asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if lie will make the payments of improvement grants to farming syndicates on the same basis as improvement grants to individual farmers.

The Government are paying grants to farmers' machinery syndicates towards the cost of buildings to be used mainly for grain drying and storage or for housing farm machinery, and the terms of grant are broadly similar to those of farm improvement scheme grants to individual farmers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that individual farmers receive grants in one amount, whereas in the case of syndicates the moneys received are 50 per cent. of the certificated costs with the balance spread over five years, and that this is hardly encouraging to members of farming syndicates?

As my hon. Friend said, 50 per cent. is paid on completion of the building and the remainder is spread over five years. It is true. We do this because the grants are given for certain uses of the building only, and this is the only way we can retain a measure of control over its use for at least the initial period of five years.

Can my hon. Friend have another look at this to see if it is possible to iron out the anomaly as between the two systems?

I am always prepared to look at anything my hon. Friend wants to raise, but I think the position remains broadly as I have stated.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation to implement the findings of the Committee on the Transaction of Seeds.

My Department is working on proposals for legislation to implement most of the Committee's recommendations on seeds and plant breeders' rights, and there have recently been discussions on the Government's proposals with the organisations concerned. When it will be possible to introduce this legislation depends on parliamentary time being available.

Would my right hon. Friend bring all the pressure to bear that he can on those people who are responsible for the Parliamentary timetable to bring this important bit of legislation forward? I am fully aware of what his Department is at present doing, and I think it would be a great pity if its work did not bear fruition in this Session.

It is the Government's intention to legislate as soon as possible on this, especially in view of the fact that we have signed the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the possibility that some part of the report may now be out of date in view of the fact that it is nearly three years since the original Engholm Committee reported?

No. I do not think it is out of date. Anyway, as I say, our proposals are being drawn up in collaboration with the interested parties.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions were made under the Pests Act, 1954, during 1962 for harbouring rabbits.

None, Sir. During 1962 we were able to get rabbits destroyed by issuing formal warnings to occupiers, followed, in a few cases, by default action on the part of the Ministry.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that rabbits really are being kept properly under control? Is he aware that there is an impression abroad that if an offender makes some small contribution no further proceedings will be taken against him? How long is it between the first inspection and the final destruction of the rabbits?

We are never satisfied that sufficient is being done. One always wants to see more being done, but I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the existing system is working well. As to the last part of his supplementary question, I have not got available the exact time between the initial warning that the rabbits should be destroyed, and the taking of default action. I will let him know.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reply he has made, or intends to make, to the representations sent to him by the British Farmers' and Smallholders' Association regarding the effects on food prices of present arrangements at fat stock auctions and at fruit and vegetable markets.

No such representations have been received, although I am of course aware of the comments on these matters in the Association's recent Report.

As the annual report makes strong criticism of the failure of the Government to introduce a proper meat marketing policy and their failure to do anything about horticultural marketing, can the hon. Gentleman tell us when we shall get some action on these two important matters and what kind of action it will be?

The hon. Member will know that there is a committee studying marketing. But that is rather different from the Question that he actually asked. I must repeat that we have not received any actual representations from the association.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the contemplated changes in agricultural policy will result in increased food prices to the consumer; and whether he will make a statement.

We have yet to carry through the necessary discussions before deciding on any changes, and I am not therefore in a position to make a statement or to assess what effect they may have on the level of food prices.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last year, with existing policies, food prices have gone up by not less than 10d. in the £ and that substantial increases will follow the new change of policy which the Government have indicated? Will he give an undertaking that the consumers will be given a clear indication before the next General Election of what it will involve for them?

We shall, of course, be keeping consumers' interests very much in mind in deciding what changes are necessary. All I am saying is that I have no statement to make this afternoon.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is highly satisfactory that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) at last realises that the food support programme has benefited not only farmers but consumers?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, is he aware that, despite the increased support, food prices are continually going up? Why should the consumer be fleeced both as a consumer and as a taxpayer?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that our food prices would have been very much higher than they are today if we had not had the present system.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answering this Question, was not the Minister, in effect, also answering Question No. 31?

We will see when we get to No. 31.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, having regard to the outbreak of a disease similar to the North American spindle tuber, he will give an assurance that no potatoes infected or thought to be affected with this disease will be planted in the present season.

