asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he proposes to introduce legislation implementing the Report by the Committee on Transactions in Seeds in favour of protection for plant breeders' rights, in view of the fact that the British agricultural industry is being deprived of important new seed varieties.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the second Report of the Committee on Transactions in Seeds.

The Government have given detailed consideration to the proposals of the Committee on Transactions in Seeds concerning plant breeders' rights and also to the Committee's earlier proposals concerning seeds, and have decided to accept and give effect to most of the Committee's recommendations on these subjects. I recognise that in due course legislation will be involved and we are making plans for this.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Answer will give great pleasure to all the interests concerned who are extremely grateful for the way his Department has expedited this reply? Could my right hon. Friend say when he expects to sign the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants which five European countries have now signed? Is he aware that until we sign the Convention there is grave danger that our plant breeders will he deprived of new varieties which are being developed by countries which will be reluctant to release them to countries where there are no royalty arrangements?

I take the point made by my hon. Friend. Now that we have decided to go forward with this we have to see how it fits in with the Convention. If it fits in, it is something which we might well be able to decide to do in the future.

Cannot my hon. Friend announce a date from which it would be possible retrospectively to patent plant breeders' rights? A number of new varieties will be held up until legislation is passed.

No, Sir. I am afraid that I could not do that today.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the price of a home-grown loaf would be increased if the wheat subsidy were abolished and the full cost charged.

The Government guarantee is designed to maintain producers' returns for their wheat. If the guarantee were abolished, home production would be likely to fall heavily and the gap would be filled by imports. Very little bread made entirely from home-grown wheat is sold in this country and it would be difficult to make any worthwhile estimate of the ultimate effect of such a change on the price of bread. In practice millers' bread flour grists contain only about 20 per cent. of home-grown wheat on average.

While appreciating that reply and thanking my hon. Friend for it, may I ask whether it is a fact that, if the subsidy were to be abolished, the price of a home-grown loaf would go up by about 3d. or 4d.? Does he fully appreciate the great value to the housewife of the subsidy on wheat?

I have not worked out the arithmetic in the same way as has my hon. Friend, so I should not like to comment on that figure. It is true that, on the whole, the support system works out to the advantage of the consumers as well as the producers.

Although the Minister is already in very serious trouble with the Treasury because of his £65 million Supplementary Estimate, is it not also a fact that, when the new bread and flour regulations come into force some time next year, the price of better quality bread and flour is likely to be increased?

Better quality articles generally tend to be more costly than those of less good quality. But we had better wait until the Order comes into operation before we become too precise.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he expects the total cost of agricultural support to be during the current year.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Minister answers this Question, may I say that I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is to make a major statement on price support, and that the major Supplementary Estimate will be nearly £80 million? Is it possible, through you, to plead with the Minister to defer his Answer until the end of Questions, when he could make it in the form of a statement?

I do not know anything about this. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman, but no doubt what he has said will have been heard.

Will the Minister respond to my request?

As I was first for Questions today, which coincided with the date on which we were publishing this Supplementary Estimate, and as this Question was bound to be reached, I thought that this was the proper moment to inform the House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very serious matter. Many of us will want to ask supplementary questions. Surely, it is better that a major statement like this should be made at the end of Question Time so that all those interested may have an opportunity to ask questions?

That is not a point of order for me. I do not control these matters unless an application is made to me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not within your province to try to protect other hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper? Assuming for the moment that Question No. 3 occupied the whole of Question Time, would not that be a great disservice to the House?

At present it is points of order that are taking up the time. I do not know the length of the statement. I have no reason to suppose that it would necessarily be lengthy.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement will include reference to a Supplementary Estimate of £13 million for which not the Minister of Agriculture but the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible.

I do not follow why that is thought to be a point of order for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important House of Commons matter, and the danger is that, if the Minister replies in this way, the people in the country will imagine or believe that he is trying to evade major criticism on the Floor of the House.

That cannot conceivably be a point of order. The inferences are hypothetical.

I must make it clear that there is no question of trying to evade anything. When a Question stands on the Order Paper, one answers it. I will now make my reply to Question No. 3.

The total cost of agricultural support for the United Kingdom for the present financial year is now estimated to be £344·7 million. This is £78·0 million in excess of the original Estimate, and Supplementary Estimates covering that amount have been published today.

