asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends next to meet Commissioner Gundelach of the European Economic Community.

I expect to see Commissioner Gundelach tomorrow in Hull.

Is it not clear that whatever else the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister brought back from Paris, it was not an agreement to freeze food prices? What constructive steps are the Government taking to achieve that end? Will the Minister confirm that such a policy will make sense only if selectively directed against commodities which are in persistent and excessive surplus?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sought to persuade the other European partners of the necessity for a freeze in prices. He may well have done so. The reaction to that in Paris is neither here nor there. It is the reaction in the Agriculture Council which is important. I expect a great deal of difficulty in obtaining a freeze this year. However, we intend to go for it, and we shall go for it. The difficulty lies, always in defining, at any particular moment, what commodities will be in structural surplus some years ahead. It is far better, at a time like this, to go for a common price freeze. I must admit that I might make an exception in the case of silkworms.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Commission that in this, the third year of a restriction on fishing in the Irish Sea, not only British fishermen generally but those of County Down, both inshore and skiff, deserve, and need, a larger share of the available catch? Is he aware that if he has any trouble from the Commission, or from the European Court, many thousands of fishermen of County Down and of the Mourne will want to know the reason why?

I am aware of what the right hon. Gentleman is asking. I had an enjoyable and informative series of meetings in the Province towards the end of last year. I shall certainly do my best, since I shall be attending a fishing conference tomorrow in Hull, to make a number of the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made.

When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Gundelach, will he check on the allegation made this lunch-time, I believe, on television or radio, by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) to the effect that about £2,400 millions—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not seek to give information. He must ask a question.

I shall try to rephrase that, Mr. Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the allegation made by the right hon. Member for Sidcup on the media this lunchtime to the effect that £2,400 million has been received by Britain from the regional and social development fund since 1972? Does he know whether there is any truth in this allegation, and can be explain the position?

I was made aware of what the right hon. Gentleman said. He was speaking in the context of the high payments made by the United Kingdom in the farm budget, and trying to balance one against the other. Fortunately for his argument, he did not give the full figures. If he had done so it might have looked different. We have received £2,400 million since 1972, but we have paid £3,200 million into the farm budget. About two-thirds of that £2,400 million is in the form of loans, and not grants and this has been paid back. The House may see the real sense of this when it is realised that, on the latest figures, the United Kingdom has contributed about £23 million towards support for olive oil, and received £20 million back in the regional and social development fund.

That was an interesting diversion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman. would care to return to the central issue of British agriculture and explain and assess the damage which has been sustained by the agriculture industry as a result of his Government's rotten handling of the economy.

I regard the right hon. Member's question as a diversion. The Question is about what I have to say to Commissioner Gundelach. I shall have to discuss with him the issues raised by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). That is important. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question arises from the original Question. It may arise from a later Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he estimates to be the size of the United Kingdom milking herd.

The provisional results from the December 1978 census showed that there were 3,384,000 cows in the United Kingdom milking herd.

Does the Minister agree that if the hopes for milk expressed in the White Paper are to be met there must be no reduction in the milking herd? Does he recognise the concern of United Kingdom producers that the current co-responsibility levy proposals could be an impossible impost? Will he make it clear to the House that his right hon. Friend's firm resolve is to refuse to accept these co-responsibility proposals, since the Minister's anwer to the Select Committee on European legislation the other day made that anything but clear?

I thought there was no doubt and that my right hon. Friend and I had made the position clear. If the proposals of the Commission for CAP prices were adopted, they could have a substantial effect on production in the United Kingdom. The proposed levels of co-responsibility levy would seriously depress our producers' margins. The proposed exemptions from the levy would discriminate heavily against the larger and more efficient producers in the United Kingdom. This is a discrimination against us and against efficiency. We shall oppose it strongly.

The House will be glad to hear what my right hon. Friend has said. Will he confirm that the proposed levy is the opposite of what we seek? Can he confirm that in the areas where the levy will be applied infrequently milk production will be discouraged? Can he also ensure that in the areas where the levy will normally be experienced milk production will be sustained?

I agree with my hon. Friend. If the Community is to overcome some of its basic problems we must deal with the price structure and surpluses. We must also ensure that the more efficient countries have a chance to produce more and that the less efficient produce less. The co-responsibility levy works in the opposite direction.

Can the Minister tell British dairy farmers, and more particularly their bankers, why they should continue to invest in milk production when costs are increasing by 17 per cent., when money is costing 16 per cent. and when the best that the Minister can offer is a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound?

