HORTICULTURE

HC Deb 01 August 1952 vol 504 cc1978-94

5.17 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

I want to turn from one aspect of the agricultural industry to another—namely, horticulture; and I very much welcome this opportunity to concentrate our attention for a short while specifically on this part of the industry. In agricultural debates this aspect tends to receive less attention than its proportion of the industry deserves, for it amounts to £125 million of produce a year and one-sixth of the entire agricultural output; and at Question time it is a subject which tends to get canalised into angry exchanges about specific commodities. I think it is a good thing to turn for a moment to a rather broad approach beyond the point of having to explain the plum glut or the unwelcome strawberry imports.

From a constituency point of view, I probably represent as much fruit and as many fruit growers as any other hon. Member, but I intend to resist the temptation to put the case this afternoon exclusively from what I would call a farm, or perhaps I should say fruit, lobby point of view. I am convinced that what I shall say is, in the long run, in the best interests of the industry.

I want to deal first with the problem of imports, because it is exceedingly important that we get this matter in true perspective. We are dealing here with an issue on which there are sharply conflicting opinions. There are two schools which in their extremes say something like this. The first puts the consumers first and says they are entitled to the cheapest fruit and vegetables which can be obtained from here or abroad—and the devil take the hindmost. That is one extreme. The second school, again in the extreme, puts the growers first and insists that imports be subordinated to the interests of the growers and, if need be stopped altogether.

If one lives in a town one tends to take the first view and if one lives in the country one tends to take the second view. If one occupies the Front Bench or a Ministry in Whitehall, one tends to take neither view but to sit in the middle trying hard to appear friendly to both factions. That has been done by all concerned since the war and I do not think it has worked very well. In one respect I think it has been disastrous, for this reason—that we have now, as I hope to show, led the Government into the totally false position of appearing wholly responsible for the destiny of this industry.

We all know perfectly well that among the Ministries there are conflicting interests on this import question. That is perfectly natural, and I do not think there is anything to be concealed about it. The Ministry of Agriculture, which is closest to the National Farmers' Union, would quite naturally like to help the growers. The Board of Trade, which is primarily concerned with trade—hence its name—has to consider primarily overseas trade agreements and our trade situation, which some might consider almost as perilous as the condition of horticulture itself. They are compelled to think in terms of trade pacts and bargains. They are compelled to say, "If we are to sell lace and scissors to France, we must be prepared to accept some of their unwanted strawberry exports."

Between these two, the Ministry of Food tends to act as a well-intentioned but sometimes foolish and occasionally not very honest broker. That is the lineup between these conflicting interests, which on the Floor of the House tends to become over-simplified into the wholly misleading issue of the housewives versus the growers. We have one aspect of that put reasonably but forcibly by the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) in this House.

It is time we tried to get these issues a little straighter, and let a litle air in on this subject. This import issue is emphatically not the dominant factor in the life of this industry, but it has come to be treated as if all the problems of the industry centred round it. To my way of thinking they do nothing of the kind. The import question is so treated because there has been far too much shilly-shallying in Whitehall in recent years. Whitehall's policy has given the industry a legitimate grievance which has grown out of all proportion and now threatens to obscure every other factor affecting the horticultural industry.

That seems to me to be a totally false position. I implore my hon. Friend, through the Minister, to clear up initially this muddle in relation to imports so that this Government should be beyond reproach in this, the only sphere in which they should be actively concerned. Once the import situation is straight, the industry can see its own problems straight and tackle them itself, and there are plenty of them to tackle. I believe that the industry will never set its house in order so long as it believes, as it is in part entitled to believe, that it has a grievance against the Government's import policy.

It means that every problem of the horticultural industry, instead of being faced is being blamed obliquely on to trade policy. Trade policy is the Government's concern. I consider that outside it the Government have no place in this industry at all. They neither guarantee prices nor markets, and I think that the less they have to do with the industry the better.

Let us consider the consequences of the situation in which the Government—I speak of any Government—have got themselves in relation to this industry. In a year such as this, when there are many gluts—we have the biggest plum crop of the century, I believe—fruit growers have been led to suppose that Government action can and must dispose of crop surpluses. I am bound to say that there are hon. Members on this side of the House who think that and express that point of view.

