asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the Government views on the Commission's proposals for the dairy sector.

The Commission has produced a number of proposals for the milk sector. 'These are still under discussion. The main one is for a supplementary levy to be charged on increases in milk production. I consider the best way to solve the problems in the milk sector is firm action on the level of milk price support.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the proposal to use 1981 figures as the base for milk production in the United Kingdom will be disastrous in view of the expansion that has occurred in the industry since that time? Will he further confirm that the knock-on effect in supply industries to the agriculture industry, particularly the dairy and livestock sector, would be almost cataclysmic?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the main difficulties. A supplementary levy based on

Now that the Minister has opened the door to UHT and sterilised milk imports, what progress is his Department making in trying to secure stringent dairy hygiene regulations throughout the Community?

The Community is looking into this matter. With our high standards of hygiene, that should be welcomed.

Are not national quotas the only feasible way of preventing Germany and France from continuing to support small producers who do not depend on milk production income to keep themselves and their families? Will not price alone, therefore, be bound to fail?

My hon. Friend would do well to consider the implications of national quotas. In practice, it would mean operating a scheme on similar lines to the co-responsibility levy, which is so unpopular in this country and has been ineffective in dealing with the growing milk surpluses. I have severe reservations about the national quota idea.

The Minister expresses his preference for a milk price support scheme. Does that mean that the Government are firmly opposed both to the super levy and to quotas for individual milk producers?

We have consistently said that the best way to deal with surplus milk is to use the mechanism of price and the discipline of threshold guarantees. That view is supported by the Milk Marketing Board, and I am convinced that that is the best way to deal with the problem.

Does the Minister accept that if he proceeds by way of quantitative restrictions on price support, such as the supplementary levy on milk, he risks transferring the surplus problem to some other commodity, such as cereals? If so, is he proposing to proceed pan passu on cereals?

The question is not about cereals, and I do not think I should be led down that path. If there were to be a reduction in milk production, which there must be throughout the Community, my guess is that the pressure would be on commodities other than cereals. In those circumstances, I think that the pressure would be on some of the livestock sectors.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards finding alternative methods of disposal of straw and straw stubble.

The Government are funding a major programme of research into straw use and disposal. We are spending nearly £2 million a year on this. Current projects include research into using straw for animal feed and fuel and mixing straw into the soil. It is, however, likely that for the foreseeable future burning will remain the only satisfactory method of disposal for much of the surplus straw that is now produced.

Fiddling while Britain burns.

Will my right hon. Friend inject even more urgency into the research? Is he aware that tens of thousands of homes were affected during the summer and that many horticulturists had their crops severely damaged?

I am extremely conscious of the inconvenience that was caused, in most cases by a thoughtless and small minority of farmers. I should like to see the NFU's code of practice and the local authority model byelaws strengthened, and we are taking steps to that end.

Will the Minister consider introducing a scheme for subsidising the transportation of straw to remote livestock-rearing areas where much of it could be put to gainful use?

That is easier said than done. It would be a hugely expensive scheme, and almost impossible to monitor properly. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from his professional experience, a great deal of straw travels from the grain-growing areas to the livestock areas anyway. The difficulty would be in avoiding subsidising an existing trade in an effort to get the extra movement of straw in the way he suggested. It would be a difficult scheme to organise.

As an interim measure, will the Government support a proposal made by a number of farmers in Bedfordshire that straw and stubble burning should not be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays, and that it should not be allowed before 5 o'clock in the afternoon?

We shall want to discuss that helpful suggestion at the talks to which I referred.

How many EC countries have introduced legislation to stop farmers burning straw?

There are different regulations affecting different countries. One of our major problems is that our conditions are different from many countries in the Community. In some eastern counties of Britain, where there is intensive growing of grain and a great surplus of straw, livestock are not spread in the way that they are in other countries. There lies the difficulty.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the model byelaws covering straw and stubble burning properly relate to farmers who break the NFU code of practice?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. They are not adequate. That is why we are having talks to see whether we can stiffen them up. At the same time, we are having discussions with the Home Office about the local authority model byelaws, which also need to be reviewed carefully.

Is the Minister aware that last summer many farmers disregarded any supposed code of conduct covering straw and stubble burning and that tragically, as a result, people were killed in motorway accidents? Is he further aware that his replies about possible alternatives to burning are unsatisfactory and that the problem requires urgent attention?