The principal cause of the excess is the increase in the cost of implementing the price guarantees for livestock amounting to £35·3 million for cattle, £13·6 million for sheep and £17·9 million for pigs. As the House will be aware, owing to a combination of factors, wholesale prices for each of these commodities have fallen greatly below expectation over the course of the year. The situation in this respect is clearly exceptional. The amount of the additional cost to the exchequer is a matter for serious concern, which we shall be bound to take fully into account in the course of next year's Price Review.

These are indeed very serious figures. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if Members opposite had wished to know them they could have put Questions down themselves? In view of the great danger that this will occur in future years, and in the interests both of protecting the farmers' standard of living and the taxpayers, is my right hon. Friend working out new arrangements and a totally new system which might have the effect of perhaps bringing in a tariff form of protection in some sectors but of avoiding this situation happening again in future?

There were very exceptional circumstances this year, beginning in the spring, when a much increased number of cattle came forward from the spring flush of grass. This number was much greater than that which the market was accustomed to handling, and it had the effect of dropping wholesale prices very considerably.

Later, in the summer, when beef prices should have recovered, the crop of lambs from our ewe flock was infinitely higher than the average we would normally expect, owing to the exceptionally good spring and summer. The amount of lamb coming on to the market was, therefore, much in excess of what is customary, which had the effect of dragging the market down still further. When it was beginning to recover from that situation, imports of bacon from Denmark increased more than had been expected, and the pig market was also affected. It has frequently happened in the past that individual fatstock items have increased to this sort of amount, but never before has it happened for all three in the same year.

As for the future, given that, on the one hand we do not alter our trade arrangements with exporting countries, and, on the other hand, that we hold to our pledges to agriculture within the 1957 Act, there is only limited room for manoeuvre within the ensuing year. But within these limits we will do everything possible, including any action which it may be right to take at the Price Review, and we will also improve marketing arrangements where this can be done.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to assist me. By reason of what happened, I am not sure whether or not he said that he was answering other Questions with Question No. 3.

I was answering only Question No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

The right hon. Gentleman's long reply confirms that we should have had it as a statement.

Is he aware that he has admitted that his Department made a serious miscalculation? That is how this has been accepted. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course it has. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it also reflects a breakdown in the policy the Government have pursued and that the system of deficiency payments and the trend away from the 1947 Act have proved to be a major disaster for the agricultural industry?

Is he further aware that the Government's policy does not mean more for the producer or for the consumer, but that distribution costs are increased. Producer and consumer do not benefit. Is he aware that this policy has failed and that the Government stand condemned?

It is not true that nobody has gained from this except the distributors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The outturn for this year for expenditure on deficiency payments for fatstock compared with last year will be about £76 million up. In round figures, about £31 million of that will have gone to the farmers for the increased number of cattle coming forward and because of the higher prices received as a result of the increased guarantee at the last Price Review. We reckon that, over the course of the year, the average drop in retail prices—it is obvious that we cannot be so precise as with the first figure—will be about 5½ per cent., or about £35 million to the consumer.

When have the Opposition ever complained about the increase of 10s. in the price of beef in the last Price Review? In the case of beef, will my right hon. Friend, in view of the increased Supplementary Estimate, say whether he can help the marketing of this product? We have a great number of inefficient slaughter-houses, which are operating in such a way that they are unable to make use of the cheaper cuts of meat which the butchers have been unable to sell this year. Should not my right hon. Friend now take more steps to encourage co-ordination in meat marketing?

I am aware of these difficulties in marketing and we are paying attention to them, but we can operate in only a limited field.

I did not follow the calculations the right hon. Gentleman gave to us and I do not believe anybody else did. Assuming that he is correct and that £34 million is going to the pockets of the farmers—which I doubt—where has the other £45 million gone? The right hon. Gentleman says that retail prices have been reduced by part of that amount, but he still ends up with £10 million. I do not believe that the customers have had that reduction. Where has this £10 million gone?

There is no argument where the farmers are concerned. There has been the increased guaranteed price, and we know that £31 million has gone to the farmers. That is definite. It is harder to estimate the consumer benefit but, on the basis of a 5½ per cent. reduction in retail prices, it comes to £35 million. That leaves £10 million for the distributive trades, which have handled a very considerably increased quantity of home-killed beef and mutton this year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the very heavy cost of this, the surveys conducted by his Department and by other authorities do not show that beef production has been all that profitable? Do they not show that the price allowed in the Price Review was a true reflection of the very great increase in costs that has taken place in the production of beef?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The figures available to us at the time of the last Review showed a very considerable fall-off in the number of calves being retained for beef. We thought it right to give this extra incentive towards the retaining of a larger number of calves.