At least that is a step in the right direction. There is growing confidence in the dairy industry, because the herd size has increased in recent years and the production of milk is at a record level. If there had been more take-up of school milk in Tory-controlled areas consumption of milk would have been even higher. We have a good record and there are good prospects.

We agree that there should be a price freeze on milk, but will the Minister make clear what he did not make clear when he gave evidence to the Scrutiny Committee, namely that the Government will fight the proposals for the co-responsibility levy?

In the Scrutiny Committee I was commenting on the report of the Commission. The price negotiations are under way, and that is another aspect. We have made clear where we stand on this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that home timber pro- ducts will meet a greater and growing share of national requirements.

I refer my hon. Friend to the report to the Forestry Commissioners entitled"The Wood Production Outlook in Britain ". Consultations with interested parties on the report are now in progress and my right hon. Friends will decide on further steps in the light of these.

Given the rapid rate and the often permanently ruinous character of the operations involved in the clearance of the world's forests, is it not clear that even more urgent consideration should be given to the long-term improvement of our home timber production?

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we attach importance to the discussions to which I have referred. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that planting in the private sector is now recovering significantly in the light of the steps which the Government have taken. Our concern must be to sustain a high level of planting in the public sector.

Is the Minister aware that nearly 600,000 acres of Welsh land are planted with trees, which often take over the best pasture land, mixed farms and even arable land? Is he aware that, in spite of all that timber, there is not one major industry which is based on the timber that we produce?

I agree that it is easy to talk about increasing the acreage of land devoted to planting. It is more difficult to identify those areas where there is no competition with sheep rearing. The industry is going through a difficult period, and it is difficult to imagine that there will be a substantial investment in the near future.

Does my hon. Friend accept that although the industrial functions of timber are of overriding importance, our forests provide important environmental and recreational functions? Is he aware that more than 1 million people visited the Forest of Dean last year for recreational purposes? Will he build on the developments which the Forestry Commission have begun, particularly by the use of log cabins?

Yes. We have cause to be proud of the Forestry Commision in this context. Its recreational provisions represent public enterprise at its best. We are determined that the Forestry Commission, and not only private interests, should reap the benefits of the profits from such developments.

Will the hon. Member bear in mind that there is a wide and growing agreement on both sides of the House that our present production of timber is miserably inadequate? Does he agree that it is not a question only of competition between public and private interests? Does he agree that it is also a question of how we increase our miserably inadequate level of production? Will the Minister apply his mind to how the private sector can be encouraged to plant more and obtain more benefit from the forests?

The right hon. Gentleman talks as if he has paid no attention to the important policy statements which the Government have made in the last two or three years. We have given substantial tax concessions to private forestry, and we have introduced a new grant scheme. Only this morning the chairman of the Forestry Commission, whom I met in my office, assured me that the evidence indicates that the private sector is expanding in response to those inducements.

Will the Minister do better than to congratulate himself on having repaired the damage that his Government have done?

The right hon. Member is fair in implying that there is broad agreement between both Front Benches that increased planting is desirable. It looks as if we have things broadly right for the private sector. The problem that looms in the next few years is that the Forestry Commission will run out of land to maintain its planting programme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the National Farmers' Union.

I met the president of the National Farmers' Union on 26 February.

Did the right hon. Gentleman have discussions with Mr. Butler about the state of pig farming and the pigmeat industry? Was he able to report any progress on the level of MCAs and the calculation of the pigmeat coefficient? Unless something is done soon, the long-term prospects for the pig breeding herd are poor.

Yes, although, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, the pig breeding herd has increased by about 44,000 in the past year. The problem will be—and is—much more with the pig processors. That, of course, has repercussions for breeding. Therefore, it is important to deal with a further recalculation of the pigmeat MCAs. We discussed this matter, and I hope that when we return to the subject of price fixing on Monday week a strong stand will be taken not only by United Kingdom but by the Italian and French Ministers. From discussions that I have had with them I believe that that will be the case.

Was the Minister able to discuss with Mr. Butler his views on the inter-departmental review on the export of live animals for slaughter and further fattening, which has been published for almost 12 months? Has he been able to indicate to the National Farmers' Union both his views and those of many Members of the House—and certainly millions of people outside—who are determined to bring this vile trade to a speedy end?

