WHEAT (BREAD-MAKING QUALITY)

HC Deb 15 June 1976 vol 913 cc484-502

12.28 a.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1368/76 relating to Baking Tests (Cereals). The document before us tonight, EEC Document R/1368/76, is a draft Regulation laying down requirements for determining whether common wheat is of bread-making quality. My right hon. Friend and I welcome this opportunity of hearing hon. Members' comments before the draft Regulation comes before the Council of Agriculture Ministers next week.

The first question which comes to mind in considering this document is "Why do we need a Regulation of this sort?" It might therefore be useful to hon. Members if I explain briefly the background to the proposal, but before I do so I should like, on behalf of the House, to express our gratitude for the clear and helpful report produced by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and his Committee.

The system of support which has been in force in the EEC up till now set an intervention price for wheat substantially above the level of other feed grains, and the eligibility of wheat for this price at intervention was related to milling quality. This system was unsuitable, particularly to United Kingdom conditions, in two ways. First, a single support price for wheat higher than that for other feed grains discouraged the substitution of home-grown feed wheat for imported maize that might otherwise have occurred to the benefit of the balance of payments. Secondly, the use of "milling" characteristics to determine eligibility for intervention meant that some feed wheat was sold into intervention, particularly in Germany, at a price level designed for bread-making wheat. This has meant additional expense for FEOGA and the resultant mixture has been hard to dispose of.

In June last year, the Council of Ministers warned producers of wheats unsuitable for bread-making that they could not expect a return higher than was appropriate to a feedgrain and invited the Commission to submit appropriate proposals for the 1976–77 marketing year.

In consequence the Commission, as part of the common agricultural policy price proposals for 1976–77, proposed a new regime for wheat. The intervention price would relate to feed wheat and be set at a level commensurate with the price of other feed grains. Support for bread-making wheat would be by optional intervention measures at a reference price to be set above the feed wheat intervention price at a level reflecting the difference in yield of the two kinds of wheat. For 1976–77 a premium of about 13 per cent. over feed wheat was proposed.

The Council of Ministers, at the meeting held from 2nd to 6th March, decided to postpone this new system for one year and, instead, for 1976–77 agreed that the intervention price for soft wheat would relate to wheat of bread-making quality, with a lower effective support price for feed wheat. This system will operate for the 1976–77 year only. In subsequent years it is intended to return to the Commission's original proposals and to implement a reference price system for bread-making wheat.

In order to operate this two-tier system, it was clearly necessary that before the beginning of the 1976–77 year, on 1st August 1976, scientific experts in the various member States should agree on a satisfactory test to distinguish bread-making from non-bread-making wheats.

It might be convenient to emphasise that the proposed test is only for use for intervention and that normal trade is not affected. It is important that that fact should be made clear. At present, all the indications are that sales of bread-making wheat or feed wheat into intervention are most unlikely next season.

I wish now to stress some important points. The test which experts have been examining for intervention purposes has been called the "baking" test. It amounts to a detailed and rigorously-controlled examination of wheat at all stages from the grain, through the flour, the formation of dough and the proving stage, up to the baking of a loaf. It determines whether, under standardised conditions, samples of different wheats can be milled, made into dough, processed and then be baked into an acceptable loaf. That does not all take as long as might be expected. The process amounts to a comprehensive assessment of bread-making characteristics in wheat.

The trouble with some of the alternative tests already used by the trade is that they are tests of single or isolated properties of wheat. Tests of milling properties reveal whether a wheat is hard and whether it has a certain protein content. But wheat that passes such tests can still be of only poor quality in bread-making. For example, Maris Huntsman, being a hard grain, mills well but makes poor bread. Similarly a Continental wheat, such as Clement, can pass the Hagberg or alpha-amylase test and still produce poor bread.

Scientific experts drawn from all the member States recently concluded, on the basis of tests carried out under the auspices of the European Millers' Association at the request of the Commission, that it was not yet possible to classify loaves consistently in all member States at the final stage of bread-making. They none the less unanimously concluded that the first stage of the test—up to the point of testing the dough after mixing—was sufficiently reliable to be taken as a basis for assessing bread-making quality during the 1976–77 season, and have so recommended to the Commission. This solution—what is called the "machinability" test—now forms the basis of the document before us tonight.