In England and Wales this season all certified red skin seed potatoes, and as far as possible all uncertified seed, are being inspected before planting. Though it is impossible to guarantee that inspection will always reveal whether the disease is present, the action we have taken will reduce the risk to the minimum.

While I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to impress on the Secretary of State for Scotland the importance of ensuring that no potatoes liable to this disease are allowed to cross the border?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is fully seized of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking in conjunction with the Potato Marketing Board to ensure an adequate supply of potatoes at reasonable prices for next year.

As already announced, the Government have increased the guaranteed price for main crop potatoes. In addition the Potato Marketing Board have set up a Fund to support the market in years of surplus, to which the Government will make substantial contributions when needed. Both these measures are intended to encourage growers to plant an adequate acreage.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Potato Board is already refusing growers surplus acreages over their quota? Is he further aware that the difference in price between the guaranteed price of about £14 a ton and the surplus price of potatoes is anything up to £10 to £12 a ton and that this licks up all the Government contribution to support prices, with the result that farmers have no confidence in this system and that he will never get a further acreage of potatoes cultivated until he alters the system of guarantees for potatoes?

I do not accept that. I think that last year and this year prices were higher than the guaranteed price. The Potato Marketing Board would like to see about 700,000 acres planted. This year we had about 660,000. It was for this reason that I increased slightly the guaranteed price for potatoes to give this further encouragement. As to the arrangements that are made with regard to the quota, the Board is concerned to get an acreage of about 700,000 acres, but we do not want much above that or we shall have a large surplus of potatoes which will have to be bought up.

Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the Government and the Potato Board act early enough in the season in each year?

Perhaps my hon. Friend would repeat that?

Will my right hon. Friend check with the Potato Board to make sure that the Government and the Board come in sufficiently early in each year?

If that be necessary, certainly, but it has not been necessary either this year or last year.

In the last four years out of five we have had fantastic prices for potatoes. Only one year was a surplus year. I am considering the consumer as well as the producer in this case, and unless another system is introduced there can be protection for neither the producer nor the consumer.

It is with a view to protecting the consumer that we have been doing all we can to make sure of a greater acreage of potatoes being planted this year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will discontinue the experimentation with and use of narcotic baits, now that the effects on wild life of the past winter have been assessed.

The current experiments which were conducted after consultation with Wild Life interests are now coming to an end. As the ground this year was covered with snow for such an exceptionally long period, we have had no opportunity to assess properly the effectiveness of this means of control, or the degree of risk to wild life and game birds. A similar series of experiments may well be needed in 1963–64.

Is my hon. Friend aware that reliable authorities have estimated that up to 50 per cent. of our wild life was exterminated by the bad weather last winter? In view of that, would it not be better if Ministry employees were used elsewhere and on other tasks than spreading more poisons around the countryside?

These experiments are a valuable addition to our methods of attacking the problem of wood pigeons. As my hon. Friend knows well, they are a very serious problem to farmers and do a very great amount of damage to crops.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total number of notifications received by his Department and by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Notification Scheme for Chemicals used in Agriculture in 1962, and the number of such notifications which failed to gain clearance by the advisory committee.

154 notifications were received. Twenty-one failed to gain clearance; 2 were withdrawn and three were cleared for extended trials only. Twenty were agreed only after modification of the manufacturers' original proposals. Fourteen were cleared provisionally for one year in order to obtain further data following commercial application, and these will be reviewed at the end of that period. Of the total of 134 notifications, only 35 related to new chemicals; the remainder were either for extension of the use of existing chemicals to other crops, or for new formulations of existing chemicals.

While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, might I ask whether he is aware that of some 450 notifications which have taken place since the inception of the scheme in 1957 only about 20 poisons have failed to gain clearance? In view of this, is it not time more stringent methods of control were adopted?

No, Sir,. I am satisfied that the existing system, in which the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances receive notifications from the manufacturers, is working perfectly satisfactorily and that there is no need at this moment to do anything further.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he is satisfied he is one of the few people in the country who are satisfied with the use of chemicals on the scale now operating? Is he aware that very few of the manufacturers themselves are doing any research into the long-term effects of chemicals and that very few of his own research organisations are engaged in such research?

Constant research is going on into the effects of chemicals on plant life and humans. I was saying that I was satisfied that the existing system works well within the given context.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if he will make a statement on the progress made to date in the vaccination of poultry against fowl pest.