That was not on the agenda for 26 February but I discussed this with Mr. Butler's predecessor, Sir Henry Plumb, some time ago. I put to him the basis of a carcase trade for the whole of Europe. Whether they are right or wrong from the welfare point of view. I understand the argument of many farmers that the United Kingdom should not be prejudiced by what occurs in the rest of the Community. I realise that others might get the trade if we were to stop it, which in the end would mean that while we could say that we had no involvement with the trade, the same number of calves or sheep might still be exported. Therefore, the real question is the carcase trade, which is a matter that I have also taken up with the Commission.

When my right hon. Friend meets Mr. Butler, will he remind him that 15 million tons of grain and 2½ millions tons of sugar, which together with surplus milk products will cost the EEC £3 billion to dump on the world market, are being exported in the current year? Will he ask Mr. Butler how he thinks British farmers can expand when there are surpluses, particularly in the areas that I have mentioned, and remind him that the sum does not encourage competition in the EEC?

The question of surpluses came up in discussions between Mr. Butler and myself. I was pleased to find that on this occasion he took the same point of view as Her Majesty's Government, namely, that there should be a freeze until products and structural surpluses were reduced to the proper levels.

I have no doubt that when the Minister last met Mr. Butler they talked about the green pound among other things. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a devaluation of 5 per cent. is adequate to meet the current needs of British agriculture?

As I have told the House many times, one has to judge a devaluation of the green pound, not simply in the context of what farmers require or need but in a general context. I believe that there should be a devaluation of the green pound on various occasions—possibly at different times during the year. It is, therefore, very important that we consider the question in relation to price fixing.

What will the right hon. Gentleman ask for now? Secondly, what will he do to recover for individual countries the right, which they used to have until last year, to take adjusting action on their own initiative?

On the first point, I think that I have already made it clear to the House—I certainly did in my recent statement—that I have already asked for a 5 per cent. devaluation of the green pound and that I want that before the price fixing. When I look at the price fixing, I can always make up my mind according to the situation at that time, but this 5 per cent. seemed to be an essential before the price fixing. I believe that that answers the right hon. Gentleman's point about the right of an individual country to decide, of its own volition and in its own national interest, when it should make a green currency devaluation. I shall fight for that, and I am glad that the Italian Government take exactly the same view.

Order. I must warn the House that we are running very slow indeed, and I fear, with respect, that answers are a bit long.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will attend a meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Economic Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when next he will attend a meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers of the European Economic Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects next to meet his European Economic Community colleagues.

On 26 and 27 March.

Is the Minister aware that some weeks ago he spoke about the proposed devaluation of the green pound by 5 per cent. and that in the interim we have had one of the most savage, severe and expensive winters for British farming for many decades? Has he taken that into account, and does he think that 5 per cent. is adequate to meet the bill?

There is another factor that must be taken into account, and that is why it is much better to look at the situation when we arrive at it and not in advance. The other factor to be taken into account is the strengthening of the pound sterling. The basis of that is that there has been a cut in the competitive rates between this country and its European partners. When I come to the price fixing, and thereafter—assuming that I shall have managed to preserve the right of a country to devalue when it wishes—I shall look at the matter in the national interest.

In order to assess the value of these Council meetings, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it remains his policy that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European Community as soon as possible?

It was never my policy—it was always my view. That view, I regret to say, was a minority view in the referendum which took place, if my memory serves me correctly, in 1975. My views on the Common Market remain what they have always been.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a widespread belief in Common Market capitals—which was lent considerable support by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday—that a Conservative Government would be much more pliant than the present Government on CAP matters and would be much less concerned about protecting national interests? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to his EEC colleagues that when he uses a little abrasion to wear down Common Market food prices he may not have the support of the Conservative Front Bench but he does have the support of the whole of the Labour Party and virtually the whole country?

Probably my best use of time in the Council is simply to get on with the job. I promise my hon. Friend that I shall do that.

Can the Minister bring us up to date on the proposal for a sheep-meat regime? Has he made it clear to the Community that the House is unlikely to agree to anything that disadvantages New Zealand?

The sheepmeat regime has been progressing very slowly. If one can talk about a regime dragging its feet, it has been doing so for about two years. Whenever the question arises I have made three basic points, which I shall put in order of priority as I see them: first, the protection of New Zealand; secondly, the protection of our own farmers; and, thirdly, the protection of our consumers.

When my right hon. Friend next goes to the Agriculture Council, will he take with him a copy of the Labour Party's direct elections manifesto and show it to the Agriculture Ministers in Europe? In particular, will he point out that part of the manifesto which says that if, in the event, we cannot get the fundamental changes in the CAP that are essential, not only for Britain but for Europe as a whole, we must reconsider our position and that, as some of us feel, we may have to come out?