The hon. Gentleman directs his vehemence to much too wide a group of people. As I said, I do not believe that many farmers have been abusing the code. We are dealing with a small minority, and we should try to make it much less attractive for them to burn straw in an irresponsible way.

Until such time as a total ban is practicable, will my right hon. Friend consider the advice given by his Department to the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in April about the burning of grass and heather? Does he agree that the only practical and fair way of monitoring these matters is to have a flexible licensing system? Will he consider applying such a system to straw and stubble burning?

The next question on the Order Paper deals with grass and moorland burning. A licensing system would be extremely costly and of doubtful effectiveness in reducing the problems caused by straw burning. However, it is a point at which we shall be looking.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling in the House and the country that he has not responded to the depth of anger over the level of straw burning that was carried out last summer? Is he further aware that he has expressed a degree of complacency which I regret deeply and hope he regrets also?

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman spent his summer recess. We announced early on that, in view of the irritation and inconvenience that had been caused, which I greatly regret, by irresponsible behaviour, we would look again with the NFU at the code of practice and start discussions with the Home Office with a view to reviewing the local authority model byelaws. We are doing that. I reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department's work on straw and moorland burning has given any indication of the numbers of wild animals killed by these practices.

Provided that straw and moorland burnings are properly carried out, they should not pose significant threats to wildlife populations.

Is the Minister aware that the problem this year has been that a great deal of the burning has not been done properly and that farmers have put people on the roads at risk through accidents? Is he further aware that many wild animals have been trapped and encircled by flames as a result of irresponsible burning? When will he produce enforceable laws to stop this obnoxious practice?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the implication that I read in his supplementary—he seemed to underline what I said—that provided straw and moorland burning is carried out properly, it should not pose a significant threat to wildlife populations. I accept that, if it is carried out improperly, in some instances there can be a threat to wildlife. It is partly with that in view that we are carrying out the reviews and discussions to which I referred.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that burning for hill and upland grazing is an essential part of hill sheep management and that if the regulations laid down under the Wildlife and Countryside Act were carried out there would be no problems? Indeed, none has been reported to me?

I acknowledge my hon Friend's wide experience. As a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, he knows much about this matter. I agree with and underline what he said. If burning is carried out properly, it should not represent any threat to wildlife, which we are anxious to preserve.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the current level of imports of dairy produce from beyond the European Community.

The Community's imports of regulated agricultural products reflect the trading arrangements negotiated between the Community and third countries. I do not think it realistic to press for more liberal access to the Community market for dairy products. given the present levels of production in the Community.

How can the Minister justify to the British consumer the progressive exclusion from the British market by the EC of low-priced New Zealand butter?

We have made it clear in the Agriculture Council that we consider the quantities proposed by the Commission for the next five years to be neither fair nor reasonable. The Community has a commitment not to deprive New Zealand of essential outlets, and we are pressing for that commitment to be honoured.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the proposal made on 21 September 1983 by the European Commission to apply a tax on oils and fats.

We regard the proposal as contrary to the Community's domestic and international interests, and we are strongly opposed to it.

I am glad to hear that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be outrageous for the European Commission to impose a tax on fats and oils to help fund the common agricultural policy at a time when the EC is supposed to be searching for economies in the CAP and reductions in surpluses generally? Does he further agree that the imposition of such a tax could only damage the consumer and the British food industry?

I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. It is estimated that the proposals will increase butter consumption in the Community as a whole by only 16,000 tonnes. That is a tiny amount compared with both butter consumption and butter surpluses. Therefore, it does not really deal with that problem. I agree that it has the effects that my hon. Friend mentioned on consumers and some sections of the food industry. Moverover, it will exacerbate our relations with third countries and cause them to retaliate. As my hon. Friend said, it is the wrong way to tackle the problem of increasing surpluses and expenditure.

Is the Minister aware of the adverse effects that this will have on the food industry in Merseyside? Is what he said at the Dispatch Box today the line that will be taken by his right hon. Friends at Athens later this year?

I think that the effect on Merseyside will be small—it would be wrong to exaggerate it—and the proposal in its current form would have a small effect on the food industry. We do not want to impose on the industry anything that would have an adverse effect. The danger is that a tax, if it were introduced, could be increased in future years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the line that we have taken in the discussions, and we are supported by other member states.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be a retrograde step and that the butter industry can stand on its own feet? Will he proclaim the virtues of butter against some margarines which are made from dubious animal fats?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the impact on the butter industry. As I said, I think that this is the wrong way to tackle the problems that we undoubtedly face with dairy surpluses.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area and value of forest land has been sold or is in the process of being sold under the terms of the Forestry Act 1981.