I should dearly like to be able to state an economic truth and say that it is absolute nonsense to pretend that a Government can be made responsible for disposing of a surplus created by nature's bounty. I should like to say that, but I cannot quite do so because I know, the growers know and the Government know, that the market has been bedevilled in the past by certain imports, in particular imports of pulp which are still lying undigested upon the fresh fruit market, which have led the growers to believe that they have been put in the wrong.

As I say, the Government have got themselves into this position of being held mainly responsible for the fortunes of this most mercurial and hazardous industry. The Board of Trade, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Agriculture are all affected by this, and this embarrassment will continue until first things have been put right.

There are some who think that this industry should be told exactly what is expected of it, that it should be told that it is producing too much, too little or just enough. How can it? Nobody knows. We have today 286,000 acres under orchard fruit and 62,000 acres under soft fruit. That is a lot of acres. Do we want it all? I would say that once the import question has been settled that is a matter which the industry alone, and only the industry, can answer for itself, to put it quite brutally, by the law of supply and demand.

What is the alternative? It would be that the Government would have to work out the precise domestic demand for fruit and vegetables on the most uncertain market that exists in this country, lay down targets and guarantee what is produced towards those targets. We know that that would be absolute nonsense.

I say that the order of action is, first, that we have to fix our import situation by means of tariffs—tariffs which give competent producers of vegetables and fruit in this country a square deal, and I stress the word "competent"—which removes the wholly legitimate grievances under which they labour, such as the importation last year of subsidised American apples at the wrong time, and this weight of undigested fruit pulp which is lying on the market, and which growers fear far more than the import of fresh fruit.

It will be asked, "How high should the tariffs be?" I venture to give the answer that they should be high enough to protect the reasonably efficient; they should not be so high as to feather-bed the shoddy producer. In my view, the industry is carrying today far too many part-time passengers, and my sympathies in this matter lie entirely with the whole-time professional, the man who at the present rate of costs spends large sums—three times as much as those required before the war—and who is entitled to see a return on his money.

I wish to say a word about marketing costs. Since the war progress in this field has been negligible. That is really not surprising. Marketing schemes are designed for slumps and low prices and not really for times of inflation. Everybody likes a floor to his market; nobody is so much interested in a ceiling. To my way of thinking, marketing schemes must spring from the industry itself as something which it desires to happen and which it desires to make work.

No matter how well-intentioned the Government may be about marketing schemes, such schemes will never be successfully super-imposed on this industry unless it wants them and is prepared to make them work. I shall be glad to hear some news of how the tomato scheme has worked and been worked. I should like even more to have some news about the apple and pear scheme which has been lurking in Whitehall now for upwards of two years. We should like to know when it is to come into action, and for which crop, whether in this or the next decade, that agreement is intended.

There will be no real interest in this matter of marketing so long as everybody is obsessed, as is the case now, with imports and believes that the whole problem lies there. I do not for a moment deny that the vegetable and fruit trade, particularly the fruit industry, is in the greatest difficulty at the moment. I have the greatest sympathy for all concerned because I think many have been bamboozled, and that our only hope now of a solution is to get clear thinking and straight talking, possibly along lines not tried before.

I am certain that most of these difficulties have to be solved by the industry itself and that they have nothing whatever to do with the Government. The tragedy of these days, indeed the tragedy of this particular industry, is the fact that everyone becomes increasingly dependent on the Government of the day and less dependent upon themselves. If that course is pursued and encouraged, it will be the death of the horticultural industry in this country.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster)

Surely the growers have become dependent upon the Government only because the Government are the only body or authority which can control imports.

Mr. Deedes

I do not deny, and I have not denied in anything I have said, the total responsibility of the Government in the single field of imports. That is the keystone of our policy, and the record, I admit, has been deplorable. There have been too many secret covenants secretly arrived at.

Mr. Nabarro

Thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Deedes

In the result the Government have only themselves to blame. It is a matter of history. They have been saddled with the sorrows of the entire industry.

But it is not undesirable, I believe, that some progress is being made with a reconstituted tariff policy, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us anything he can about it today. I will not speculate. He may have some news for us. In order to be wise before and not after the event, I would say that I am not one who places his whole faith in the tariff system as a complete answer to the whole problem. I think our experience of quotas has been unfortunate. That may well be due not to the system, but to the way in which it has been put to work. The quota system may well have possible uses, if used in conjunction with tariffs.