Can the right hon. Gentleman be more explicit about the extent to which this very large subsidy has been reflected in retail prices? Is he referring to meat in the shops? Is the figure of 5½ per cent. reached in comparison with previous years? Can he tell us the total amount which it is alleged the consumer has gained?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that this is inevitably a somewhat speculative figure. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is estimated over a year which is not yet finished. It is for the fatstock year from April to April. It is our belief, however, that the average fall in retail prices on all meat is in the neighbourhood of 5½ per cent. We calculate that that represents a saving to the consumer of about £35 million as compared with last year.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a matter for satisfaction that Government policy has resulted in this increase of good quality home-produced beef? If we are to have more home-produced beef, is it not inevitable that we will have to pay more for it, including the extra 10s. a cwt. in this year's Price Review? Is he surprised by the additional figure for beef?

What has surprised us in this respect is that a comparatively small increase in beef coming on to the market should have brought about such a considerable drop in the wholesale price. It is that fact for which we did not allow in the Estimates.

In view of the experience this year, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to go into the question of finding a more sensible way of buying beef from the farmers and selling it to the general public? Is not the present marketing a pure gamble with many farmers, especially the small farmers? They do not benefit, and the public do not get the benefit of cheaper meat.

It is not our present intention to enter into State trading with meat.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what is the amount of interim deficiency acreage payments on barley and oats which he intends to pay; and when he expects to pay them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the interim deficiency acreage payments on barley and oats.

Advances of deficiency payments for the cereal year 1961–62 will be made at the rate of £6 10s. an acre for barley and £5 an acre for oats and mixed corn. Advances for barley will be subject to a deduction of 15s. per ton for deliveries during the period from 1st July to 31st October in accordance with the arrangements which my right hon. Friend announced in the House on 17th May last. Payments will start at the beginning of January and will be completed as quickly as possible. The total advances will amount to about £34 million.

May I take it from those figures that the figure of £34 million is included in the Supplementary Estimate, totalling £344 million, which was published today?

The greater part of the £34 million arises in the original Estimate. Only a small part of it is covered by the Supplementary Estimate.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) is put in view of the Supplementary Estimate? As the figures are broken down for England and Wales, ought there not to be a Scottish Minister present to answer? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in view of his right hon. Friend's previous reply and the Government's whole approach, we shall vigorously press this matter in debate when we return after the Christmas Recess?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what authority he is withdrawing the Hill Cow Subsidy from eighty-one farmers in Cornwall who were receiving the subsidy in 1960–61; and whether he will make a statement.

This subsidy is being withdrawn because the land on which these farmers keep their cows can no longer be regarded as hill land as defined in the Hill Cattle (Breeding Herds) (England and Wales) Scheme, 1953.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is tremendous resentment against his decision to withdraw this subsidy? Does he not agree that year by year to change the policy towards agriculture in the difficult circumstances surrounding farming is not in the best interests of agriculture, or of the nation's economy?

I am aware that this decision is regretted by those concerned, but when I was advised that the land in question did not fall within the meaning of the Act, I had no alternative to withdrawing the subsidy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the recent breakdown in talks about a new price structure for liquid milk.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the failure of the Milk Marketing Board and the unions to agree on a two-tier price solution for the milk industry.

I accept the conclusion of the Joint Committee of the Farmers' Unions and Milk Marketing Boards that no alternative to the present pooling system has been evolved which would be acceptable to the industry at the present time. I am sure that the inquiry has been worth while in that it has brought about a fuller appreciation of the problem, and I have welcomed the Chairman's indication that it requires the continuing attention of the industry.

In view of my right hon. Friend's previous remarks on this subject, has he any further plans for some method of restricting the production of liquid milk in this country?

No, Sir. What was said in the White Paper when the last Price Review was published was that if the scheme did not prove feasible, we should have to reconsider the increase given at the last Review.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to his Ministry's figures issued the week before last, the average profits of dairy farmers for the last year for which figures are available went down by 19 per cent.? What plans does he now have to regulate liquid milk production in this country and to save the farmers from further under-recoupment from rising production and lower returns? Will he place in the Library, or publish as a White Paper, the report of the deliberations of the committee and the advice and visitations tendered to it?