On 18th February, I told the House that 32 million doses of subsidised fowl pest vaccine had been sold since 5th November last year. In the six weeks since, a further 27 million doses have been sold, making 50 million doses in all. This is sufficient to treat about 40 per cent. of the poultry which should have been vaccinated since 5th November, 1962.

While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that long reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that the response so far is very unsatisfactory? What steps is he taking to ensure that as far as possible all the vaccine is really effective? Is he aware that there lime been cases where poultry keepers have conscientiously vaccinated their poultry but have still had fowl pest and have had to slaughter? What steps is he taking to compensate poultry keepers when the vaccine is ineffective?

All compensation, except for the per-acute form of the disease of Fowl Plague, ends on 31st March. It has been shown that the effect of the disease on vaccinated birds is much slighter than it is on unvaccinated birds, and vaccination is, thus, undoubtedly of great advantage to poultry keepers. What is wanted, of course, is that we should get a sufficient coverage of vaccinated birds throughout the country. Up to 85 per cent. is what we are aiming at, so that the flocks will not be it such risk as they are today.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that as fast as we can get rid of one disease we get another in East Anglia, and is he aware that there I now have a disease called Beechingitis?

I do not think that East Anglia is the only part of the country likely to be affected by that disease.

That does not arise on this Question anyhow.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further suggestions he has received for the Mundon Wash Drainage Scheme from the Essex River Board; and whether a grant will be forthcoming for this work.

Our chief drainage engineer and the engineer to the Essex River Board have discussed draft alternative proposals for Mundon Wash and we await a submission from the river board. When we receive this we will consider the question of grant.

Will my hon. Friend please hurry this up? It has been going on for years and years, and it is really time that we got this drainage scheme completed—or started, even.

As I said, we are waiting for the river board to put a scheme before us, and then we shall do our very best to ensure that it is examined quickly. But at the moment we are waiting for the river board.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has completed his investigation of the measures needed to ensure that all meat is inspected by qualified public health inspectors before sale to the public; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement shortly.

Is not the hon. Gentleman ashamed of that reply? Does not he realise that nine years ago one of his predecessors gave an assurance that arrangements would be made as quickly as possible to ensure that all the meat slaughtered in this country would be inspected for fitness to eat? Since then, practically nothing has been done. Is he further aware that there are suggestions now—to which I hope he can give a reasonable answer—that the Minister wants the butchers to pay for the cost of inspection? I hope the hon. Gentleman does not think that his right hon. Friend can get away with that proposal.

I do not agree that nothing has been done. A great deal of progress has been made. Only about 10 per cent, of meat is now uninspected. Very serious representations of substance have been made on the proposals put forward, and these will receive his attention. He hopes to come to a decision in the near future.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are always getting from him and his right hon. Friend the reply "shortly" or "soon" but that we never get any action? What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "shortly" in this case? Does it mean a month, two months or six months?

I mean as soon as my right hon. Friend has had time to take into account all the considerations, representations and suggestions which have been put to him. He will do this in order to arrive at the correct decision in the light of all the circumstances.

What has happened to the proposed order with regard to making the trade pay for meat inspection? Is it now dead?

That is part of what my right hon. Friend is considering at the moment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the quantity of carcase meat imported from Yugoslavia in each of the last five years.

Imports of carcase meat from Yugoslavia were negligible prior to 1960 when they rose to 4,000 tons, mainly of pork. In 1961 imports were 22,000 tons and in 1962, 42,000 tons, in each case consisting largely of beef. The Yugoslav Government have told us that they do not expect their exports of beef to us this year will exceed 30,000 tons.

Even with this reduction, this is a prodigious increase in recent years. In view of the upset it is causing the marketing system, is my right hon. Friend absolutely certain that there is no evidence of dumping?