I always get the feeling that some of my colleagues in the Agriculture Council have read the manifesto even before I have. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Europe because, curiously, this is not only a British consideration. The problem of dealing with absurdly high prices and high surpluses is a British consideration, a European consideration and, if I may say so, a world consideration, because it leads to the dumping at absurd prices of foodstuffs in the rest of the world in a way that prevents proper development of the developing countries.

At the next meeting of the Council, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss the ludicrous situation whereby live cattle are exported from this country to Germany and are slaughtered there, to the benefit of the German worker and the German abattoir trade, after which the meat is then reimported into Britain, collecting huge MCAs as it comes?

This is one of the difficulties that arise in a MCA policy. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I must take into account all the other implications, and it is for that reason that in an earlier answer I said that on every occasion I must consider the national interest.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to meet the chairman of the Potato Marketing Board.

My right hon. Friend has no specific plans for a meeting at present, but officials of my Department are frequently in touch with the chairman and officials of the Potato Marketing Board.

In view of that reply, will the Minister take the earliest opportunity to settle the support prices for ware potatoes for this coming season? Will he confirm that he realises how urgent it is for growers to have the price structure before them before they put their valuable work and labour into their crop?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the urgency of knowing where we stand in the future, but I think he will accept that it is a little too early to talk about what form of support will operate for the 1979 crop. We have been working to get some ideas from the Community about the future of the potato regime. That is one factor. We also need to know the ruling of the European Court on the import ban.

Can my right hon. Friend encourage the Potato Marketing Board to do what it can to assist with the better marketing and grading of ware potatoes at all levels in order to help our own growers? Is he able to confirm that this aspect will be covered by the committee of inquiry into marketing, which his right hon. Friend announced in the White Paper"Farming and the Nation "?

I take note of my hon. Friend's concern, and I shall bear in mind his views about the marketing side.

Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange a meeting between British Rail and the Potato Marketing Board, to secure a better service for the potato industry? Is he aware of the present massive shortage of wagons in Scotland to meet the peak needs of the seed potato trade with England, which is causing great problems for the merchants? Will he take action to secure a better British Rail service for the potato industry?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments about the transport of potatoes. As for the organisation of the Scottish seed producers, the interests concerned have been examining the possibility of forming a body to improve the marketing of Scottish seed potatoes. I understand that there has been no decision from the industry about the form that such an organisation should take. Of course, we shall be interested to see the proposals in due course. No doubt the aspects that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be relevant.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he now has to meet the president of the Dairy Trade Federation.

I frequently meet the president of the Dairy Trade Federation, but I have no specific plans for a meeting at present.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that the financial position facing the dairy industry is becoming very grave indeed, and that even with a 15 per cent. revaluation, as it were, of the green pound it would require an additional penny a pint in the autumn to restore the margins of the dairy farmers? Will he bear this in mind when he makes his price review announcements? Will he now firmly tell the House that under no circumstances will the Government accept the co-responsibility levy proposals as at present put forward by the EEC?

Perhaps I might deal with the second point first, because it has arisen before. I do not believe that the co-responsibility levy is right, for a number of reasons. I believe that it is discriminatory, against the United Kingdom in particular, but against efficient farmers throughout the Community anyway. In my view it is a reward for inefficiency and a penalty for efficiency. Secondly, if one is to attack the price level, as I believe one should, this is a bad way of doing so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have given a clear reply to his question.

Will my right hon. Friend point out to the Dairy Trade Federation, in case it is in any doubt on the matter, that New Zealand is willing, able and, indeed, desperately anxious to retain access to this market for her butter and cheese and would wish to be able to supply us with those products at prices that are approximately half the level of Common Market prices?

This is one of the areas of dispute that I must confess I have with the Dairy Trade Federation. I believe that the importation of New Zealand butter and cheese into the United Kingdom is right, for every possible reason.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the problems of bovine tuberculosis and the slaughter of badgers in the South-West.

During 1978 bovine tuberculosis was found in the South-West region in 65 herds of cattle and in 55 badger carcases. Both figures represent a welcome reduction on previous years.

Does my hon. Friend accept that thousands of badgers are being gassed in the South-West region? Does he agree that, while cattle can thus be protected, we should not indulge in widespread gassing of badgers when we are not sure of the scientific link? Is he prepared to accept the view that we should adopt a trapping policy, so that we could gain more scientific knowledge about the cause of this disease rather than a policy of gassing, which presents no long-term solution?