I say we must get this right first. We must get trade, agriculture and food on the same footing, and work to achieve a solution in respect of an import policy which will have the confidence of the industry. When that has been done, let us get out of this industry; let it stand on its own feet. I say now to the hon. Gentleman that if he, with his right hon. Friend, can achieve that he will not only be fulfilling the policy for which this party stands, but he will assist this industry on the only road along which I believe lies its salvation.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I do not want politically to embarrass the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) whose speeches are found attractive by all hon. Members, but I agree with one of the things he has said, that the question of imports is not the dominating factor. I think if we face up to the problem in this way we shall take a more realist view of the difficulties.

Mr. Nabarro

It is not the dominating factor?

Mr. Willey

No.

Mr. Nabarro

Quite wrong.

Mr. Willey

I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) will get an opportunity of putting his point of view.

It is not the dominating factor if for no other reason than that the consumption of fruit and vegetables in this country is too low. It has still not got up to pre-war levels. While that position obtains the major operation we must undertake is to increase the consumption of both fruit and vegetables. Indeed, this is one of the most effective ways that we can assist the industry. When we examine in detail the question of imports, we must realise that it is an extraordinarily difficult problem.

It is easy for the hon. Member for Ashford to generalise, but if he went into office I am sure he would find it difficult to put his generalities into operation. I would mention one generality. We are dependent on food surpluses in the world and it is, therefore, difficult for us to be very discriminating. We often have to give way to the countries supplying us with essential foodstuffs. The most we can do is to accept this difficulty and try to strike a fair balance in every case. If we do that, it is difficult to obtain the desirable objective which the hon. Member for Ashford wishes to obtain, to achieve absolute stability regarding imports. In spite of all this, however, if the Parliamentary Secretary has the answer he may tell us why the Board of Trade have recently increased the fruit pulp quota, which certainly seems extraordinary in the present circumstances.

I wish to deal with a question which certainly does affect the industry—marketing. I do not want to stir up any controversy about this question. It is an absolutely essential question to the industry and I would like, if possible, to see the widest measure of agreement about it. It is a subject which need not give rise to very great controversy. The last Government examined this question exhaustively and put forward a tentative scheme; that we should open new auction markets in provincial centres and that this whole scheme should be on an experimental basis. We were just about to open discussions with the trade. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, I would say that the party opposite has changed its view about marketing. It does not now rely entirely on the use of producer boards, and in its most recent Election statement it brought in also the question of distribution.

The distributive trade itself has taken the initiative and called for an authority on similar lines to the White Fish Authority. This is a sphere of distribution, therefore, in which the distributors at any rate are alive to the need for something to be done. I have said that I do not think we should cause acute controversy about this. The difficulties are largely mechanical. We have not the marketing machinery to carry the volume of produce which is supposed to go through it now. That is a difficulty which I think the distributive trade itself accepts.

If we accept that, then the problems which face us are largely technical. How many markets do we need? What is the appropriate size for the markets? Where should they be located and what sort of character should they be? By what sort of management should they be controlled? This is not a matter of controversy. This is not a sufficiently attractive field for investment to call for private investment. Everyone, even those in the distributive trade, would recognise at once that if new markets are to be established, it will have to be done in the main by some form of public company or public corporation.

I know very well, and the Minister of Food has told me two or three times already during this Session, that, with the present restrictions and limitations on capital investment, it would be unreal to expect any real development at the present time. It is for that reason that I think we ought to try to carry forward these plans; because the very fact that we have time to consider—owing to the restriction on capital investment—means that we should have an adequate opportunity to hammer out a practical policy and to decide the proper assistance which can be given to the horticulure industry by providing it with a better mechanism to distribute its produce.

Mr. J. B. Godber (Grantham)

Would the hon. Gentleman explain whether he is now speaking in general terms of the country as a whole, or whether he is concerned largely with the problem here in London? Does he mean that there is insufficient capacity for the produce going through markets all over the country, or is he concerned mainly with the problem here in London?

