asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he has made for consultations with the Ministers of Agriculture of the Common Market countries.

No special arrangements have been made.

Is not this rather extraordinary, in view of the various methods which the Government are now seeking of going into Europe? Surely consultation should be started right now to facilitate our entry.

I see no reason for this. I meet many Ministers from different countries, including the Common Market countries, from time to time, and I often have informal chats with them. No special arrangements have been made.

Could not the Minister go a little further? Will he say whether the attitude of the British Government is the same as it was before the election, namely, that he would expect others to adopt the British deficiency payment system if we join the Common Market rather than our adopting the Common Market system?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will know quite clearly what the attitude of the British Government is. It has been repeated so often by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Above all, we have always said that we must bear in mind essential and vital British interests, including agriculture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the fall in pig gilts from 119,000 to 71,000 and a 10 per cent. drop in all breeding stock; and if he will take steps to restore confidence in the pig industry.

As fewer marketings are forecast, the third successive 9d. increase since February was restored to the guaranteed price last week. This, together with the addition of 400,00 pigs to the "middle band" at the recent Price Review and the fact that more pigs will be required as the Plan progresses, should give this confidence.

Surely the Joint Parliamentary Secretary must agree that this is a very serious drop in the number of pig gilts and that it will lead to a serious shortage of store pigs later on? Will he do something to restore confidence so that this muck or money cycle can be stopped.

The figures the hon. Gentleman gives in the question are earlier figures than those which we have. Gilts are rising slightly, although the total numbers are still down a little, which shows some growth of confidence. The hon. Gentleman must admit that the figure I mentioned of 2s. 3d. per eight-score pig, which is 18s. a pig, will help considerably.

In view of the fall in the size of the breeding herd, which is a direct result of the stringent policy of the Government, can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say whether home producers will be able to meet their share of the bacon sharing agreement?

Yes; I think that up to now they have met it. I see no reason why they should not continue to do so, providing that they produce the quality pigs for the job.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance his Department has offered to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries of the Republic of Ireland in identifying the organism causing salmon disease in certain Irish rivers; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to prevent the disease at present affecting salmon in Irish waters from spreading to United Kingdom rivers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the fish disease now affecting Irish rivers; and what action he will take to safeguard all freshwater fish in the United Kingdom.

My Department and the Scottish Fisheries Department, with the help of the Public Health Laboratory Service and the Torry Laboratory of the Ministry of Technology, are carrying out experiments to isolate and identify the bacteria responsible for the disease.

I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that reply. Does he agree that it is in the public interest that the facts of this situation should be known as fully as possible? Will he undertake to publish as soon as he can a statement, for the information of fishermen and in the interests of the tourist trade between this country and Southern Ireland?

Yes, indeed. We realise how serious the position is, as do the Government of Southern Ireland. As soon as we have anything definite to say, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall make it known.

In connection with the risk of infection spreading to this country, has the hon. Gentleman circularised angling and fishing clubs, which organise expeditions to the Republic at this time of the year, bearing in mind that infected tackle could well cause the disease to spread to this country?

We have made public the dangers which are involved in this. I am certain that no angler who goes to Southern Ireland will be unaware of the danger, nor of his responsibility for ensuring that it does not spread.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek consultations with the Government of the Irish Republic with a view to ensuring that waders, gum boots, and fishing tackle used for the fishing of salmon in the Republic of Ireland are thoroughly cleaned in order to prevent the spreading of disease to Great Britain.

This is something which depends on the voluntary co-operation of anglers. I do not think it would be appropriate to raise it with the Irish authorities.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his reply is very disappointing? The disease can only be carried by equipment of the kind mentioned in my Question. If it is not disinfected and the disease is brought into this country, it will ruin our salmon industry. Will the hon. Gentleman look at this again?

We have not yet discovered what the disease is. When we find out, we shall be able to take action. I am certain that we have drawn the attention of all anglers fishing in these rivers—as have the Irish Government—to the need to take precautions. Knowing anglers as I do, they will respond in order to see that it does not spread further into this country if it can possibly be prevented.

While trying to find out the cause of the disease, will the hon. Gentleman nevertheless take all the elementary precautions he can to prevent the disease spreading?