I do not think that I can go all the way with my hon. Friend's comments. The trouble is that although there is a test for tuberculosis in live cattle, there is no such test for live badgers. I do not think that trapping is a practical solution. However, if there is any satisfactory alternative to gassing, we shall always be happy to look at it.

Is the Minister aware that many people outside the Ministry still do not accept that there is a real nexus between TB in cattle and TB in badgers? Can he unequivocally assure the House that he is satisfied that this nexus exists?

I am not sure to which people the hon. Gentleman is referring. The consultative panel which advises the Government on these matters met only a fortnight ago. It includes representatives of the main welfare organisations, including the RSPCA. and they are happy with the Government's progress.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to meet the general secretary of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers.

I meet the general secretary frequently, but I have no specific plans for a meeting at present.

Since the Government have made it clear that they are against any general increase in farm prices, and since the majority of farmers may expect a continuing erosion of their returns, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that at the present time farming confidence is not good? Will he therefore meet the agriculture workers' union and, indeed, colleagues in his own party to discuss the wisdom of pressing for such measures as the rating of agriculture land, a wealth tax and even the nationalisation of land, which can only further undermine farmers' confidence, and with it job prospects in the industry?

I know that farmers' confidence is a fragile thing, but the reality is very different from what the hon. Gentleman is implying. This has been a record period for British farming. We intend to see that it continues to be so.

Will the Minister meet the general secretary as soon as possible, to keep everything in perspective? He will have support for dealing with agricultural surpluses in the CAP, but he should remind the general secretary, as soon as possible, that although food prices have doubled in the last four years under the Labour Government, only 10 per cent. of that has been directly due to the CAP. That has been publicly admitted by Labour Ministers.

I think that the general secretary would be interested were I to put that point of view to him. But he might also put to me the point that we were talking about the usual and most expensive forms of food.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Opposition to the fact that at one stage after the war, following Tom Williams, we had a fine system of support but it was destroyed? If we were sensible, we would get back to that system. It would enable farm workers to get a decent wage and farmers a good return.

I do not accept that the farming industry, as at present constituted, cannot afford to pay a decent wage to farm workers. I have said before, and repeat to the House now that the trouble is that the workers are employed in a dispersed industry. There is no doubt that good farm gate negotiation should result in a decent wage for farm workers.

Will the Minister acknowledge, in response to the suggestion by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), that a return to the old system of support would probably cost the taxpayers of this country around an extra £1,000 million a year?

That, of course, would be on the basis that we were still paying for the disposal, storage and export of goods in surplus. To put the matter into total perspective, the farm budget at present runs at £6½ billion a year. Of that £6—billion, 75 per cent. is spent either on export restitutions, storage or disposal.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will commission research into methods of veal production with the objective of funding a method both economic and humane.

Current research commissioned by my Department into methods of calf rearing take into account animal welfare.

Does the Minister appreciate that many people, including myself, find veal production so distasteful that they will not eat veal? Will he therefore take more active measures to try and produce methods that are humane?

A lot of the research that we are carrying out is relevant. I accept that not only the hon. Lady but many hon. Members on both sides of the House are very concerned about animal welfare generally. I cannot accept that all veal production is necessarily cruel.

Will my hon. Friend, on reflection, acknowledge that, by its nature, there cannot be a genuinely humane form of veal production? Does he see a connection between veal and the seal? Is he aware that early-day motions have been tabled by the hon. Lady and myself on the subject? Does he agree that those who support us might also draw the line at veal production?

I cannot accept entirely what my hon. Friend said. We have a code of animal welfare for cattle production. We are most anxious that the State veterinary service should keep a close watch on all veal production in this country and take the necessary steps if any cruelty is involved.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the EEC price review.

My central objective in this year's CAP price negotiations is a freeze on common prices to reduce surpluses and cut the cost of the CAP to the consumer and the taxpayer.

In view of the slight feeling of some hon. Members on this side of the House that the Labour Party is trying to say that the Conservative Party is not backing up the Government when they stand up to the EEC, does the Minister find it useful that he can say to his Community co-Ministers that the Conservative Party supports him on the price freeze and that if he departs from that approach he might have great trouble and be unable to get the matter through the House of Commons?

When I go to Brussels I always quote the hon. Gentleman in firm evidence and alliance on this matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his policy has the support of the whole country, except the Opposition Front Bench?

Even the Opposition Front Bench sometimes falls into line.

Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the fact that his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is as inaccurate in what he has just said as he is on many other matters?

I do not think that my right hon. Friend is all that inaccurate. I took the precaution of reading the debates that took place in the price fixing in 1977. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to read them again.