My officials have held a number of meetings with trade associations and the National Farmers' Union to discuss the Commission's proposals. I must explain to the House that in general the trade would prefer to see a postponement of the new measures on wheat until the 1977–78 marketing year, when the full baking test will be available. However, it is unlikely that the new arrangements for supporting wheat could be postponed without the risk of reopening the entire price package agreed by the Council of Ministers in March. This is something my right hon. Friend and I wish to avoid. The trade understands this, and I think it accepts that the proposals regarding the machinability test will be made as watertight as it is possible to make them at this point in time.

We must bear in mind that the people carrying out the tests are expected to be scientists with long experience of this type of work. Moreover, the procedures will normally be carried through to the baking stage for comparison with results obtained at the dough-handling stage. This will provide useful experience for operating the full baking test in a year's time when support for bread-making wheat will be at a reference price set above the feed wheat intervention price at a level reflecting the difference in yield of the two kinds of wheat.

Finally, I remind hon. Members that the proposed test is for use only in an intervention situation. It is not a first step towards a Euro-loaf nor will it be used in trade, except for the purposes of intervention buying. Tests will be undertaken by suitably qualified individuals acting on behalf of the Intervention Board. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we do not expect that there will be any substantial offering of bread-making wheat or, indeed, feed wheat into intervention next year.

I hope that this brief explanation of the document before us will be helpful to hon. Members. I look forward to hearing the views of the House.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

It is because this whole subject refers only to intervention wheat that perhaps we should not be over-concerned about the quite substantial deficiencies in the technical side of these proposals that I shall be mentioning. The Minister says that in the forthcoming harvest the United Kingdom price is likely to be higher than the intervention price and that it could well be that the test concerned will never be used. If, however, one has been involved, as I have been, in selling grain on the domestic market—I am sure that my hon. Friends who are in farming will confirm what I am about to say—one will accept that nothing is too certain.

We must be prepared for the possibility of using the intervention process to put a floor in the market. The House will know that the United Kingdom is deficient in all wheats and that the United Kingdom food industry wishes to continue to buy North American hard bread-making wheats as they are vastly superior to even the best European hard wheat for that purpose. I hope that our European partners will not expect Britain to be used as a dumping ground for all their hard wheats as a result of the negotiations that have taken place.

The Chorley Wood bread process, which has come into widespread use in the bread-making industry since 1966, has enabled the lower protein flour that is produced in this country to be used in our bread. That increased the proportion of European home-grown wheat in bread in this country from about 25 per cent. before 1966 to between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. today. I do not think that there should be any real objection to the United Kingdom adopting a two-tier price system for wheat as long as the test to divide the two varieties—the bread-making and the non-bread-making—is cheap, effective, speedy, reliable and well understood. I am afraid that the tests that are being proposed do not at present fall within those qualifications.

The Minister mentioned the package that his right hon. Friend brought back from Brussels. I hope we shall not be tempted into assuming that, because the overall balance of that package may have been beneficial, we should not go through the parts of such packages which are not helpful. Indeed, the debates that we have had on proteins and other matters show that that is not the Opposition's attitude. I think that this matter is worthy of more detailed criticism.

The House has before it an extract from the Twenty-third Report of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation &c. The report has not yet been printed, but it has been reproduced for our benefit tonight. That report quotes the British Association of Grain, Seed, Feed and Agricultural Merchants Ltd as objecting strongly to this proposal and the Home Grown Cereals Authority as having considerable doubts about the technicalities of the test. The authority believed that the scientific evidence on which the Commission based its proposal was open to some dispute. I would go further and say that it is open to a good deal of dispute.