There is no evidence of dumping.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will consider introducing legislation to prohibit the export of sheep for ritual killing by processes which entail considerable suffering;

One of my veterinary officers, who was present when the consignment of sheep was loaded for shipment to Tunisia, ensured that there was no overcrowding and that sufficient fodder was available, in accordance with the Animals (Sea Transport) Orders. I have no present intention of introducing legislation to prohibit the export of animals for slaughter by Moslem ritual. Moslems are forbidden to eat meat from animals which have not been ritually slaughtered, and the practice is lawful in this country for those of Moslem faith.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. As he is aware, there is deep feeling amongst animal lovers over the fact that a large number of sheep were exported to Tunisia in the knowledge that their killing would entail great hardship. In view of the humane slaughtering practices in this country, is it not difficult to explain that the sheep are just unlucky if they happen to be chosen for this traffic? Is he aware that many people expect us to do more to see that these animals are treated in a way more in conformity with our practice in this country?

We have our own rules about slaughter, but ritual slaughter for a religious faith is permitted.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will extend the facilities for which grants can be made under the Horticultural Improvement Scheme.

If my hon. Friend will let me know what additional facilities he has in mind, I will gladly look at them.

So only one-third of the sum voted by Parliament has so far been spent. Can my right hon. Friend consider extending the scheme to include modern labour-saving devices and the installation of heating apparatus? Is he aware that unless it is extended it will be increasingly difficult for British producers to be competitive with the Continental growers?

I am considering this matter. If my hon. Friend would like to give me more specific ideas of what he has in mind, I would be grateful.

Is not one of the difficulties not that the range of things for which grants can be given should be extended but that in the existing range the amount of two-thirds to be found by the producer is in many cases too large to match the one-third given by the Government? Could not that be looked at?

Thirty-three and one-third per cent. is a very generous grant.

Will my right hon. Friend not overlook the problem of a house which was blown down, and put, by the advice of his Department, on another site, and then found to be ineligible for grant?

I would hate to overlook that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what amount the consumption of British bacon has fallen in the last 10 years; and by what amount imports have increased during the same period.

Home production of pig-meat increased from 502,000 tons in 1953 to 720,000 tons in 1962. The quantity going for bacon, which had been purposely stimulated during control and rationing, fell in this period from 244,000 to 221,000 tons, but is still 40 per cent. higher than before the war. In the same period bacon imports have increased from 312,000 tons to 399,000 tons which is slightly above the pre-war level. Total supplies of bacon in 1953 were 556,000 tons and in 1962, 620,000, so consumption has increased.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on what evidence he bases his view that the setback in the market for homegrown timber, as borne out by the published figures for sales by the Forestry Commission, is only temporary.

During the next few years several new enterpryses for processing timber are likely to come into operation in Britain and these should stimulate demand for home-grown softwood thinnings. As to prices, those for home-grown timber are bound to be linked closely to the level of world prices, since we produce at home less than 10 per cent. of our present consumption of wood and wood products. Over the last twelve years, the average price of imported sawn softwoods, which is a good general indicator, has risen from about £54 per standard in 1950 to about £74 in 1962, an increase of about 37 per cent.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the figures provided by the Forestry Commission indicate that during the last five years there has been a general tendency for prices of conifers to go down while the position of hard woods shows no great improvement? In these circumstances, will he take a look at the figures again to see whether they can be brought more into line?

I agree that there have been some falls in prices in recent years, but—and here one tries to forecast the future—this must be seen against the background of what appears to be a rise in world prices. The prices of oar timber must be affected by world prices as we import about 90 per cent. of what we use.

At what annual average rate is the loss or subsidy of the Commission running? Will this loss or subsidy be allowed to continue under the E.F.T.A. arrangements?

That is a long way from the Question on the Order Paper. I would require notice of it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what report he has had from the Forestry Commission on the scheme to turn Wetley Moor, Near Werrington, Staffordshire, into a public park where a number of broad-leaved trees could be planted and where, with drainage schemes, this area would serve as an amenity for the people of North Staffordshire; and whether the project will be considered for grant aid.

It would be the responsibility of the local authority to formulate such a scheme and, as fax as the Ministry or the Forestry Commission is aware, it has not yet done so.

Is the hon. Gentleman therefore implying that there has so far been no approach for any grant for such a scheme?

As far as I am aware, that is the position.

May I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to consider it favourably, if such an approach were made to him, because of the importance of the matter?

The basis of that supplementary question would appear to be hypothetical.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average price per ton of imported wheat in February this year and in February 1962, respectively.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how far the reduction in the average ex farm price for wheat from £23 14s. 4d. per ton in January 1962 to £17 3s. 4d. in January 1963 was reflected in reduced prices to the consumer;

The average c.i.f. value of imported wheat in February was £26 14s. a ton compared with £26 10s. in February last year. As a result of the much heavier home crop this year the cost of the Exchequer support of wheat was about £6 10s. a ton greater this February than last. The price of bread flour has been reduced by 2s. per sack.

