asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has now received the report of the Ryan Committee which inquired into the organisation of his Department in relation to the county agricultural executive committees; and when this will be published.

I have received the report and am arranging for it to be published as soon as practicable. I am glad to take this opportunity of expressing my gratitude to Mr. Ryan and his colleagues on the Committee, particularly the members from outside the Government service, for undertaking this inquiry and for giving so much of their time and attention to it.

Have the recommendations of this Committee been accepted by the Government, and will they require any fresh legislation?

There has been no time to reach any conclusions on the recommendations that have been made.

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many birds have been ordered to be killed due to fowl pest in Great Britain; and how many birds from pest-infected countries have been imported during this same time.

The number of birds slaughtered between February, 1947, and the end of 1950 by direction of my Department on account of fowl pest is about 400,000. A record of the number of birds imported into Great Britain from countries where the disease is prevalent is not kept, but about 7,800 tons of fowls, 13,000 tons of geese and ducks and 8,300 tons of turkeys came from such countries during the period. At a conservative estimate, there could not have been less than 9 million birds imported.

Are the fowls from Gambia included in that total?

I am not aware that there have been any fowls from Gambia.

Will the right hon. Gentlemen read the answer given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the House yesterday?

Why is it that the order the right hon. Gentleman made in December on this subject has not yet been presented to Parliament?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice of that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman publish month by month the numbers of birds imported and killed?

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the growers' costs of road transport between the Selsey area and Covent Garden since nationalisation have increased to 2d. a cabbage and from 4d. to 5s. for half a bushel of lettuces; and what steps he is taking on behalf of the horticultural industry to negotiate lower price schedules of road transport charges.

I am advised that the cost of road transport for the haul stated is 2s. 4½d. per crate of cabbage and 10½d. per bushel box of lettuce, with a minimum charge of 5s. for each collection. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not aware that the existing facilities for negotiation on price schedules for road transport charges are in any way inadequate.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is largely through the incidence of the very heavy road charges that growers are unable to make a profit? Will he not help them to negotiate revised schedules of transport charges?

I cannot accept that statement, since the crate or two-bushel box to carry cabbages contains anything between 16 to 26. It does not work out at anything like 2d., unless they are very small indeed.

Can my right hon. Friend explain the very wide divergence between these prices and the prices charged in the shops?

The prices referred to in the Question are merely transport charges.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that increases in transport charges of anything from 50 per cent. to 120 per cent. have been placed on the horticultural industry? Will he not make some representations to the Minister of Transport and at least dissuade him from hounding the free transport hauliers out of business?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not accept the charges and allegations made by the hon. Member.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not apparently aware of the situation, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are taken to keep down the rabbits in woodlands now under requisition by Government Departments.

Departments responsible for woodlands are co-operating with my Department, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Land Owners' Association in the county schemes for area rabbit control.

Is the Minister aware that a number of woodlands in Kent are still under requisition and that no one takes any steps to see that the rabbits are kept down?

Perhaps the hon. Member will bring any particular cases he has in mind to my notice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of good farming land have been taken over for camping sites on the Isle of Sheppey since 1945.

I regret that I have not the information available.

asked the Minister of Agriculture what total acreage of land in Essex he proposes to acquire compulsorily under Section 85 of the Agriculture Act, 1947; and how many owners of such land have lodged objections.

The total acreage of land in Essex of which purchase under Section 85 is proposed or in train is approximately 3,600 acres. There are about 1,000 known owners of this land, of whom about 300 made representations. Of these, 37 have so far appealed to the agricultural land tribunals.

asked the Minister of Agriculture when a final decision will be made concerning land in Essex he seeks to acquire compulsorily under Section 85 of the Agriculture Act, 1947, and in respect of which objections have been lodged by the owners.

Out of the 3,600 acres of land in Essex where purchase under Section 85 is proposed, final decisions have been reached on 1,200 acres. On a further 400 acres, the decisions of the agricultural land tribunal are awaited, while on the remaining 2,000 acres, the representations of the owners and occupiers are under consideration, and it is impossible to say when final decisions will be reached.