The British Association of Grain, Seed, Feed and Agricultural Merchants Ltd wrote to the right hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge that he has replied to that letter. The association put succinctly the three points that have disturbed the merchants, and I hope that the House will bear with me while I read an extract from page 2 of the letter: The proposals therefore concern one season only, the harvest for which will commence in about two months' time. The regulations for the testing have not yet been finalised and approved by the Council of Ministers, and the detailed control system to be operated by the intervention agency has also still to be agreed and finalised. It is submitted that the principles involved in two-tier intervention, whereby producers are encouraged to grow high quality wheats, have been missed for this season, as by the time the scheme was announced the vast majority of the seed had already been sown. The need to conserve Community funds is appreciated, but the complications of the implementation and control of the system currently being considered are such that the high administrative costs, at least in national terms, will greatly offset any potential savings. This highlights one problem of the whole principle. If a satisfactory test can be devised, how will it be possible to sell the concept of two types of wheat to the farmer who is to produce it? How can we explain to a farmer why an apparently bread-making variety of wheat has not passed the test and what he should do to ensure that his next year's crop passes the test?

These are highly complex agricultural matters to which there is no simple answer. If we are to pay by quality or by differentiating between the reactions of a product, we must make clear to those producing that product what they can do to aim for the best market. One does not need to be a sage agriculturist to know that there is a 15 per cent. lower price for wheat not of bread-making quality. The Minister suggested that there would be a 13 per cent. higher price the other way, but I suspect that it comes to much the same thing.

These points have been put before the Commission. The European Parliament debated this matter as long ago as 10th February during the general debate on the annual price-fixing. The rapporteur of the Committee on Agriculture, Mr. de Koning, went into this matter at some length, as reported at page 35 of the sitting of Tuesday 10th February. I shall not quote what he said. It has been stated in the debate. The matter has been drawn to the attention of the Commission by that Parliament.

I come now to the test. I cringe at the word "machinability". I hope that we shall not be inventing English words of such ghastly clumsiness to describe what is no more than a simple test of how sticky or not sticky the dough might be. The scientists in whose judgment the hon. Gentleman has much more faith than others who have studied their reports—I have in front of me several pages of criticism of the way in which they have arrived at their decisions—are working on the very simple proposition that if the dough is sticky it is not bread-making dough and that if it is not sticky it is bread-making. That will be the main yardstick on which wheat shall or shall not be paid for at the higher price if it goes into intervention this season.

The baking test is more complex. The matters that were investigated when the scientists were trying to come to a decision on this matter were such aspects as water absorption, alpha-amylase activity of the flour, dough-handling properties, and the volume, height, crust, colour, pore structure and crumb texture of the loaf. I am in no doubt that at least some members of the corn trade have visualised those factors being considered in a test loaf while a lorry is waiting to be topped into bin A or bin B. This was the basis for some concern. That concern ought to be allayed, I think, because the proposals which have been made will get round that detailed point.

Nevertheless, there is an indication that there will be some delay at intervention depots if, for example, there were to be a rush or any pressure on them. First, there is very limited capacity for carrying out even the simple dough test. Secondly, I am not too clear about the number of points to which the grain might be delivered if physical intervention were to be attempted during the forthcoming season.

Finally, there are two points of fundamental importance which must be considered when the matter is raised again. The first and most important may be obvious. It is that the test should be a standard test throughout the Community. It should be simple, cheap, readily available and understood by merchants and farmers and by Governments or intervention authorities alike. No such test has yet been devised. If the two-element payment for wheat is to be continued in the future, a test that fulfils those requirements must be devised and agreed —not six weeks before next year's harvest; work must start on it at once. It should not be beyond the wit of the scientists of the Community to come up with a better yardstick than they have done so far.

The second point is that while the Minister of State has made it clear that this scheme is for this year only, pressures are building up, I understand particularly from the French, that the reference price system, which will do away with quite some part of the differentiation, should be delayed and not brought in next year. I do not know whether that information is good. However, if confusion is to be avoided, a scheme must be produced and made clear to the farmers of the Community before planting time this year.

In the selection of varieties—indeed, one could go so far as to say species, because it may be that planting wheat is not the most profitable occupation, and farmers may wish to plant barley, oats, rye or even maize—standardisation of the test is essential. A firm proposal from the Community as to how the whole of the cereal intervention and support system will work for next year must be established soon, as a matter of great urgency.