Between the passing of the Forestry Act in 1981 and 21 October 1983, the Forestry Commission received £28·5 million from the sale of land and other real assets. The area involved included 16,182 hectares of forestry land and plantations.

Why are certain purchase prices still a big state secret—for example, the Glen Affric estate in Scotland, which was sold by the Wotherspoon family to the Forestry Commission about 20 years ago and which the Forestry Commission is now in the process of selling back to the Wotherspoon family? Are not the public entitled to know the original purchase price, the present purchase price, how much investment the Forestry Commission, has put into the estate, and what profit the Wotherspoon family is making out of this senseless public asset stripping which was initiated by the Tory Government?

The hon. Gentleman is given to exaggeration. The disclosure of such information would amount to a breach of confidentiality.

May I point out to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that the puchase price was announced last week? When will the Government recognise the effect of their economic policies on the Forestry Commission? By publicly putting pressure on the commission to raise money to help pay for the unemployment queues that the Government have generated, they are allowing the market to affect the Forestry Commission in such a way that it has to sell more and more land at lower and lower prices. The market knows that it has only to wait until the price drops because the Forestry Commission has to sell. Is that not an economic contradiction of a most abject kind in dealing with our natural resources?

There is no question of selling off assets cheaply simply to meet financial targets. The aim is to maximise income from individual sales for the benefit of the taxpayer. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the aim is to reduce that part of the Forestry Commission's grant-in-aid which finances the forestry enterprise—no more, no less.

Does the Minister realise that her answer will cause consternation among all who are interested in forestry in this country? Why cannot we be told, for example, the original purchase price of Glen Affric, the sale price, and how much money the commisssion has invested? We need to be satisfied that the sale represents a fair return to the taxpayer and is not a matter of plundering the public purse for private gain?

It would be a breach of confidentiality to announce the details.

Public money and assets are involved.

I know the hon. Gentleman's fixation about disposing of anything that belongs to the state, but I repeat that the amount of plantable and plantation land sold is 1·5 per cent. of the total.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of self-sufficiency in dairy products in the United Kingdom.

Estimates prepared by the Milk Marketing Board indicate that in 1982 for milk and milk products the United Kingdom was 91 per cent. self-sufficient in butterfat and 131 per cent. self-sufficient in solids non-fat.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that enormous increase in self-sufficiency is a remarkable track record for an industry which, over the years has shown immense technical expertise, innovation and ingenuity? When he and his hon. Friend have analysed the current proposals that are being studied, will he take great care not to adopt a course that will result in the stultification or ossification of an industry that is so important to the United Kingdom economy?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's tribute to the industry. It is interesting to note that much of the movement towards self-sufficiency has taken place during the last few years. The increases in the production of milk products reduce the need for imports, provide additional jobs in the industry, as well as in manufacturing, and help our economy in many other ways. In our discussions on the surpluses Community-wide and the problems involved, we do not intend to agree to solutions which will ossify the industry in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

Does the Minister agree that during the past few years farmers have been encouraged to increase dairy production, but that their efforts have been ruined as a result of the decision taken last night in the House?

As I said in the wide-ranging debate that we had last night, we do not believe that it will have those consequences. In our view, that is not the kind of problem that we face as a result of the tremendous improvements in production that the industry has carried out in the past few years.

Is it not clear that milk processors in the United Kingdom are being encouraged to see an expanded market for their production, in spite of widespread Community surpluses, by the principle of degressivity for New Zealand butter imports?

They would have a tiny impact on the surpluses and other problems.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the disturbing rumours that were apparent yesterday afternoon in the House that some parts of the Dairy Trade Federation favour the importation of raw milk in tanker loads from the continent so as to undermine the Milk Marketing Board?

Certainly we received representations to that effect. However, I repeat what I said in the House last night — that my right hon. Friend totally resisted such requests in connection with the regulations which the House agreed last night.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his statement last night during the dying moments of the debate caused great consternation, and that it is denied by the Dairy Trade Federation? Which organisations or bodies made representations to him on the importation of raw milk? Will he publish the list in the Library?

Last night I made it clear that the discussions were in confidence. I said that representations were made to my right hon. Friend that under the regulations we should consider the introduction of certain types of raw milk for processing.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the suspension of payments under the EAGGF.