Is the Minister aware that many of the owners concerned expected their land to be de-requisitioned last year, but were suddenly faced, last summer, with the Minister's demand for compulsory purchase? Is he aware that they are still left in ignorance of what will happen to their land? Cannot he speed up a decision in order to avoid additional delay?

It is because we are so careful to give consideration to those who make representations that there has been this delay.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a shipment of 71 horses and other animals sent from Limerick to Birkenhead early in February, of which 18 collapsed, died and were thrown overboard during the sea voyage, three more were found dead on arrival at Birkenhead, seven others had broken legs and other serious injuries and had to be destroyed on arrival, another collapsed and died on the quayside and two goats were found to be dead on arrival; and, in view of the fact that repeated cases of this kind have been brought to his notice, what steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the circumstances in which a number of aged horses were shipped from Limerick to Birkenhead on 3rd February last, which resulted in 18 dying en route, three being found dead on reaching Birkenhead and eight having to be humanely slaughtered on arrival owing to the injuries they had suffered on the voyage; and whether, in view of the fact that these were horses imported solely for the meat trade, he will take powers to prevent such importations henceforward unless prior satisfaction can be given that the transport, unloading and subsequent slaughter will be carried out with due regard to avoiding unnecessary cruelty.

asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the cruelty caused to certain horses in transit from Ireland to Birkenhead on 3rd February; and if he will make a statement as to the steps which are being taken to prevent such incidents in the future.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the circumstances in which a number of aged horses being shipped from Limerick to Birkenhead in the early part of this month suffered severe injuries, resulting in their death in consequence of their infirmity and the unsatisfactory conditions of their accommodation, and that a further number had to be slaughtered on arrival as a result of the extensive bruising and exhaustion from which they were suffering; and whether he will take steps to review the regulations relating to the transport of horses in merchant vessels, with a view to ensuring that such extensive and unnecessary cruelty shall be avoided.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) on 19th February.

I have seen that answer, but is it not a fact that in these cases my right hon. Friend informed me that these journeys would not take place if the weather was bad? Is it not a fact that gale warnings were given on the day previous to the sailing of the vessel and That the vessel was delayed for four hours? Is he aware that I have a signed statement by the captain saying that he delayed his vessel for six hours in the Shannon and that the vessel took four days and nights to do the journey from Ireland? Is he further aware that at this time of the year the weather is always bad?

This is giving a lot of information and not asking for it.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a public inquiry?

My hon. Friend has suggested that repeated cases of this kind have been brought to my notice. This is the first case affecting imported horses that has been reported. I understand that the "Clarina" was inspected before sailing by Irish Government officials, who certified that the horses were fit to work and to travel and that the fittings of the vessel were up to their usual standards. The large number of casualties on this voyage is attributed to the exceptionally heavy weather experienced.

Is the Minister aware that while we are continuing to import horses for slaughter from Ireland, we are also exporting horses for slaughter in Belgium? Should we not cut down these exports and reduce the overall volume of this traffic?

The hon. and gallant Member is in error. We are not exporting horses for slaughter to Belgium.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Mr. Tom Tweed, of Manchester, the man to whom most of these unfortunate animals are consigned, is a man with an extremely bad record? He has at one time or another received a sentence of three years' imprisonment, has been fined £2,000, has had his butcher's licence revoked and has been fined for cruelty to animals. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the regulations are adequate to ensure safe transportation of these animals and to prevent them falling into the hands of someone like Mr. Tweed when they arrive?

My hon. Friend knows much more about this person than I do. I said in my original reply, on 19th February, that I am considering whether to make an order under the Diseases of Animals Acts for the better protection of horses during their transit to this country, but hon. Members will appreciate that I will have to consult both the Eire Government and the Government of Northern Ireland.