However, the basic principle of paying for quality is not one with which we would quarrel. Although it will be hard for British farmers to qualify for the premium in the way as some of those in France and Northern Italy, we cannot argue with the basic concept of paying more for human than for cattle food. We would not wish to be more critical than that.

12.52 a.m.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this document because it is a classic example of the sort of Alice-in-Wonderland situation we are getting into with the agricultural Regulations which seem to emanate from the last price review.

We do not need to rehearse the skimmed milk saga again to see how one can get into the most extraordinary situation. Having listened very carefully to the Minister, I am very dissatisfied not only with his explanation but also with the fact that we are being asked to decide a matter of great concern not only to the agricultural community but to this Parliament. To put it in its most simple terms, I do not approve of legislation which is presented to the House on the basis that although it is inadequate and does not bear any close examination, and although none of the so-called experts is able to produce a test which is universally recognised and acceptable as being administrable, nevertheless we should accept the document because wheat will probably never go into intervention and, therefore, we should accept the suggestions that are made to us.

I was not elected to this House to pass bad legislation. That applies as much to tonight's document as to any major legislation. I have said at many discussions on this particular nonsense that, although I do not pretend to be an agricultural expert, I can at least make dough. When I read some of the so-called expert opinions, I think that what is needed is a housewife or two to try to evolve a baking test and come up with more sensible answers.

We decided in discussions on the price review that there would be a two-tier system of payment for wheat. It was then said that a means of differentiating between hard and soft wheat was needed. We were told that it was exceedingly difficult to do this but that a test was in the process of being evolved and a certain amount of time was needed before it could come into operation.

We have a quotation from the diary of the European Parliament for 9th–12th February 1976 about a speech by Commissioner Petrus Lardinois on farm prices. It says: He spoke first of the new cereals dispensation for wheat. He reminded the House that when the system had been changed for oats and barley there had been severe criticism in Germany, but once the system had begun to operate this criticism had faded out. As to devising a system by which one could tell which wheat was which, he asked the House to give him until 1 July, and not to condemn the system out of hand already. That has been the history of the matter.

We are now well into June, and the provision is intended to come into operation on 1st August. I have never received satisfactory information about the type of test, about the so-called experts and their methods of work, or about the evidence upon which their views have been based. If Parliament is to be asked to decide a matter which will have a direct financial involvement, it should have these elementary facts. If not, we shall be back in the same situation that we were in before when Parliament had the opportunity to debate subjects of this kind late at night but the Benches were empty. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will forgive my saying that he and I must stop meeting like this in the early hours of the morning with only you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep us company.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

Not merely to keep the hon. Lady company, but to keep an eye on her.

Mrs. Dunwoody

I accept your reprimand, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am always happy to have your clear Gaelic eye upon me.

We are here yet again talking about a major price decision which is being submitted by the Commission before it has been properly thought out by the experts concerned and only a very short time before it is meant to be applied. When my right hon. Friend the Minister discusses this matter with the other EEC Ministers of Agriculture, I hope he will not be deterred by the fact that the price review carried this proposal as part of other recommendations. This matter is indicative of a lot of the difficulties we are getting into with the EEC on agriculture. The agriculture industry in Britain could not survive if it was subjected to major financial measures taken at the last minute, applied without proper consultation and rubber-stamped at the last moment by a Parliament which did not have the opportunity of throwing them out.

That was what happened over skimmed milk powder, and the same is likely to happen to the proposal before us tonight. I am disturbed because I do not believe that the baking test is adequate. I do not believe that the machinability can be defended, and as a point of principle I do not believe that any major Department should ask Parliament to accept a Council Regulation which would have the force of law once it was fully accepted without giving adequate information to support the request.

The House should refuse to take note of the Council Regulation in the form in which it exists. I hope my right hon. Friend will make it clear to the Commission that, if it is to apply the Regulations, it must make sure that they are workable and defensible, that they have been arrived at on the basis of knowledge and that they are not the last possible decision which is politically and cosmetically acceptable.

The Regulation is an open invitation to fraud. If the test is not clear and universal, as it is not, there will be countries in which, mysteriously, all the wheat that goes into intervention suddenly goes into the higher category. Perhaps I simply have a naturally nasty mind, particularly at this late hour, but that is possible if we are not clear what we are doing.