It was for the industry to decide whether it wished to continue—with the clear warning inherent in the White Paper—with the present system, or to have a two-tier price system. This was a private investigation by the industry and it would not be right to publish the deliberations as a White Paper.

Why is the right hon. Gentleman so concerned about an increase in milk production when the subsidy is so small? Ought he not to be more concerned about beef production, for which he is giving away another £35 million?

These are entirely different situations, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. The sources from which the industries get their returns are totally different.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made this year in testing systemic insecticides and other treatments to deal with warbles in cattle; and if he is planning to start a national campaign next year to eliminate this pest which causes heavy losses to farmers and the leather trade.

Trials have been carried out this year with a comparatively new systemic dressing and a single application gave satisfactory results against warbles. We are at present considering our future action against this pest.

Will my hon. Friend press on with this task? We have had the warble fly Order, or something of the kind, for many years, but we do not seem to get on top of this pest. Will he try by next spring to get a rather better and more forceful policy?

The new chemical developments may help. Derris dust sprayed on to the backs of cattle has long given only incomplete results.

Has not a great deal of the difficulty arisen because present regulations for dealing with the pest have not been observed and have fallen into disuse? Will not the same thing happen with the new insecticides unless more rigorous steps are taken to see that the regulations are observed?

That is one of the things which we are considering, because the present regulations are not entirely satisfactory, especially in the light of these chemical developments.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to eliminate all danger to British livestock arising from the recent outbreaks of disease in recently imported Charollais bulls.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what precautions were taken to test the health and condition of the Charollais bulls before purchase; and whether his Departmental scientists made the necessary tests.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the serious outbreak of disease in the Charollais bulls under the control of his Department, he will cause the bulls to be destroyed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the results of the study of the treatment of bovine leptospirosis; and if he is satisfied that animals which have recovered from the disease are no longer carriers of it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the extent of bovine leptospirosis infection among the Charollais bulls recently imported; how many bulls have been slaughtered and what action he is taking to prevent the spread of leptospira in matter excreted by the bulls.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the results of the veterinary tests made on the Charollais bulls recently imported on Government account from France; whether leptospirosis could have been diagnosed before the bulls were shipped from France; and whether he is fully satisfied that the extended period of quarantine now imposed on the surviving bulls in this country will ensure that they cannot be found later on to be carriers of this or some other disease from which we are free in Britain.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the damage to the United Kingdom's export trade in pedigree beef cattle, as well as to the industry as a whole, from the threat of leptospirosis, with which three of the imported Charollais bulls were found to be suffering, he will order the immediate return to France of the remaining twenty-seven animals.

Before these bulls were purchased, tests for leptospirosis and other diseases were carried out by the French veterinary services, and with permission I will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the requirements which we laid down for these tests.

Further tests were conducted when the bulls were in quarantine in this country. As a result of our tests, three bulls reacted to a type of leptospira. This organism cannot be successfully eliminated by treatment with vaccines or antibiotics, and animals which have apparently recovered may remain as carriers. For this reason the three reactor bulls have been destroyed. This removes the known source of possible infection and there is therefore no need at present to consider slaughtering the remaining bulls.

Further tests have been and will continue to be carried out to make sure that the disease has not been transmitted to the other animals.

No manure from any of the animals has left the quarantine station since they arrived. Generous disinfection has been carried out and in any event the organism survives only for a short time in urine. There is no risk of the disease spreading from the quarantine station while the animals are there. None of the animals will he released from quarantine until my veterinary advisers have assured me that they are free from disease.

Is it not better to send these bulls back to France to avoid any possible risk?

Secondly, will my right hon. Friend regard this as an object lesson, in case we join the Common Market, of the real danger to animal health, unless there are cast-iron safeguards?

An important feature of the arrangements which will have to be made if we join the Common Market will be proper arrangements for safeguarding animal health in this country. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend about the future of these animals. They were kept in quarantine because of this very danger. We appreciated it when we brought them over. They will remain in quarantine while there is any danger. But there is no reason whatsoever why they should not be released from quarantine and go to do the job for which they came over here once there is no further risk of disease.

I understand that tests were made by the Ministry's own veterinary officers. Is that the normal procedure and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that precautions are adequate?

Yes, Sir. The tests in France were made by the French veterinary service, which is the customary practice of the exporting country. Tests in this country were made by our own veterinary service and will be continued until we are assured that there is no danger.