The European Commission has suspended until the end of 1983 advance payments of certain subsidies. However, traders can apply for advance payments to be made when the suspension ends. The measure does not affect the normal payment of subsidies on completion of the necessary formalities.

Will the Minister accept that this is yet another symptom of the virtual bankruptcy of the European Community because of the common agricultural policy? Will the Government press for fundamental reform of this policy before the Prime Minister capitulates on the raising of own resources?

The cash crisis in the Community has been signalled by successive British Ministers in several of the Community's Councils for many years. It cannot have come as a surprise. The post-Stuttgart talks, in which some of us have been heavily involved in recent weeks, stem entirely from the welcome decision at the European Council meeting in Stuttgart to put the house in order. This is what we are trying to do.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the subject of renewal of the temporary operating aid for the fishing industry.

We have received representations from two fishing organisations and one vessel owner.

If the Minister receives a flood of representations as a result of this question, will he remember that the operating subsidy is the only measure that has sustained confidence in an industry that has been crippled with debt and allowed some sections of the English fishing industry to keep going? Without a renewal of that operating subsidy those sections will be threatened, as will the confidence of banks that have made loans to the industry.

I discussed this matter with the National Federation of Fishermens Organisations, which drew attention to the problems in Grimsby. It would be difficult to justify an operating subsidy not only because our previous subsidy has been declared to be incompatible with Community rules but because we now have the possibility of more certainty in the industy as the common fisheries policy moves into operation. I snail shortly be announcing one part of that policy, the structures programme, which will be relevant to these problems and will put some cash into the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding the restructuring of the fishing industry.

We are working towards introducing, as soon as possible, grants for decommissioning and laying up fishing vessels, and for exploratory voyages and joint ventures. National and European Community grants for building and modernising vessels will also be available.

While appreciating what my hon. Friend has just said, and following from the question asked by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)——

Order. The hon. Member must ask his own question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does my hon. Friend accept that, while the fishing vessel owners and fishermen will be delighted with what he has just said, there are tremendous problems because of the high cost of landing fish at Grimsby? Will any restructuring proposals include some finance to alleviate the cost of landing fish at that port?

I do not believe that the restructuring proposals—the vast majority of which are linked to the EC programme—deal with the problem of the cost of landing fish, but, undoubtedly, they will be relevant to the Grimsby fishing industry in other ways.

Does the Minister realise that fishermen in the north east of England find it impossible to put their hearts into restructuring discussions when they feel that they have been badly let down over such key elements in the fishing industry as herring and sprat fishing and lobster and white fish sizes, which make it impossible to maintain the type of fishery that we want?

The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions about the CFP, and I hope to answer these points later today. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the CFP before too long. If so, I shall be able to go into the detail that the question justifies.

Will the Minister give an assurance that the restructuring proposals will make some recommendations about the entitlement of former trawlermen to statutory redundancy pay?

That is not part of the restructuring proposals, and it would not be a part of the European Community's programme — I am considering the national implementation. This matter is for another Department.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will review the methods used for cost benefit analysis of large drainage schemes.

The methods used for cost benefit analysis of land drainage schemes are kept under constant review.

I am glad to hear that, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong that the subsidy for the drainage scheme and the subsidies for the crops to be grown are both included in the benefit? Is it not true that the inclusion of taxpayers' money in the benefit can shift the balance in favour of the destruction of yet another area of diminishing wetlands and that this cannot be changed because the cost benefit analysis is secret?

I note my hon. Friend's concern, but he will probably know that the question of publishing the results of the cost benefit analysis relating to individual schemes was discussed in another place. The Government undertook to have the matter of disclosure of the cost benefit assessment included in the consultation paper to be issued on the report of the interdepartmental review of land drainage and coast protection.

I am pleased to hear that the matter may be subject to a review. Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the vast majority of individuals and organisations involved and interested in conservation take the view that, until now, the lust to promote an ever-growing cereal surplus seems to have received a much higher priority than the retention and safeguarding of the national heritage?

I dispute that allegation.

Does my hon. Friend realise that if people have not drained their lands by now, they should not still be receiving subsidies? This drainage subsidy has been continuing for far too long.

I have just pointed out that this matter is under constant review and that an interdepartmental review is being carried out.

In view of the importance to the so-called disadvantaged areas of drainage and other schemes, will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that she will do all that she can to promote the special resources that the EC proposes to put into these areas?

They will form part of our consideration of drainage schemes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the conditions under which raw milk is sold to the public.