I hope that the House, if it does not reject the motion, will insist that any decisions, whether for this year or for any future price review, will be much more accurate than in the case of this Regulation and that the Commission will not use vague phrases in the expectation of being able to explain them when the scheme goes into operation.

11.00 a.m.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) said. I, too, think that much of the phrasing of the Minister's speech and the Commission document is sloppy and unsatisfactory. I am unhappy that the Minister should say that because, in his belief, the document will never come into operation, because we are not likely to go into intervention for wheat this coming season, it does not matter how it is worded. It is all very well to say that now, with wheat at £100 a ton, but that is not a safe assumption for a Minister to make.

It is a pity that the test is based on a vague criterion which has not yet been finalised. It is fantastic to put on the statute book a Regulation based, according to the explanatory note, on the stickiness of the dough, which is only an interim assessment, pending the finalised solution. The note also states that certain high-yielding wheats would not meet the test requirements. We have only an idea of the temporary test requirements. What will be the final test requirements?

Is not this the wrong way to proceed? Is not the Minister putting the cart before the horse? If his consultations had started with the plant breeders, they would have told him that, instead of introducing a pattern to which British breeders will have to conform next year or the year after, the right way would have been to lay down those requirements three or four years ago. Then the breeders could try to gear themselves, if it were possible—I believe that it can be done—to produce a high-yielding hard wheat.

The Minister said that he had consulted the NFU and he mentioned the tests in certain laboratories. Presumably that is a continuing process, and I gather that a final result will be achieved next year. Are any tests being done in Britain, or are we relying purely on tests on British wheat in Continental laboratories, in Continental atmospheres, which are generally much drier than the humid atmosphere in the British Isles? It is essential to have a working pattern of tests evolving all the time in Britain, which has a far more humid atmosphere than any other member of the EEC except Ireland.

Farmers in Britain have many advantages over their counterparts in the EEC. We enjoy perhaps more humid and acceptable climatic conditions for many products. My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) probably will say that certain parts of his constituency produce the best milk and dairy products in the world. Climatically, Britain has many advantages over the rest of the EEC, but not when it comes to the production of hard wheat. Climatically, and because of our geographical situation, it is more difficult to produce hard wheats in Britain and in the Republic of Ireland. Therefore, in a situation where we are likely to face a cut of 13 per cent. in the return on wheat prices, we have to recognise the geographical disadvantage to Britain and to Ireland, because hard wheats are produced more readily in southern EEC countries.

Having recognised that it is a geographical disadvantage, it is up to the Government of the day and up to the Minister to express our dissatisfaction with 13 per cent. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that that is too high a cut for soft wheats? I know that my farmers think so. We produce a tremendous amount of soft wheats in the Midlands, and my farmers think that a cut of 13 per cent. is far too high.

I appreciate that the Minister is probably much more tired than many of us. He has had a number of late nights recently. Even at this hour, however, I expected a sign of passion in his voice and a glint of fire in his eye. I hoped he would say "I am not accepting the 13 per cent., because I do not regard it as satisfactory for Britain." Something like that would have been a much more acceptable performance from him.

What the Minister said hinged on his statement that he did not expect intervention in wheat this year and, therefore, the document did not matter all that much, so why should we not all shut up and sit down? However, I think that there is a good chance that we may be getting into an intervention situation very soon, possibly in the autumn. It depends entirely not on what happens to the British harvest but on what happens in Russia and other countries and how their wheat harvests come off. This is a most significant point, and I want to elaborate on it for a moment or two.

The Minister is arguing that there will be no wheat intervention this year. I say that that assumption is based upon a reasonable return in world harvests. World production of wheat amounts to about 1,000 million tons a year. We in Britain produce less than 10 million tons a year, or about 1 per cent. Therefore, what we produce here does not matter very much. But what happens in America, Russia and the other Eastern European countries which are big producers of wheat has an effect on whether we are likely to get into an intervention situation.