We have already done so. My right hon. Friend made this clear, in reply to an earlier Question, in a statement on the matter. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been aware of that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the national beef herd of suckler cows will receive the £6 10s. grant in full; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now give all the conditions attached to the payment of the £6 10s. beef cow subsidy.

About half the national beef herd gets hill cow subsidy and therefore will not get the new beef cow subsidy. All other herds will be eligible, and after stocking and milk tests have been applied, we estimate that about three-quarters of the cows will qualify for payment. Detailed arrangements for the new subsidy will be announced as soon as possible.

Does that mean that three-quarters of them will get the full payment? Is it not about time that we saw this scheme so that the agricultural industry knew where it stood in the matter?

It does mean that three-quarters of them will get the full payment. I think that the industry is perfectly aware that discussions are going on with all concerned. We will announce the details in due course.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this scheme was announced in the Price Review as applying to all cows but that now these limits have reduced it to three-quarters of the cows only? Will he expedite the publication of the scheme so that farmers may know where they stand?

Yes, Sir.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us a little more about this matter, particularly in the case of, say, a farm which has not only beef cattle but a flock of sheep as well? How are the arrangements in regard to the allocation of grazing as between the two to be fair to all the farmers concerned?

These are the sort of arrangements which we are discussing with the industry.

Would the hon. Gentleman say whether cows of the dairy breeds now suckling beef calves will rate for the subsidy?

Subsidy will be given up to a certain stocking limit and up to a certain level of milk sales per cow.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what machinery he intends to introduce into his department to determine a fair method of recoupment of the selective payroll tax by agriculture, horticulture and forestry to ensure that the burden of this taxation to those industries is repaid in full; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total cost of the Selective Employment Tax to agriculture; what remuneration the farmers will receive; and when they will receive it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the extra price per lamb necessary to recoup the Selective Employment Tax for a hill farmer employing a shepherd for 40 score of ewes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why farmers will have to wait until the 1967 Price Review before the effect of the Selective Employment Tax, payable in September, 1966, is offset.

I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) on 13th May stating that the Government had decided to repay the tax direct to individual farmers and growers, and that the industry would be consulted about the detailed arrangements for repayment. The cost of the tax to agriculture was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 9th May. Forestry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources.

Is it not time that the position of forestry was cleared up? Is it not intolerable that it should be left in the present situation? Would the Minister say what the cost of this tax will be to the agricultural and horticultural industries in terms of interest rates?

I have already said that I am not the Minister responsible for forestry, but if the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, who knows, probably in an hour from now he may hear something. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I am not thinking about the Derby winner. The question of interest charges is a matter which will be taken into account in the Annual Price Review, but the hon. Gentleman should not be too worried about it.

Is the Minister aware that at present the agricultural industry is in the position of presenting the Government with an interest-free loan for a certain number of months at any rate, this being money which they will almost certainly have to get from the banks and on which they will have to pay considerably high rates of interest? Is not this extremely unfair?

I have said that any costs incurred will be taken into account in the Annual Price Review. I am now working out the detailed arrangements for making repayments. I hope this will be done quickly. I think that this move has been welcomed by the industry.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms which he has announced for agriculture apply equally to horticulture and whether horticultural and agricultural employers will benefit by the scheme which he has announced?

Yes, Sir.

On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is answering my Question with a number of others? Is it not in accordance with your usual practice, Mr. Speaker, to——

Order. I was not aware that a Question in the name of the hon. Member was being answered by the Minister at the moment. To which Question is the hon. Member referring?

My Question, No. 13.

That is not on the list I have of the Questions which the Minister is taking together.

I said No. 32, not No. 13, Mr. Speaker.

How does the Minister think that he will repay to the industry, through the Price Review, the interest rates which only some part of the industry will be paying? Is he not falling into the same mistake as was made in the White Paper originally?

Certainly not, and this has been accepted by the industry.

Don't you believe it.

I believe that it has.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the cost to the agricultural industry of the Selective Employment Tax on the industries which provide agricultural requirements and services and on those which handle farm output; and whether all increased costs of this nature will rank for reimbursement at the Price Review.