It is necessary to bear in mind both the health factors involved and the desirability of not interfering unnecessarily with the free choice of consumers. The present arrangements are intended to achieve a reasonable balance between those two considerations.

Is the Minister aware of a recent outbreak of food poisoning in Leeds because of the sale and consumption of raw milk? Does that not suggest that there are risks involved in this sale? Will not that risk be increased if there is major importation of raw milk from the European Community?

I do not believe that this poisoning has anything to do with imports of milk. We are talking about raw milk in this case. I am aware of a recent outbreak of food poisoning in Leeds affecting six people. An immediate ban was imposed on further sales of raw milk for liquid consumption, and all farm milk was required to be heat treated. The arrangements were changed in 1980 when Ministers took the view that those wishing to purchase raw milk—green top milk—should be allowed to do so, provided that they were aware that they were buying untreated milk.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that if he or any other Minister continues discussions with anyone about the possibility of bulk imports of milk from France there will be uproar, not just from the Opposition Front Bench, but from all parts of the House? Is he aware that such a development must be strongly resisted?

I assure my hon. Friend that we have taken no steps that would allow new supplies of raw milk to be brought into Great Britain at this time.

Is the Minister aware that yesterday the Minister of State sought to undermine the credibility and bona fides of the Dairy Trade Federation by claiming that some sections of it supported the import of raw milk? Is he further aware that, in my view, refusing to give information to the House on the ground of confidentiality is an abuse of our procedures? Will he therefore change his mind and tell us who made the representation to him?

I think that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was right not to disclose the details. The matter was raised by one of my hon. Friends. In winding up yesterday's debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State did his best to answer the question in a wholly reasonable way without disclosing details which he felt should not be disclosed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the viability of the British edible oil industry.

The industry is well aware that to maintain its viability and meet the challenge posed by imports it must modernise its operations and improve efficiency. The steps that it is taking are designed to achieve that.

In view of increasing EC penetration of the oil market and recent job losses in the industry, will the Minister fight the corner for the industry in the Cabinet with regard to energy costs and port charges, which are subsidised on the continent?

Those are clearly matters for other Departments. As the industry recognises, the problem is not so much the EC as outdated plant and overcapacity. I regret the closures and redundancies that have resulted from the attempts to restructure and modernise the industry, but they are inevitable and essential if the bulk of the industry is to survive. The edible oil market is a more or less static market. That is one, fairly small, reason why I believe that an oils and fats tax would be highly undesirable, in that it would hamper the industry.

Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that such a tax will not be imposed under duress from our partners in the EC?

As I have said before, the matter is still being discussed in the talks on the reform of the CAP. Nevertheless, we have made clear our strong opposition to such a tax and we are supported in that view by a number of other member states.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the food consumed in the United Kingdom in value terms is subject to agricultural levies.

Levies are charged on certain types of food commodities imported from third countries. These imports account for about one tenth of the total food commodities moving into consumption.

Does not that reply show that the Government's claim that the true cost to the consumer is about £300 million is somewhat misleading? Does she agree with Lloyds bank Bulletin last year that the real cost is about £3,000 million?

I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can determine the cost. It is not meaningful to assume a cost. We are in the European Community and we intend to make the CAP work.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations has received about the threat to the doorstep milk delivery system arising out of European Community imports of liquid milk.

I have received many representations from individuals and organisations on this issue. This and other aspects of the importation of milk regulations were discussed in yesterday's debate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if those regulations are the best that the Government can produce there is little hope for the dairy industry in general and for the doorstep delivery system in particular? Is he prepared to go down in history as the Minister who destroyed that viable British social service?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes that comment today. I noted that he listened to some of the earlier speeches yesterday and then left the Chamber. He cannot have forgotten that he was involved in this matter as a Minister in the Labour Government and lifted the gate to allow a large amount of cream to come in from the Community.

On what does the Minister base his belief that there is no threat to the doorstep delivery service from the regulations debated yesterday when the Dairy Trade Federation, the Milk Marketing Board and the workers in the industry all say that there is a danger?

The hon. Gentleman indulged in his usual shouting match yesterday. He should have listened to what I said. I said that the doorstep delivery service was under threat for various reasons, not least the competition that the supermarkets are conducting among themselves. I told the House that one threat to the doorstep delivery service was Tesco's recent short-term cut of 4p in the price of milk. Actions of that kind are a threat to the doorstep delivery system.