It should be put on record that for the past seven years the Russian harvests of all forms of cereals, especially wheat, have been very faltering. For many years, targets have not been met. In 1974–75 alone, the Russians produced only 160 million tons of a target of 232 million tons. This year they are expected to be much nearer their reduced target of 205 million tons and they are expected to produce 185 million tons. The situation is so delicately balanced on a knife edge that if the Russian harvest production were to exceed the 185 million tons target and get near to 205 million tons we could get into an intervention situation before October is with us.

I mention these statistics merely because we have to recognise that it is not what happens on British farms that really determines the prices our producers get. They are determined in the much bigger world markets. I beg the Minister to take a more robust attitude about all this and not simply assume that merely because an official tells him or he reads it in Farmers Weekly, we shall not get intervention this year. He must not fall into the trap of believing everything that his officials and fellow Ministers in Europe tell him.

Finally, I must echo once again the words of the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe, who made a sound point when she said that not only was the wording of the document faulty but the reasoning behind the Minister's argument was also faulty. I hope that my words will stir and encourage him. It is only ten minutes past one, and there are seven hours to go before the work of the morning starts. The hon. Gentleman should go to his office at half-past six, wake up his officials and say "We are not satisfied with 13 per cent. We cannot assume that there will be no intervention, and we should take a little more robust attitude."

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)

I must declare an interest as a producer of grain. I only hope that this year we shall not have to sell to intervention and that the price will be above that.

I am not happy about this draft Regulation. The Minister has said that it is only for intervention. We understand that, of course, but I think he is making a mistake. It could be that we shall have a large harvest, but it may be that we shall have to use the whole intervention procedure. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) when they say it is not right that the Minister should use the argument that we shall not use intervention and, therefore, there is not much to worry about. That is wrong.

Does the Minister realise the problems that this will mean to the trade? I doubt it. I do not think he understands the difficult position that the trade is in about this. Everyone in the trade is against the Regulation because, they all say it is unworkable. They should know. The House and the Government would do well to take careful note of what the trade is saying in these matters.

I see nothing wrong in the Minister going back to Brussels and saying that this one is not "on" this year. I hope he will make a stand about this. He talks about this as being part of a package and, therefore, something we have to accept. We have looked at the package and we do not like what we see. Not only that, but the trade says that it is unworkable. I see no reason why the Minister cannot go back and say that it will not work for us this year. The House should consider what would happen if the boot was on the other foot. If this happened to the French Government, they would certainly say that they could not accept the package.

The package is not workable. Therefore, we must have a much tougher attitude. Why did not the Minister and his officials realise this when they were making this unworkable package? Why were they not better briefed?

Mrs. Dunwoody

I do not need to defend my hon. Friend, because he is capable of looking after himself, but I must make the point that one of the difficulties is that until very recently we were never given information on what the Regulation contained. Hardly anybody could be well briefed because no one knew what the Regulation would say.

Mr. Mills

That may be absolutely right, but why did not officials and Ministers realise that it would be extremely difficult to get any testing system to work? I do not always agree with everything the hon. Lady says, but I, too, have grave suspicions that other countries in the Community will see that things are right for them.

We recently had a very interesting discussion in a Select Committee. This country obeyed the rules right along the line. We advertised 3,450 times in the Journal. The others did so 1,500 times, 800 times and only eight. In other words, we were carrying out the Regulations. Others were not. We always have the dirty end of the stick because we play the correct rules and others do not. Therefore, I share the hon. Lady's fears.

I regret to say that I think I am the only member of the Select Committee present. The Committee considered these matters carefully and thought that the House should debate them.

The Minister cannot disregard the views of the trade and the Home Grown Cereals Authority, which have made some strong points. The authority's point about the testing of samples and the physical tests and so on must be taken into account.

I am also concerned that this is for one year only. It is no wonder that the trade is concerned about it. Nothing has been worked out in detail. The Regulation about testing and control by the intervention agency has still not been agreed. We have only two months to go before it could be in operation. The Minister must think again.

In the British Farmer, the NFU spoke about a "two-tier wheat mess". It is a mess, one that we should not accept. The Minister must seriously consider taking the views of the House to the Community and asking that this part of the package should not be accepted for one year. I believe what my hon. Friends have said about the farmers. They have not had a fair deal in that they have not had the time to prepare. That important point should not be overlooked.