Mr. Willey

There is inadequacy in both respects, but it is demonstrably inadequate in London. The reason for the present pressure on Covent Garden is that there are not adequate facilities in the provinces. So we have to deal with both problems, the question of the adequacy of Covent Garden and the capacity and location of markets in the provinces.

Mr. Godber

But surely the extra produce which goes through Covent Garden also goes through those provincial markets. In many cases it is bought in Covent Garden and goes through the provincial markets. So it is not by-passing them at present. Even though it is going through, I say that there is no over-congestion in most of these provincial markets.

Mr. Willey

It does both. I hesitate to use the word "reconsign" because it upsets the whole of the distributive trade, but some of the produce is reconsigned and some goes direct to the provincial markets. One must ask oneself why there is this great pressure at Covent Garden. It is largely because of the inadequacy of facilities. This point ought to be discussed by those in the trade to see whether or not we can get a rational solution and to discover what amount of capital investment would be involved.

The vital importance of the question is that the high cost of the distributive trade expresses itself largely in the waste of food. If we complain about the high cost of vegetables or fruit we often find that it is because of the high wastage that there is in distribution. I know that the hon. Member for Kidderminster disagrees with me. He would say that there are exorbitant profits made by the distributors. That is a point of view.

Mr. Nabarro

I did not express any view at all, because I did not have an opportunity. There is no single solution to this problem. Surely the hon. Gentleman realises that, for instance, to quote one example, the cost of crates for horticultural produce is about seven times the pre-war cost. That is a major contribution to the inflated cost of vegetables in the market.

Mr. Willey

Economy in the use of crates is one of the first results of improved marketing.

Mr. Nabarro

Not necessarily.

Mr. Willey

It is one of the first results. It is because of the vital importance of conserving fruit and vegetables and avoiding the waste of food that we should, even though it may be academic at present, try to get the widest consultation upon this matter of marketing and a policy decision from the Government.

Mr. Archer Baldwin (Leominster)

I want to put the hon. Member right about co-operative markets. There are five cooperative markets selling fruit within 40 miles of Birmingham. These markets cannot absorb plums at the cost of picking. Our plums are lying on the ground; we cannot get 2d. a lb. for them.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams (Tonbridge)

While I disagree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), I have not time to take up the various points of disagreement now. We heard a most useful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). To horticulturists it was an inspiring speech. I say straight away that I do not want to cover the same ground; but I was glad that in one of his closing sentences he mentioned the words "tariffs" and "quotas." I am convinced that tariffs alone will not work without quotas.

The industry must solve its own problems as far as possible. But the Government can help to a considerable extent. I want to speak in particular rather than in general. Though I am against all forms of State trading schemes, I believe that in the present season with a record plum crop the Government can help with the S.O.2 process for preserving plums. I do not believe that any private enterprise firm would be able to carry out the work to the extent desired. If the Government can tell us of their scheme within the next few days we should be grateful. The Government could in this way save many of the plums which otherwise will be wasted.

Apart from the formation of a definite scheme, the Government could help in other ways. I know that already they are helping in the Army, though it may be at the expense of the recruiting campaign in the amount of plum and apple jam to be expected in the messes. They could also help with the education authorities which they control. They could give advice that those responsible for school meals should supply more fruit at the right time. They could give instructions that food should be bottled and kept for the winter. To a certain extent the Government control the hospitals, and they can advise the same procedure there. They also run canteens which could be encouraged to use far more fruit.

I turn to the growers who are always urging the Government to help them. The Government could urge the producers to help themselves. The producers could do that by advertising their wares. The Association of Producers should get together and imitate the South Africans in advertising their grapes, or start a campaign such as that we have had in past years telling people to eat more fish. I do not know why people should eat more fish if they are told to, but the fact remains that we all tell people to vote for Smith, Jones or even Williams at elections and, somehow, it seems to have the right effect.

If we tell people to eat more fruit when it is ripe and ready, I am sure that a great deal more fruit will be sold. The people should also be told how to bottle fruit. It can be bottled without sugar. If the process is advertised, saying how well the fruit is preserved for the winter, that will help to use more fruit.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

It has constantly been found to be true that two features are necessary if one wants to increase the consumption of any article today. One is to advertise it in the way described, and the other is to get the price lower. Then there is always success.