Would it not have been better if this experiment had never taken place, in view of the advice given to my right hon. Friend now that it has happened? How can my right hon. Friend be certain that the manure and urine, in which the disease remains for several years, can be completely restricted and that the disease will not spread?

As I said, none of the manure has been allowed to leave the station since the animals came here. That is just the sort of eventuality which shows the immense pains which the veterinary service has taken to ensure that all precautions were taken. I cannot agree that it would have been better not to have made the importation. Of course there is risk of disease when importing cattle. It was always there and it was inherent in the import. The Committee which went into this matter in great detail found that there was a prima facie case for importing these animals to cross them with our dairy herds, with considerable benefit to the dairy industry in the long run.

Would it not have been better if he had sent Ayrshire cattle to France rather than bringing these animals here?

No, Sir. Part of the experiment was to be able to assess the type of meat produced by these cattle and to see how it sold on the market here at home.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the leptospira in bovine leptospirosis can be transmitted in semen? In view of the uncertainty that still exists about the precise nature of this disease, will he make certain that the quarantine periods are extended so that there is no danger whatever of the disease being transmitted through artificial insemination from the bulls?

My hon. Friend may rest absolutely assured about that.

Will my right hon. Friend now issue another order so that, after suitable veterinary examination, replacement bulls can be brought into this country?

I should like to consider that later when these bulls are let out from quarantine and we can study the situation as a whole.

Could this disease have been discovered in France before the bulls came here?

They were tested in France and the tests were negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more than 700 of these bulls have been exported from France in the last year, and that not one went down in this test? Is he satisfied that there was not a false reaction? Were blood samples taken before slaughtering just to check that, for it is rather important? Is he aware that when Danish Reds came to this country, there was no trouble from the breed societies? Were those cattle tested for leptospirosis and is that disease known in Denmark? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not yield to the pressure from the breed societies? Will he assure the House that he will not allow the breed societies in any way to sway him from carrying out this most important experiment, even though only a small number of bulls survive the quarantine period?

The cattle imported from Denmark were tested in Denmark for leptospirosis. However, it does not exist in Denmark as a disease in cattle. As for being swayed, we intend to continue with our plans as hitherto. It is unfortunate that four bulls were lost in this way.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with the Parliamentary Secretary for Science about the relationship between the leptospira of bovine leptospirosis and the leptospira of rat leptospirosis which is the cause of Weil's disease in man.

The leptospira to which the three bulls have reacted is a species distinct from that which causes Weil's disease in man

The Agricultural Research Council for which my noble Friend the Minister for Science is responsible, has been consulted and supports this finding.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Food Flying Squads are examined regularly for road worthiness; and if the food supplies are checked in readines for an emergency.

The vehicles of the Food Flying Squads are examined regularly for road worthiness. The squads do not hold stocks of food but have arrangements with local tradesmen to draw emergency supplies at any time of the day or night.

I hope that the emergency will not arise, but does the Minister agree that if we are to have any Civil Defence it is essential that those concerned should he properly equipped and available at short notice? Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient volunteers on the spot available at short notice? Secondly, with regard to stocks, is he satisfied that there are enough properly balanced stocks available if the need should arise?

The Question referred primarily to vehicles. Civil Defence would always welcome further recruits to its ranks. With regard to stocks for the sort of emergencies which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, there are ample supplies in wholesale channels, and there would be no question of being unable to draw supplies. This has been borne out by recent quite large-scale exercises which have been taking place in different parts of the country, including the hon. Gentleman's county.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his official talks with the French Minister of Agriculture.

The French Minister of Agriculture accepted a private invitation to spend a week-end at my home. His visit was not official and our talks were informal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will resist any pleas by the French Government to modify the anti-dumping measures for butter already announced? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade about the problem of dried milk, which the Milk Marketing Board complains is coming into this country at less than half the price at which it is being sold in the country of origin?

Both these matters are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been undertaken by his Department into the effectiveness of pyrethrum as a pesticide.

Fundamental research of this type is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Science Research into the insecticidal and chemical properties of pyrethrum has been in progress for many years at Rothamsted Experimental Station and the Pest Infestation Laboratory of the Agricultural Research Council and recently, also, at the Tropical Products Institute of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. This Ministry is being kept in close touch with all this work.