I hope that we shall abandon this. I hope that even at this late hour the Minister will say "We shall try to leave it for a year and introduce a better scheme next year." The scheme should be agreed with the trade and the farmers.

It is right that there should be some scheme. We should try to conserve the Community's funds and reduce expenditure, but another way must be found. The message from the Scrutiny Committee is "Please, Minister, think again."

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Bishop

The debate has been useful, although I regret the hour at which such debates take place. That, however, is not a matter for me, and I shall do my best to inspire the House with fire and passion. I stress that although I have said that the matter refers only to cases where wheat is taken into intervention—and intervention is not a certainty—I do not suggest that that is why the House should accept the motion. I suggest that the merits of the case are such that they should be supported.

The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke of the prospects for intervention in the United Kingdom in the next year. That is important, but it is too early for us to be certain about the likelihood of intervention following the 1976 harvest. We are in deficit in both bread-making and feed wheat, and the price for imported grain therefore tends to keep market prices well above intervention levels. The situation depends also on the harvests in other parts of the world. Our present estimates suggest that there is unlikely to be any substantial amount of bread-making wheat from the 1976 harvest being offered into intervention. Whether intervention is used substantially is not, however, an argument for accepting a second-rate scheme.

The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) claimed that the scientific evidence leaves much in dispute. Scientists were unanimous in their opinion to the Commission in Brussels. They included representatives from most distinguished research organisations in the countries concerned, including the Flour Milling and Baking Research Association and the Lord Rank Research Institution.

I have discussed the matter with our scientists to ascertain how watertight the scheme is.

Mr. Wiggin

That is crucial to the debate. Is the Minister speaking of the dough test or the baking test, because the baking test is likely to be the most foolproof? Agra Europe of 21st May goes into detail and says that the baking tests were far more satisfactory and far from unanimous. Even the simplest assessment of the results shows that the tests were inadequately carried out and would not form the basis of any purchases in the coming season.

Mr. Bishop

Tests have been carried out by scientists from various countries, and we should not overlook the considerable experience and expertise of our own industry. A number of tests have been carried out in the trade. Because we have not yet achieved agreement on the baking tests, we feel that the present stage, where there is agreement, is sufficiently watertight to say with condence that it should go ahead.

There will be very little delay in testing at the intervention store, no more than occurs at present for milling wheat generally. The hon. Gentleman asked what farmers can do to aim for the best market. I remind him that our agricultural advisory service is already advising farmers on the best way to improve cereal production. We must not forget that farmers are producing primarily for sale on the market and not necessarily for sale into intervention.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred to the possibility of inadequate legislation. I hope that my comments on the wheat tests which have taken place in the Community and in the United Kingdom by scientists who have had many decades of experience will set her mind at rest. My hon. Friend also referred to the possibility of fraud. As soon as we produce Regulations, someone always tries to think of a way to get round them, but tests on wheat quality are scientific and carefully defined and the Intervention Board is used to devising effective procedures for preventing abuse.

That brings me to the points made by the hon. Members for Harborough and Weston-super-Mare about the need for standardisation. It is important that all the countries concerned should accept the need for standard procedures for checking if abuse is to be avoided. The fact that we have agreement among the scientists on the effectiveness of the measure should commend it to the House.

The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said the trade thought that the Regulation was unworkable, but I think he rather exaggerated the trade's objections. Most trading associations would prefer the matter to be put off for a year, as I said in my opening remarks. We have had full discussions with the trade associations concerned, and they have not suggested that the arrangements cannot be made to work. Their main concern is that the arrangements should be made as watertight as possible.

Baking tests involve a range of tests which must be done on expensive, complicated apparatus which is not found outside specialist laboratories. It is likely that the dough-handling test will be cheaper and more reliable than most of the alternative methods of testing. The tests will be carried out at Chorley Wood by scientists of many years' standing.

I value the brief discussion we have had tonight, and I assure the House that my right hon. Friend will take note of all the points raised when the matter is considered in Brussels next week.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1368/76 relating to Baking Tests (Cereals).