No reliable estimate is possible but changes in farmers' costs will be taken into account at the Annual Review in the usual way.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there must be substantial increases in farming costs as a result of the new tax and that in some quarters the increases have been put at as high as 10 per cent.? For that reason, should not agriculture be put in the first category of this tax so as to give it fair treatment?

The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to putting it into the first category. I have already dealt with that. The industry gets fair treatment under the present Government. We cannot give any precise estimate of the increase in costs. I have said—and this will be accepted by all sensible people in the industry—that we will take this into account in the Annual Review.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the costs will be fully recouped in the Price Review, or covered partly by increased efficiency in the industry?

I cannot announce decisions of an Annual Review which has not yet taken place.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the massive support for agriculture of which he speaks is in fact massive support not for agriculture but for a cheap food policy?

Certainly our support under existing legislation has provided for the consumer food cheaper than that of many other industrial countries and it has also given long-term security. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind when he considers not only Liberal but Opposition policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to assist the horticulture industry, in view of the extra costs which will be imposed on it by the Selective Employment Tax.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will give details of the development of horticultural policy foreshadowed in paragraph 17 of the White Paper on the Selective Employment Tax.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the increased costs which will fall on the horticultural industry as a result of the Selective Employment Tax; and what steps he 14 ill take to mitigate the effects.

I would refer the hon. Members to the Answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) on 11th May and to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) on 13th May.

While I welcome the Government's change of heart over the tax or, the horticultural industry—which is welcome so far as it goes—is the Minister aware that a great deal of needless anxiety was caused to the gowers by the Government's original announcement? Will he try to see that he and his colleagues think out their policies a bit better in future before announcements, rather than afterwards?

That has nothing to do with the Question. I acted quickly and an announcement was made. We are anxious that our Horticultural Improvement Scheme should benefit the industry.

The Minister says that agriculture can recoup this tax, or the loans under it, through the Price Review. How does he propose that horticulture is to recoup the loan it is making to the Government?

It is quite true that horticulture is not covered by the Annual Price Review, but I am consulting with the industry, and I want quick repayment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the increased costs which will fall on the agricultural industry as a result of the Selective Employment Tax between its introduction and the time of the next Price Review; and what steps he proposes to take to mitigate the effects.

The answer to the first part of the Question is that the tax payments will amount to between £11 million and £12 million. As to the second part, the tax will be refunded direct to farmers and growers.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the farmer will be giving an interest-free loan to the Government and that the imposition of this additional tax contravenes the conditions upon which the Price Review was agreed? Will he give an assurance that the Price Review will be fully honoured and the farmers recouped?

I have said previously that this will be taken into account.

The Minister must be aware that the wording of the Question talks of the increased costs which will fall upon the agricultural industry. Does he really tell us that there are no secondary effects which will arise from ancillary industries, whose costs will be increased and who will put up their charges as a result? Has he taken this into account?

I did not say that, but anything which will affect the viability and profitability of the agricultural industry would be taken into account.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from farmers and others about the effect on agriculture, horticulture, forestry and fishing of the Selective Employment Tax.

On agriculture and horticulture I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) on 13th May. Forestry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. I have received no representations about the effect on fishing.

While I recognise that these representations have resulted in a welcome change in policy, may I ask the Minister now to give a clear assurance that these wealth-producing industries can count on the Minister's support in their attempt to be classified with manufacturing industries, from the point of view of the Selective Employment Tax?

As I have said, there is no question of running down the industry or of regarding it as something inferior. It is in a special category. As I asked earlier: do people who want to classify the industry as a manufacturing industry also want it to be rated in the same way as the manufacturing industries?

Was it not said yesterday by the Prime Minister, in answer to a Written Question that forestry was to become the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture?

We must wait for the legislation to be completed.

Is the Minister aware that he has twice put a ridiculous question this afternoon about comparability with manufacturing? If agriculture were rated, is he not aware that this would rank fully for Price Review purposes and that the only relevance of it to this matter is that agriculture should have the same standing in receiving the premium return as manufacturers?

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that agriculture has a special role in the National Economic Plan regarding production and manpower. It would be absurd to give it a premium. In addition to this, agriculture has special and massive support, which I defend.

Would the Minister define "land owning" as a manufacturing industry?