In view of the very substantial difference, amounting to £10 a ton, between the price of dried home wheat and dried imported wheat, will my right hon. Friend say whether there is no opportunity of taking greater advantage of the cheaper home-grown wheat for use in the bread baked in this country, as has been done in many European countries, thereby reducing the cost of the loaf still further?

Our loaf is of a type different from the European loaf. It requires a good deal of hard wheat, which is not put into the European loaf. The proportion going into the grist is about 20 per cent. of home-grown soft wheat, and the bulk of the remainder is either hard or semi-hard wheat which are not grown in this country.

Is it not very disappointing for our farmers who have kept their wheat for a long time in expensive bins to find that they are getting so little for the difference, and doubly disappointing in that during that time the price of grain, far from falling, has actually risen?

Because the price of imported wheat has remained more or less steady while that of home wheat has fallen, the price of a 280 lb. sack has fallen by 2s. in the last year. As 9s. a sack represents a ½d. on a loaf of bread, 2s. represents about one-eighth of a penny. As to the position of farmers who have been hanging on to their wheat, I think that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that last harvest we had a record production of some 3½ million tons of good wheat, which was much higher than ever produced before. The amount going into the grist was more or less the same, so an increasing proportion has had to be sold for feed wheat.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the wheat which we grow in this country and for which we are paid at such a low price is the same as that grown in France, mostly Capelle Duprez, which produces the most beautiful bread, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman enjoys as we all do? Why cannot we do the same in this country and save ourselves millions of £s?

The French loaf has qualities which are different from our loaf. The hon. Member might have views about the French loaf, but on the whole the public gets the type of loaf it wants.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the average market price per live cwt. received by farmers for fat cattle in March, 1963, up to the most recent convenient date; and what was the equivalent figure during the same period last year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the percentage increase in the total payments of beef subsidy in the last available four weeks compared with a similar period last year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that Argentine chilled hindquarters of beef fetched Is. 10d. per lb. at Smithfield Market on 2nd March, and that this was 8d. per lb. less than similar Argentine beef fetched on the corresponding date last year; by how much British consumers will benefit from this reduction in price; and what will be the resultant increased cost of farm price guarantees.

The average market price for fat cattle in the last four weeks was 121/3d. cwt. The corresponding figure last year was 144/ 10d. Payments under the fatstock guarantee were 71 per cent. up over the same period last year, but the subsidy bill is determined over the year as a whole. The recent trend in market prices will not lead to a Supplementary Estimate for this financial year. For the financial year 1963–64 as yet I have no reason to expect that outturn is likely to exceed our forecast for fatstock.

Can my right hon. Friend give any indication of the price to which fat cattle would have to fall in the open market before a Supplementary Estimate was involved? As much the same as is happening now happened two years ago, will he take the best steps he can to try to prevent the imports of beef from being concentrated haphazardly into a short time?

I am very much aware of this problem. There are other Questions on the Order Paper dealing with that specific point.

How long is the Minister to allow this to go on without taking any action?

There is a Question on the Order Paper specifically dealing with that.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the substantial reduction in the price of Argentine beef now being brought into this country compared with the same period a year ago? Is he satisfied that there is no element of subsidised dumping in the present imports? Will he agree that a greatly increased quantity of beef at so much lower prices could have a very serious effect on the British market?

Yes, Sir. There is no evidence of the dumping of Argentine beef at these prices. The National Federation of Meat Traders tells me that its returns show that since the end of January the average reductions in the prices of home killed beef made by butchers have been as follows: rump steak and sirloin, boneless, 15 per cent.; topside, silverside, and cheek flank, 8 per cent.; fore ribs, back ribs and chuck steak, 12 per cent.; brisket and flank 20 per cent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the recent fall in market values for beef cattle and the consequent rise in the Exchequer guarantee payments from 24s. a cwt. in mid-January to 63s. a cwt. this week, Her Majesty's Government have taken action to ensure that imports of beef, particularly from Argentina, are reduced to more normal levels with due regard to the supplies of home-killed beef available.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about the effect of meat imports from the Argentine and Yugoslavia on the home meat market.