Mr. Williams

There is no argument against that. If steps are taken by the Government to use more fruit in their Departments, and the growers do some advertising, I believe that we shall be able to help solve the problem caused by surplus fruit this year.

5.47 p.m.

Wing Commander Eric Bullus (Wembley, North)

I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I had a Question on the Order Paper this week addressed to the Minister of Food, asking him what steps he was taking to ensure that maximum use was made of this year's apple harvest. I had a written reply today, which says: Since the crop is not expected to be heavy and imports from Europe must be restricted, for currency reasons, home-produced apples of marketable quality should find a ready sale. There are some reports which are in conflict with that answer. I have the evidence of my own garden: I may be lucky. I read in one paper the headline, "Apple Glut Fear." It has always been a source of wonder to me why we should fear God's bountiful provision of the fruits of the earth. It must be a journalistic anomaly. Should we not be thankful and make full use of the fruits of the earth?

I should like to think that there will be no waste of our apple crop or of our fruit crop as a whole, but I have grave doubts. The Minister of Food says that the import of apples will be restricted for currency reasons. Why only for currency reasons? Last year apple imports amounted to nearly 200,000 tons.

Mr. Nabarro

Disgraceful.

Wing Commander Bullus

Permitted imports for the first six months of this year were 70,000 tons. Probably the Minister can tell us whether those imports have been taken up.

In an Adjournment debate in February I pointed out the difficulties and the great waste of apples. I recalled that last year there was probably a wastage of about 50,000 tons of apples which could have been used. If the pure fruit juice industry had used these, seven million gallons of pure unfermented fruit juice could have been secured. They would contain 3,500 tons of natural sugar, and no sugar is required for preserving. If 50,000 tons of wasted apples last year had been processed, at least 3,000 tons of product with a high pectin value would have been available. The Government spent £52,700 on imported pectin in 1950.

Again, dried pomace will make 1,500 tons of animal foodstuffs, certainly of low protein value, but useful food for animals, from the use of 50,000 tons of apples. I therefore ask if the Minister would have regard to these possibilities and encourage the maximum use of our home-grown produce.

Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Airdrie)

May I ask one or two questions before the hon. Gentleman replies?

I wish to put the point of view of Scotland. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman how it is that, in Scotland, we hear of plums being available in England at 2d. per lb., but that they never come our way. The price to us is 300 per cent. higher. How is it that we hear of strawberries being sold by the wayside at ls. ld. per lb. when, in the Scottish shops, they are 3s. 6d. a lb.? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland we suffer very much from fruit and vegetables arriving in a decayed condition? We cannot blame the merchants for that, because—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew)

Order. I understood that the hon. Lady was only going to ask a question, but she is now making a speech and rather overstepping the mark.

5.52 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)

I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for his very full and valuable contribution on this extremely complex and difficult subject of the marketing of horticultural produce and the problem of our imports policy. Before I deal with the general problem which my hon. Friend put before the House so ably, there are one or two specific questions with which I should like to deal.

First of all, my hon. Friend and one or two others have asked me what progress is being made by the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board. It has had only a little more than a full year of operation, and, therefore, its progress, naturally, has not been spectacular; but it has proceeded to complete its registration of growers and to the initial collection of a levy, which seems to have proceeded reasonably smoothly, considering that it was the first levy collected. The promotion of improved grading and packing has occupied a good deal of their attention, and they have been making some progress.

They have also started on certain improvements on publicity campaigns by the retailers last year, and I think that is beginning to have some value. They are trying, particularly, to establish more effective enforcement of the Merchandise Marks Act in order to get retailers to mark their tomatoes and cucumbers with the source of origin. That is a matter for negotiation with the local authorities.

They have compiled a list of authorised salesmen, and have determined quite a difficult matter in the terms of agency and conditions of sale under which tomatoes and cucumbers may be sold by registered producers. They have started on the difficult problem of market intelligence, but not many growers have made use of the service, and they are also investigating the problem of processing.

I think they may be congratulated on what they have done, because they have been blamed for a whole lot of things for which they are not responsible. It is a very difficult field, and they are advised to go cautiously. We all want to see what a marketing board can do in the field of horticultural marketing, but it is a very difficult field and what they will do will be very valuable in indicating what might be done by producers before framing other schemes.