I do not think that I could.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will hold an autumnal Price Review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will hold an interim Price Review this autumn.

No, Sir.

While hon. Members, particularly those on this side of the House, welcome the changes in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's original proposals relating to the Selective Employment Tax, may I ask whether the Minister would not regard it as disgraceful that agriculture should, in the first place, be regarded as a service and, in the second place, even now, not be regarded as a manufacturing industry?

That is another question. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the industry is being helped considerably in a different way. If we were to consider it a manufacturing industry, would it be the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite to treat it and rate it as such an industry?

While appreciating that the circumstances have altered since Question No. 21 was originally tabled, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would agree that bank overdrafts for agriculture, according to the latest available figures, stand at well over £500 million? Will not the result of even the revised imposition of this tax mean that farming will have to carry a further £11 million for six months? Would the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, even if this is not included in an interim Price Review, it will be borne in mind next April?

Does not what the hon. Gentleman states show that the banks have confidence in the industry?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on battery farming and the possibility of cruelty to animals involved; and what action he will take following the report of the Brambell Committee.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 11th May.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people are getting very anxious about this delay and are feeling that the Minister does not have his heart in this? Could he not take advantage of Parliamentary time to take action with a little more expedition?

It is not a question of whether or not one has one's heart in this matter. One must scientifically assess both the best possible approach and what effects it could have on the industry? I feel, therefore, that this is a matter which should not be rushed but that there should be a careful study. This is exactly what I am doing.

Does the Minister recall that the leader of the House gave an indication that we would have a debate on this subject? Will the right hon. Gentleman help to secure that debate at the earliest possible moment in view of the real concern that exists about this matter?

I would welcome a general debate on the Brambell Report. It would be interesting to know the views of all hon. Members on this subject. Those opinions may cut across party views.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what steps are being taken to make brucellosis notifiable;

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a pilot scheme for brucellosis eradication.

It would not be useful or practicable to make brucellosis notifiable. The cost of eradicating this disease from cattle would depend on the method of approach, including the form and phasing of any scheme of eradication. I regret that I am not at present in a position to make a statement about a pilot scheme of eradication.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his inaction in this matter is causing distress to thousands of people in this country; that quite recently one doctor in Macclesfield was treating 28 patients suffering from Malta fever? Why is the right hon. Gentleman so dilatory in this matter? Why does he not get on with the job, see that something is done and help to allay the anxieties of thousands of people who are greatly distressed about it?

I am aware that this is a serious problem, but it did not arise just because a Labour Government came to power.

Is the Minister aware that a pilot scheme of eradication has already been carried out in Cheshire by Messrs. Bibby and Sons and that the preliminary results indicate that the costs of eradication are far less than those suggested by his Department so far?

I cannot accept that. I am not yet in a position to announce anything relating to such a scheme.

As the Minister supported an eradication scheme two years ago, why will he not start one now? Is it not disgraceful that Northern Ireland should have nearly completed its eradication scheme while we have not yet even started one? Why should we be virtually the only country in Western Europe not to make this a notifiable disease?

It is, as I have said, a pity that previous Administrations did not take this matter seriously. [Interruption.] I personally believe in some form of eradication, and I am still carefully looking into the matter.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions have been held with the Danish Government concerning salmon fishing in Greenland waters; and if he will make a statement.

Discussions were held last February with Danish scientists, and a further international meeting is taking place this week, at which British and Danish scientists will be present. The objective is to work out arrangements for continuing research in Greenland waters.

Can the Minister tell the House what the Greenland catch was last year and how many of those fish in the catch were tagged as coming from British rivers? Will he assure the House that he takes this problem seriously?

This is a serious problem and that is why we are taking immediate action on it. The catch in 1965 was substantially less than that of 1964, for which we are grateful.

Will the Minister say specifically what steps he is taking to protect the traditional rights of the Aberdeen fishing fleet?

Salmon proceed into many rivers and we have to try to protect them all. When we are carrying out that protection, we will not omit Aberdeen.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will announce details of the extension of the Horticultural Improvement Scheme.