The higher level of beef imports over the last three months has contributed significantly to the present weakness of our meat market. Moreover, the higher level of imported supplies has coincided with a somewhat higher level of home supplies.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reassuring reply, so far as it goes. Can he give us an assurance that after the present loadings and commitments of Argentine chilled beef there will be a very speedy reduction, particularly during the period up to October, when many home-killed cattle will be coming forward? Can he also say whether it is now quite clear that the Government are taking a grip on events in the meat market so as to ensure that a check is kept on the quantities of Argentine and Yugoslavian and other meat imported, to keep in line with the increasing supplies of home-produced beef which it has been the consistent policy of the Government to encourage?

Yes, Sir. What we first have to do is to work out arrangements for the immediate future to ensure that our market is not undermined. The phase through which we are now going, of serious undermining of the market, shows the difficulties and strains which have been put upon our existing system which was conceived at a time of serious shortage of food as opposed to the present time when food is in plenty in the Western world.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would be far better to be much more precise? Will it be the Board of Trade which will conduct these negotiations? Is he aware that there is a feeling that the Board of Trade and not the Minister of Agriculture has been determining policy in this matter? Is he further aware that this emphasises the importance of announcing some major marketing reform so that we have a statutory authority which would have some say in imports?

As to the Board of Trade running policy, the hon. Member knows full well that for a long time we have been pursuing the policy of guaranteed prices to farmers coupled with virtually unrestricted imports. This has brought about open-ended commitments for the Exchequer to meet the bill for our system. It is this open-ended nature of the commitments which we intend to change.

Would my right hon. Friend draw to the special attention of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that in the course of the last twelve years exports of Price Review commodities from Argentina to this country have increased to double the rate of the total Argentine imports of all commodities from the United Kingdom?

I do not have those figures with me.

While recognising that reasonable stability for the home market is important, are not there two other vitally important considerations to be weighed in the balance: first, the interests of the consumers who want cheaper meat, and, secondly, the interests of exporters? If we are to export to Yugoslavia and the Argentine, do not we also need to receive their commodities?

Of course this is so, but it is a question of striking a proper balance.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what account is taken of the estimated volume of overseas supplies of beef in determining the guaranteed price to be paid for home-produced fat cattle.

All factors affecting the market supply situation are taken into account. The guaranteed price is set to ensure a fair return to producers.

It has been said that the increased importation of Argentine beef is approaching an amount which some people regard as being normal. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that with the great increases in home production, stimulated I am glad to say by the policy which my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have followed in British agriculture, adequate room will be left in the home market for these increases, and that the question of returning to normality, of going back to some norm of several years back, is out of the question in any agreement which is come to with the Argentine?

What we are to discuss in the immediate talks is the level of exports to this country in the coming months. What I think my hon. Friend has in mind is the longer-term issue where we have to strike a proper balance against the background of our national interest between home production and imports.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that to turn the impart tap off and on whenever he is pressed to do so will not solve this marketing problem? Would not he agree that the first essential step is to have a proper system of factory abattoirs in this country and fair prices to the farmers to deliver cattle and pigs to the abattoirs, and a commission to make sure that contracts are made with overseas suppliers at stable prices? The Liberal Party has adopted these proposals, which we have been advocating for years. Would not the right hon. Gentleman think it a good idea to fall in line so that we can have complete unanimity on this?

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have definite ideas about what should be done to put all these troubles right. They are very complex indeed, and we shall shortly be taking the advice of a committee which was set up in 1961 and which has been looking into this problem in great detail. I look forward to receiving that advice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has made an up-to-date estimate of the probable effect of the present trend of the market prices of fat cattle, sheep and pigs, and of wheat and barley, on the cost of the farm price guarantees to the Exchequer.

Yes. I am satisfied that the recent trend in market prices will not mean any significant excess over the estimates given in the Annual Review White Paper, 1963, of the cost of the guarantees for fatstock and cereals during the current financial year. As for the financial year 1963–64, as yet I see no reason to expect that, taking the estimates as a whole, the outturn is likely to exceed our forecast.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that hopeful forecast of future events, but is he satisfied that he has mechanism within his control for checking excessive imports in time to prevent their seriously affecting the estimate of the cost of the guarantees before actual harm is done to the market? As time goes very quickly and another season quickly comes round, will he take steps to see that he has adequate means at his disposal before the next season arrives?

