HC Deb 31 March 1965 vol 709 cc1638-9
17. Mr. Jopling

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the tolerances allowed on the analysis of fertilisers, with a view to introducing legislation to reduce them, in view of the more highly efficient methods of manufacture and the modern highly concentrated nature of the product.

Mr. John Mackie

The Standing Advisory Committee which is responsible for advising the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend on any amendments to the regulations under the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1926, considered the tolerances for compound fertilisers—which comprise the bulk of the fertilisers used—as recently as 1963 and decided that no change was necessary. If anyone considers they have fresh evidence on this matter, I would advise them, as the Department has already advised the National Farmers' Union, to bring it before the Standing Advisory Committee.

Mr. Jopling

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this seems to be an example of the Minister getting out of his responsibility? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the fertiliser which is principally used for cereal production, the limits of variation extend to the value of £2 12s. a ton, of which more than 17s. constitutes public money in subsidies? Is he further aware that in certain parts of the world, particularly in Holland and in certain States in America, tolerances are very much lower than in this country? Finally, is he aware that there is a certain possibility of manufacturers being able to produce to the bottom end of the scale limits, therefore taking unnecessary advantage over their customers?

Mr. Mackie

With regard to the first point in the hon. Member's very long supplementary question, the Minister is certainly not sliding out of his responsibility. He is acting under the advice of the Advisory Committee on this subject and the National Farmers' Union put forward certain suggestions which have been considered—[Interruption.]—if I could have a time of quietness to answer the Question, I am prepared to do so. To the point the hon. Member makes about other countries I would reply that we do not need slavishly to follow other countries. The Advisory Committee is available for advice in this matter. If the hon. Member has a cast-iron case to present he should put it through the union and it will be attended to.

Forward to