Is the Minister not aware that the horses to which these Questions refer came from Eire and were shipped under the sovereignty of the Irish Republic? [Laughter.] What is funny about that? No horses which suffered in this way were shipped from Northern Ireland.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that all people of goodwill in this country are looking to him to prevent such atrocities?

The House will be aware that I cannot prevent atrocities of this kind if the regulations are made by the Irish Republic. I have already said that we are looking round the situation to see whether or not anything can be done, but we are not responsible for any kind of suffering.

Is it not quite clear, whatever the record of this gentleman in Manchester or of Eire in relation to these unfortunate animals being shipped in these circumstances, that this ship should not have been permitted to sail in view of the weather report? Is not that the whole point?

It is not the responsibility of the British Government to decide whether or not the boat should sail.

Is it not a fact that the subsequent veterinary examination revealed that many of these horses were knocked down and trampled to death, and will my right hon. Friend, in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, inquire whether there was correct supervision on this vessel, which, after all, does sail under the authority of the Minister of Transport?

I shall be very happy to consult with my right hon. Friend, because I am just as anxious as anyone to prevent any unnecessary suffering anywhere.

rose—

We cannot proceed any further with this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture for what purpose the four cottages at Clay Hill, Lyndhurst, are being built by the Forestry Commission; and whether it is intended that they shall be tied cottages.

The cottages are being built for Forestry Commission employees and will be either let on a tenancy basis or occupied rent free as part of the employees' emoluments.

In view of the fact that many landlords in the New Forest are wanting to build cottages, why have the Forestry Commission, which is only a small section, thought it right to build four cottages, which must mean that many other sections of the agricultural community cannot have any cottages?

That bears no relation to the Question on the Order Paper.

Why should the Minister consider himself entitled to build four tied cottages when no landlord in the area is allowed to build one?

We build cottages where we happen to need them.

If the men occupying these cottages lose their jobs with the Forestry Commission, will they have to give up the cottages?

That is a purely hypothetical question.

(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about the appointment of a Supreme Sea Commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Yes, Sir. The North Atlantic Treaty Defence Committee have agreed that there should be a Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic and that he should be an American. An American officer has already been nominated for this appointment, and it is expected that an announcement will be made on this matter very shortly.

Were there no British admirals capable of discharging these functions; does not Great Britain lie at the very key of all communications across the Atlantic with Europe; are not the sea approaches to our island in the event of submarine attack vital to our life; and how is it, with our experience, which is longer and wider than that of any other country, and when we have all agreed with so much pleasure that General Eisenhower should command the Armed Forces on land, that we should have resigned any claim that we may be thought to have, to the command of the sea on the Atlantic?

In an organisation of a number of Powers, as in the North Atlantic Treaty organisation, an appointment is made by those Powers. No Power has an absolute right to dictate its views as to any appointment. I understand that the proposition that an American admiral should be appointed was generally acceptable.

Does this not argue a great decline in our influence and in the esteem in which we are held by other countries with whom we are in the most friendly relations? Did the right hon. Gentleman make any effort to put our claims forward in a sober and earnest fashion, or did he simply accept the fact that we are to be brushed out of the way in this matter which, of all others, apart altogether from history and tradition, is vital to our existence?

Answer.

Hon. Members must give me a moment to get up; I am perfectly prepared to answer. This matter was, naturally, very fully discussed, but I say again that this is a matter for agreement. The general conclusion was that this was the best appointment. I cannot at the moment say whether there was an elaborate discussion or not, but in any international organisation of this kind, of a number of—

Where is British leadership?

Not over there, on the other side of the House.

In an organisation of a number of countries, it is not possible for one country to insist on its right to some particular office. It is a matter for discussion.

It was possible, anyhow, not very long ago, for one country to sink 525 German U-boats compared with 174 by the United States. No one is going to argue that I am hostile to the United States, but I do not think that our country ought to have fallen so far into walks of humility.