My right hon. Friends hope to lay a draft Scheme before Parliament very soon after the Whitsun Recess.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the delay and uncertainty over this Scheme has already caused havoc in parts of the horticultural industry, including loss of crops? Will he see that his right hon. Friend in future refrains from making general propaganda statements, until he has some idea of what he is going to carry out?

There is no havoc, but there is certainly some concern until the scheme is made. We have been discussing this with the Farmers' Union, and I am certain that the hon. Gentleman would not want us to carry out a scheme without going through that procedure.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now introduce further legislation to protect live animals exported for the purposes of slaughter.

No, Sir. I believe that the existing arrangements provide reasonable safeguards.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there have been a number of reports recently of unnecessary cruelty? Will he undertake to look at this matter again?

Various cases of cruelty have been reported to us but upon investigation we have discovered that many of the allegations were unfounded.

Will the Minister bear in mind how important it is to safeguard these animals? Will he also bear in mind that the export of old cows, old ewes and old sows has been of tremendous importance to agriculture?

We do bear that very much in mind.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to implement the recommendations of the first report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into Statutory Smallholdings.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) on 18th May.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has issued any interim instructions to county councils in the light of the recommendations of the Report?

I have not. I would rather wait for the views of the various responsible organisations which are affected.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the rate of the introduction of centralised payments by the Egg Marketing Board; and if he will make a statement.

This is a matter for the Board. Ministers cannot intervene in the Board's administrative arrangements save in the special circumstances provided for in the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958. A complaint about the operation of the centralised payments system generally has been referred by Ministers to the Committee of Investigation under Section 19 of the Act.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that until they go over to centralised payments, producers are making an interest-free loan of 10s. a case to the Board and that at the present rate of striking this will mean some producers will be making a loan of something like £6,000, which they cannot afford? What is the Minister going to Flo about this?

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that no Government has a right to interfere with the working of the Board except under these special circumstances. The Board has announced that the differential payment of 4d. a dozen will be accumulated and paid to each producer when he is transferred to the central payments system.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the Cereals Marketing Authority with a view to instituting a two-tier system of levies on producers; and if he will make a statement.

The Authority has recommended a two-tier levy on barley for 1966-67. My right hon. Friends will shortly lay an Order giving effect to this recommendation.

May I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and ask if he can give us some idea about what the differential will be between those growers who sell all their crop and those who consume all their crop at home?

The hon. Gentleman had better wait until the Order is made. These are the two distinct cases which the two-tier levy proposes to take into consideration.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many contracts the Cereals Marketing Authority made for the 1965 crop for wheat and barley; how many tons were involved; and what proportion he estimates this is of the total crop.

The latest estimates of contracts expected to qualify for payment are: Wheat, 27,900 contracts; 1,647,000 tons; 41 per cent. of estimated total sales. Barley, 35,640 contracts; 1,839,000 tons; 37 per cent. of estimated total sales.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that to take 41 per cent. of the wheat crop and 37 per cent. of the barley crop in the first year of a contract sales system for cereals is a magnificent testimony to the agricultural industry in taking up a new system from scratch? Does he not think that the waiting period for the contracts might be shortened in future?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, in contrast, perhaps, to something that was said in Committee. I am delighted with the results. I will pay a little attention to his second point. I have not yet considered it, but will do so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the effects of charges imposed in January for the veterinary certification of chicks for export; and if he will make a statement.

The new arrangements referred to have brought the practice for members of the Poultry Health Scheme into line with the rest of the livestock industry. We have received representations on this matter from the Poultry Stock Association and have undertaken to take into account the points they have made.

Bearing in mind the amount of money spent by the industry on research to develop this form of export and the small profit margin owing to the high level of competition, and the fact that these exports have a value of nearly £750 million and good prospects of increasing further, should not the hon. Gentleman remove this disincentive immediately? The Minister is on the one hand exhorting the industry to export and on the other hand making it virtually impossible to do so.

No, Sir; we are giving an export incentive anyway, as the hon. Gentleman knows. After all, this is a small matter which is being brought into line with all the rest. It is in line with Government policy that a service like this has to be paid for.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why farmers in the Abbotsley area are being refused improvement and production grants; and how long it is proposed to continue to refuse to pay such grants to them.