As my hon. Friend knows, this is obviously a major part of the discussions that we are to have in the months ahead.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to instigate a full investigation into the losses sustained by the oyster industry through the recent exceptional weather; and if he will devise a scheme to provide the industry with appropriate assistance.

I have nothing to add to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on the 20th and 25th March.

Would my right hon. Friend say here and now that he accepts the principle that the oyster industry must receive assistance if it is to survive? Would not he agree that any delay in dealing with this matter will merely reveal whether this undoubted calamity is a total calamity? That is all that can be revealed by delay. Will my hon. Friend accept here and now the principle that assistance must be given to this industry?

No, Sir.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the proposed Welsh Agricultural College.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained to the hon. Member on 7th March, the Ministers concerned are already in the closest consultation on this matter and there will be no avoidable delay in making a statement.

Is not the Parliamentary Secretary stalling on this issue? Have not we been told that this decision would be made "soon", "very soon", and "imminently"? Were not we told by the Minister that a statement would be made before Christmas? Was not that promise dishonoured, and were not we told by the Parliamentary Secretary in early February that the decision would be made within the next few weeks?

Indeed, we are consulting on this matter with the greatest urgency. We are fully aware of the need for an early decision, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not have to wait too long.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this approach is unsatisfactory? Our Welsh friends have been given promises over and over again, and all we get today is another evasion. Why does not the Minister say that he will do it now, instead of sitting there mumbling?

I have nothing further to add to my previous answer.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he estimates the effect will be of the recent Price Review on the general level of retail food prices.

The retail price of milk will go up by ½d. a pint for one extra month which will mean an increase of about 0·16 on the all-items index of retail prices for that one month. Apart from this the Review decisions will have no direct effect on what the consumer pays.

Is it not by now quite obvious that the Government have got themselves into a frightful mess over the relationship between subsidies and retail prices to the consumers, whose interests we are supposed to have regard to? Has not the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the slight fall in prices—to which he may have referred in previous answers bears no relation at all to the tremendous cost to the taxpayer, or to the value which the consumer is getting, or to the millions of £s of subsidies which the Minister is dishing out at present?

That is unfair. They bear a considerable relationship—and there have been considerable price falls. Furthermore, the hon. Member knows perfectly well that as a result of this system the consumer in this country has been getting his food much cheaper than have consumers in European countries which follow other systems.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the arbitration procedure under the Agricultural Holdings Act; whether he is aware of the circumstances under which an award was made against Mr. Thomas Howdon of Lock-haugh Farm, Rowlands Gill, Co. Durham; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the general arbitration procedure constitutes a simple, effective and comparatively inexpensive method of settling differences between landlords and tenants, and I think it is accepted as such by both sides of the industry. An arbitration award is final and binding upon the parries, and my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to comment on the specific case the hon. Member has mentioned.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the family of this tenant has farmed this farm for the past 140 years? Is he also aware that the arbitrator has refused to disclose to the farmer particulars of certain alleged breaches? Does such conduct justify a notice to quit? Does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that it is an outrageous injustice to be at the mercy of an arbitrator in such circumstances? Is there nothing that can be done to rectify this injustice? Will the hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Minister and ask him to intervene to stop this eviction?

As I said, my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene. When the arbitrator's decision has been made it is final and binding on both parties. The arbitrator in this case was agreed to by both parties before the arbitration took place. I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing that my right hon. Friend can do in this case.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the imports of Dutch milk.

The United States authorities have invited tenders from both British and continental dairies for the supply of milk to their Service units here for the coming twelve months. I understand that the tenders are now being reviewed, and that a decision will not be reached for some little time.

Is not the Minister aware that there is considerable feeling about this? Is it not absurd that Service stations in this country should have to rely on imports of milk from outside? Will the Minister put pressure on the Ministry of Defence to make additional representations in this matter? The situation is absurd.

I can assure the hon. Member that full representations have been made, at my request. The Minister of State saw the Minister at the American Embassy on 28th February and emphasised to him the strong reason why, in our view, the American Service units should get their milk from British sources.

Can we take it that the contracts for the supply of this milk are now the same for the Dutch as for ourselves? In earlier stages it seemed that the Dutch were getting easier terms than we were.