Does the Minister realise that pyrethrum is acknowledged by all authorities to be one of the most effective pesticides known? Is he aware that his replies to my Question of 6th November were widely reported and may do great harm to the pyrethrum industry which is one of the cornerstones of Kenya's economic policy, a country which we are all very anxious to help at the present time? Is the Minister aware that it has the additional virtue of being an insecticide which is completely harmless to warm-blooded animals? Will he say something to remedy the effect of his remarks on 6th November?

I do not think that the remarks I made on the previous occasion need have done any harm at all, because every one knows that pyrethrum is a potent insecticide with a rapid paralysing action and highly toxic to a wide range of insects. It also is of low mammalian toxicity and is safe to use on foodstuffs and in the house. One of the difficulties is that it is not as persistent as some other insecticides, and therefore it can be at a disadvantage in that regard for certain uses.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the difficulty experienced by firms wishing, to create an export trade in food products to West Germany arising out of the German requirements as regards inspection; and whether he will provide facilities for a type of inspection that would meet the German regulations, if necessary at the expense of the firm concerned.

The West German Government have recently made new meat inspection regulations which create difficulties for firms wishing to export meat and meat products from this country. We are about to discuss the matter with the West German Government with a view to seeing what arrangements would be necessary in order to comply with the regulations.

Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to deal with this anomaly? We receive food produce from all over the world, yet, when a firm such as the one in my constituency wants to export, it comes up against these punitive Regulations. This firm, Campbell Soups, has received a letter from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade urging it go in for exports. Will he do something to resolve this difficult position in which our food exporters are placed?

We have been collecting all the necessary information in recent weeks and our representative in Bonn will approach the German Government before Christmas.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many disputes in cases of fowl pest compensation have been heard by administrative tribunals in 1961; and how much money was claimed and paid in compensation, respectively.

Five such cases have been heard by arbitrators during 1961: the total of the valuations in dispute was £222,500. The arbitrators' awards have so far been made only in two of these cases.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the tribunals were held in public? Is he aware of the great public concern that exists over the whole question of compensation for fowl pest? A great many people suspect that there are some rackets being run. Would it not be far better in the circumstances, from everyone's point of view, if these tribunals were held in public so that both the farmers and the public would know that everything was fair and above board?

There is, naturally, concern when large sums of money are being arbitrated. There is a great deal of misconception since this is agreeing the value of property—not diseased birds but sound property—which has been taken from individuals because it is supposed that they might be contacts of infectious disease. The arbitrations are all carried out in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1950, and, as I told the hon. Gentleman the other day, I cannot see any reason why the procedure for the hearing of these cases should diverge from the accepted practice.

Is not the trouble that large sums must be paid to people who keep birds in very large—almost excessively large—concentrations? When the Plant Committee reports, will my hon. Friend take cognisance of the fact that this keeping of birds in huge concentrations leads to trouble, not only with the disease but with payments as well?

I will take cognisance of everything in the Plant Committee's report which, we hope, we will be receiving shortly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cost of farm buildings attracting grants or subsidies for the year 1959–60; what were the total grants and subsidies paid; and what steps are being taken to ensure that grants or subsidies are paid only to those whose income is inadequate to meet the present cost of building.

In the year ended 31st March, 1960, work on farm buildings costing £17·2 million was assisted under the Farm Improvement Scheme or the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts in the United Kingdom. Payments of grant totalled £5·9 million. These grants are designed to promote efficiency and no distinction is drawn in regard to the income of the applicant.

Is that not a really shocking answer—35 per cent. subsidy to farmers? Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted his right hon. Friends to see if it is possible to adopt a system of grants and subsidies based upon the income of the people getting the subsidies such as his hon. Friends want applied to other members of the community who are getting subsidies?

This grant is for the land owner and not for the land occupier. It is designed to increase the productivity and efficiency of farming. More than any single Act that has been passed through this House in recent years the Farm Improvement Scheme has done more than anything else to bring about the fact that, although costs have gone up in the last six years to the tune of about £162 million, the value of grants has increased only by about £56 million, which means that agriculture, by improved efficiency, has itself been able to take up £100 million.

How can the Minister argue that the Farm Improvement Scheme has improved farm conditions when incomes of small farmers have decreased over the last five years?

This is across the whole board and throughout the whole country. I was referring to 1955–61. Certainly, the situation vis-à-vis farmers' incomes would not be nearly as good today had it not been for the Farm Improvement Scheme.