Council of Ministers.

Is it not a fact that the lack of an opting-out clause in the original scheme was the reason for its success? When are the results of the poll likely to be available?

This is a very dangerous situation. There are many difficulties if one exempts producer-retailers with up to 150 cows. I reckon that there are 4,000 of them in the country. The whole question is now intimately bound up with the price negotiations, and we shall simply have to see what can be done about it.