Without endorsing what the Leader of the Opposition has Said about the question of substantiating our particular claim, or the credit of any country, or any prior rights of any country in any field, does the Prime Minister not consider that there is a very important psychological question to be considered here, a question which ought to be appreciated by the Americans as much as by ourselves? The world at large is beginning to think that there is something wrong when the Americans have leadership of the Atlantic Forces on land, leadership of the Korean Forces and now, presumably, are to have leadership of yet another Force. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of any claim that any individual American may have, but this is a matter of collective force and world psychology. Will the Prime Minister look into it?

If it is too late to make any further suggestions about the appointment of a supreme Allied naval commander, will the Prime Minister see that the claims of the British Commonwealth to hold the appointment of Allied air commander are considered, when this matter comes up?

Will the Prime Minister take into account that as we have committed ourselves to the full principle of collective arrangements we cannot now risk the development of illfeeling with America when these arrangements are carried out?

May I ask the Prime Minister whether this matter is finally settled or whether he will, in view, I think, of the widespread feeling in the House, make a further appeal to the United States to consider this matter in all friendship and loyal feelings of comradeship? As the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) has said, on the land we welcomed General Eisenhower; the Americans alone have the atomic bomb, which covers a great part of the air, but here, in this question which is absolutely vital to this island, will he not ask them to give it further consideration? I am only asking that the Prime Minister should believe that they are very ready to treat loyal Allies with all fairness and generosity.

I will certainly look into the matter. I cannot say more than that. As I understand it, they have selected the admiral who seems most suitable for this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] The name I cannot say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are 'they'"?] "They" are the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The name has not yet been announced. I will take into full consideration everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said, and will look into the matter.

Who represented us?

It is late in the day for the Prime Minister of this country to look into the matter. Might I ask him whether he was not consulted beforehand?

Answer.

Yes, Sir, the matter has been very very fully considered. I am saying that I will reconsider it and look into it.

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will look into it again and see what can be done.

Before this matter is finally decided, can we have a chance to debate the nature of this appointment? To whom is this man to be responsible? What is to be the extent of his command, and the position of the Commanders-in-Chief of the Home Fleet and Coastal Command? Can we have an assurance that our extensive merchant fleet will not pass out of British control?

All these matters will be properly covered when the details of the appointment are announced.

Has not the Leader of the Opposition, by raising this issue, implied lack of faith in our great American allies—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and is it not deplorable that there should be divisions between America and ourselves over a point like this?

May I ask the Prime Minister whether any British admiral was nominated for this position?

The Prime Minister said just now that he understood that the Americans had selected an admiral whom they considered most suitable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I would like an assurance that that answer did not imply that we ourselves had no say in the choice or the selection at all, because that implication seemed to give rise to the answer which he gave.

Of course we had our say.

In regard to the land Forces, was it not obviously a case of the best man for the job, and will not my right hon. Friend make it clear that the appointment of a naval commander will also be on that principle—the best man for the job, regardless of nationality?

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that his apparent aloofness this afternoon can only give the impression that he has never taken a personal interest in this matter? Will he give an assurance that he will make this his personal business and do his best to ensure that Great Britain is properly represented?

Is it not a little strange that a statesman who so loudly proclaims his belief in European unity should protest so violently when a decision with which he disagrees is reached by a group of nations, many of them European?

I have a Question, of which I have given him private notice, to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the railway situation. I assure him that if it is inconvenient to make a statement at the present moment, we will gladly wait until tomorrow morning.

I regret to state that the negotiations between the Railway Executive and the railway trade unions have not proved successful in reaching a settlement. I am gratified to find, however, that both sides are most appreciative of the amicable spirit that has animated these discussions. At the request of the trade unions, I had an interview with them this morning when they reported the position. I have also had a talk with the Railway Executive, but I am not yet in a position to report the result of these discussions.

Can the Minister explain to the House why the railwaymen should be expected to bear the economic burden of running the railways any more than the employees of the air corporations are expected to carry the subsidies on those corporations?

I think that my hon. Friend, when he hears the ultimate outcome of the discussions, will find that we have not lost sight of that factor.