This matter has not been dealt with through me, but, as I understand it, that is the case.

asked the Minister of Defence when agreement was reached with the Government of Cyprus that the British base there should be used for rockets or nuclear weapons.

No question arises of seeking agreement to the deployment of weapons in sovereign base areas.

Will the Minister assure the House that there are no plans for the basing of nuclear weapons, rockets or Polaris submarines on the island?

No. The essence of a sovereign base area is that we can deploy such weapons as we think fit at such time as we think fit.

Surely the Cypriot people—who are very concerned about this—are entitled to know whether the Government will base these things there.

No Government would ever give an assurance as to the types of weapon which they would deploy in the future in a sovereign base area.

As we have no harbour we could not very well have Polaris there.

This certainly would be a handicap.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give details of the towns and targets calculated to have been destroyed and the casualties which were estimated as possible in Britain from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation exercise Fallex of September, 1962.

No, Sir. This information is confidential to N.A.T.O.

Is it not true that between 10 million and 15 million people were calculated as having been killed in this exercise?

Who said so?

It was reported by Der Spiegel and other newspapers. Is it not the case that the whole exercise was called to an early halt because of the complete chaos which had resulted, which was bringing all military activity to an end?

I am here concerned not with anybody else's calculations but with confidential information on a major exercise.

asked the Minisster of Defence whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will take no part in any North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Polaris fleet which is of a multinational, multilateral, mixed-manned or other polyglot nature without further reference to Parliament; and what are the rights and obligations of personnel called on to serve in a ship not being one of Her Majesty's.

asked the Minister of Defence what military reasons have led Her Majesty's Government to support proposals for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force consisting of multimanned ships; and what operational advantages multi-manned ships are expected to have over national-manned ships.

asked the Minister of Defence what percentage of the cost of the proposed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force will be assumed by Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the strategic purpose of the proposed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend, the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday about the proposed N.A.T.O. mixed-manned force, or to what he said on 20th March about consulting this House.

Did not my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal give some sort of token approval to a multi-manned scheme of this kind? Have not we got enough to do and enough to pay for without going into these extraordinary enterprises? Will my right hon. Friend straight away say that no member of Her Majesty's Forces will be expected to serve in any form of ship which is not under the command of an officer holding Her Majesty's Commission?

I would not wish to add to or subtract from what my right hon. Friend said, but I think that all he said was that this was an American proposal which was being examined by us and other European nations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 20th March the Lord Privy Seal said:

"The view of Her Majesty's Government is that the American proposals for a multilateral force consisting of multimanned ships is one which deserves support."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1963; Val. 674, c. 380.]

The question of what part we can play is rather a different one. I think that my right hon. Friend was referring to the proposal as being one suggestion of the way in which countries not otherwise equipped with nuclear weapons might participate.

Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government are already committed to three separate strategic nuclear weapon systems other than the proposed multilateral N.A.T.O. deterrent? The right hon. Gentleman looks puzzled, but he told us in the defence debate that we are committed to the V-bombers, a Polaris submarine force, and the Strategic T.S.R.2 force. Can he give us an idea, at any rate, of how much money Her Majesty's Government are prepared to contribute to the proposal, which the Americans have said is likely to cost, in all, £1,800 million?

Certainly not until the military characteristics of the proposals have been examined.

In view of the confusion about this matter, and as it is one of vital importance to our defence organisation, and we are not able to debate the matter by way of Question and Answer, will the Minister confirm that no final decision will be taken about any of these schemes until Parliament has been consulted?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the relations between the Executive and Parliament will be the same in this as in any other matter.

In view of the fact that statements have been made by the Lord Privy Seal that the Government support the American proposal for a multilateral force, will the Minister say whether his defence experts could think up a nuclear deterrent which was more provocative and at the same time more vulnerable than a force of vessels disguised as merchant vessels loaded with Polaris missiles floating about in the Baltic Sea?

I realise that that is the hon. Member's own rather provocative comment on this proposal. As it is under examination he will not expect me to endorse it at this stage.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for their safety, submarines require a particular level of mutual confidence amongst their crews and that this is the more so in these days of long submersion? Is he aware that I have discussed this matter with a number of distinguished submariners, both German and British, and that their united view is that they would rather swim?

That would certainly be a factor to be borne in mind.