sures to deal with special circumstances in different parts of the Com- munity.
3. Measures to discourage surpluses and to give priority to Com- munity consumers in the disposal of any surpluses which arise.
4. Improvement in the marketing régimes for some major commodities, particularly beef, with a view to avoiding surpluses.
5. The improvement of financial control.
6. Better access for certain commodities from outside the Community, with particular regard for the interests of Commonwealth producers and of the consumer.
Now as to the outcome.
On the supply of food at fair prices, in the three CAP price settlements since the Government took office the Minister of Agriculture has succeeded in keeping price increases below cost increases, and thus in real terms rein- forcing the downward trend in CAP prices. This would benefit consumers and taxpayers and also is designed to reduce the risk of surpluses.
Increasingly, price proposals are being related to the costs of efficient producers and the supply/demand situation, and this approach is reaffirmed in the Commission's report on the CAP stock-taking for which we and Germany asked.
On the greater flexibility for special circumstances and improved systems of market regulation, especially beef, the Minister has secured changes for beef under which member States are no longer obliged to maintain high prices for producers by buying beef into store and denying it to consumers. Instead, they can let it go to consumers at reasonable prices and make up returns to producers by deficiency payments partly financed by the Com- munity.
In addition, special encouragement has been given for sugar production in the United Kingdom. More generally, the monetary arrangements have been used to differentiate the percentage price increase between member States. There has been more flexibility in the use of national aids.
On the requirements of measures to discourage surpluses and to pay more regard to consumers, the downward pressure on CAP prices is itself a safeguard against surplus production-together with our proposals, now being pursued, for the reduction of support buying prices for milk products and cereals when surpluses start to arise. Then there is the recent practice, which I understand is to be continued, that any surpluses which do develop are run down by cheap supplies to Community consumers rather than being unloaded on world markets. We have had this in the beef subsidy for pensioners and in the increased butter subsidy. British consumers again benefit from the monetary import subsidies paid to countries which have devalued and from special measures to keep Community prices below world prices, particularly the sugar import subsidy which is financed by the Community.
On the objective of improved financial control, some progress has been made better estimates of costs and budgetary implications of new proposals, tighter monitoring of expenditure and the introduction of precautions against fraud.
On access for third-country foodstuffs, in 1971 we condemned from the
4