Mr. Godber

I am most interested in the report that my hon. Friend is giving, but would he not agree that the really vital thing in marketing is in trying to get the very best quality produce to the consumer at a just and reasonable price? That is, surely, the key to all they are doing, but it is not clear from what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Nugent

I felt that the House had appreciated that that was the one purpose of the marketing board, and that it was hardly necessary for me to say it.

I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) that market accommodation in many cases is insufficient. But, personally, I am doubtful how far co-operative markets can fill the gap. There are a number of co-operative markets, many of them serving a useful purpose, but they are, in the main, handling only a very small volume.

I am quite certain that the London markets will continue to attract a very large volume of produce, whatever may be done in the provinces. Before we look at additional market accommodation in the provinces, we should look very seriously into providing additional market accommodation in London. The volume of produce handled in Covent Garden is remarkable, in view of the physical restrictions, which are appalling. I cannot go further into that aspect, but I feel that I must make the comment that it is fundamental to the whole business of marketing that there should be sufficient accommodation in which to do it properly.

Turning now to the general comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, I agree with so much of what he said in suggesting that the Government have gone into the field of horticultural marketing—a field which it is impossible for anyone, except the Almighty, to control. The fact is that the production of horticultural produce is a highly speculative enterprise, and it has always been well known to be. The weather is the dominant factor. It first of all determines the time of arrival of a crop on the market and the time at which it can be sold. It also determines the size arid quality of the crop, and all these things are variable enough. The weather also determines what other crops, which might compete with that one, are also on the market. Then, it determines what the public demand may be for any particular crop.

There is a direct relationship, for instance, apart from the possible competition of alternatives, between a cool spell in summer, which we have not experienced lately, and public demand. The public are very reluctant to buy salad crops in such conditions, but, in a warm spell, we get a very high demand. Bearing in mind the fact that nearly all this production is highly perishable, it is obvious that fluctuations and variations in the supply, on the one hand, and of public demand, on the other, are simply enormous.

It is quite fair to say that growers generally fully understand these risks, and are quite prepared to shoulder them, but the way they look at it is that they realise that some crops are going to be a failure, in terms of the monetary return—that is to say, that they will make a loss—but they are content to place their stuff on the market at a loss, provided that, with other crops, they can make sufficient profit to carry them over on the crops that do not succeed.

Therefore, immediately, we have the problem of imports. Some four-fifths of our vegetables are produced at home, and the other fifth is imported. In regard to fruit, a rather higher proportion is imported. When the home crop is in rather shorter supply, and prices are firm and demand strong, if, at that time. imports are increased substantially in volume, the price falls down, and the producer cannot get sufficient profit to carry him over the time in which he has made a loss on other crops. Thus, the whole problem of imports policy is involved, while, at the same time, the interests of the consumer must be looked after.

We must try to ensure that the consumer receives adequate supplies at reasonable prices, and it is fair to say that, if producers on the long view are not allowed to make a sufficient profit, quite obviously, the best and most efficient producers will go out of production. Horticultural production in this country will gradually decline, and we shall be dependent on imports. Quite apart from the effect on the balance of payments problem, we should become more dependent on foreign production, and, undoubtedly, prices will rise again.

So there we have to achieve a balance, and if I may, I would like to conclude with one comment on the best way of doing it. The quota system has been used as best and as honestly as it could be, but it is a rigid system. The Government, of course, are responsible for it, and, therefore, are bound, as my hon. Friend has said, to be blamed when it does not succeed in satisfying everybody.

I believe that in this very fluctuating field a more natural relationship is obviously desirable if it can be achieved. Of course, the case for the adjustment of tariffs has been put forward by the producers and has been carefully reviewed. I am hopeful that the substantial obstacles that will remain once the case is established may yet be solved.

My belief is that the right and proper relationship is to fix specific tariffs at a proper level which will serve the interests of both the consumer and the producer, when there will be a natural relationship between the home and imported produce. As I have said, I hope the substantial obstacles that still remain in the path may yet be removed.

In conclusion, I would point out that the horticultural producer in this country plays a very valuable part in our economy. He brings valuable fruit and vegetables to our table. He has had a particularly hard time in the last two years, and it is my hope and belief that he may have a more fortunate time this year and in the future.