The land at Abbotsley may be required for a reservoir. We have therefore deferred consideration of grants for long-term fixed capital investment there until a decision is taken.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Great Ouse Water Board has made it clear that a reservoir is not likely to be needed in the Abbotsley area for 10 years? Does he propose to impede farming progress for the whole of that time?

No, Sir. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first statement is correct, the answer to his second point is "No".

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the increased prices now being asked of wholesale fruiterers and greengrocers by certain merchants in Covent Garden as a result of the present seamen's, strike; and what action he proposes to take to maintain a steady supply of produce at reasonable prices.

Prices for some fruits and vegetables in Covent Garden, as in other wholesale markets, rose on the first day of the strike for a number of reasons, including a certain amount of panic buying. Prices are now generally steadier—indeed some are lower than before the strike—and trade representatives have assured me that they will do all they can to maintain them at a reasonable level.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the representations which he made to merchants in Covent Garden have been well received by consumers generally? Will he give an undertaking that he will continue to keep the matter under review, and that if profiteering once again appears to be the order of the day, he will bring all possible pressure to bear?

Certainly, Sir. I am sure that having the voluntary co-operation of the trade provides an essential leadership. So far this has worked. We must watch it daily.

In view of the serious allegations made in the House the other day about stockpiling by wholesalers at the docks, can my right hon. Friend make any statement, and does he contemplate any action?

I took action immediately. One of my officers made an investigation there, and found that there was no evidence of stockpiling. On the Canary Wharf there were no tomatoes or apples. They had been removed. There was no stockpiling of onions, and it was the same with potatoes. I replied to that effect to the hon. Member who made the allegation. I appeal to hon. Members to be responsible about these matters.

We on the Conservative side would like to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the need for responsibility and the fact that responsibility has been shown. We were very glad to hear what the Minister had to say on the last point.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the increases in food prices immediately consequent on the seamen's strike, he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to introduce a measure of price control.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that the wholesale price of New Zealand lamb was increased by up to 3d. per pound on 17th May and that other foodstuffs have also increased in price; and if he will introduce leglisation to control food prices.

I would refer my hon. Friends to the Prime Minister's statement on Monday. Voluntary co-operation has so far worked well and we wish to rely on that as far as possible.

Has my right hon. Friend any evidence that prices are increasing? If he has not, will he consult a representative housewife, who will give him the information? Is it not a fact that meat prices have been going up steadily, particularly since the seamen's strike, and can he say whether there is any justification for that or not?

It is not quite so. As I indicated earlier, prices of some commodities have fallen. There are fluctuations for other reasons. There is no sign that pepole are using the strike as a means of exploiting the public. If this occurred, we should have to consider what action to take. However, I believe that by means of voluntary co-operation we have achieved tremendous good and stability.

My right hon. Friend appears to be wrong in fact in saying that there is no exploitation over the strike. I have had representations from butchers in my constituency who state that wholesalers issued price lists on Saturday, 14th May, and then cancelled them by telephone on 17th May, increasing prices by 3d. per lb. at least.

If my hon. Friend has any particular complaint, I wish that he would let me know. I would welcome it and investigate it as I did the accusation of stockpiling. New Zealand lamb was mentioned in Question No. 43. It was he same price on 17th May as on 16th May and 1d. a pound more than on the preceding Thursday, 12th May. It was 1½d. less than the average of May, 1965.

If the right hon. Gentleman has to use his powers of price freezing, will he distinguish between those prices which have gone up as the result of the seamen's strike and those going up in any case as a result of the Government's incompetent handling of the economy, which is causing the inflationary spiral?

That supplementary question is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. Much of it is purely hypothetical.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will institute an inquiry into the reasons for increased food prices since 16th May.

After the first day of the strike food prices have been very stable. Indeed, some are lower now than before the strike began.

What additional administrative machinery has my right hon. Friend established since the onset of the strike? Does he intend to keep it for the duration of the strike? What investigation did he make into the charges made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) on a certain situation in the docks last week?

I have already replied to the accusation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and have refuted it. I made a careful inquiry and there was no evidence of the stockpiling alleged. We, have not introduced as yet anything to deal with statutory control because, in the present circumstances, it is better to try and achieve success by voluntary co-operation.

May we take it that the Minister's Answers repudiate the accusations, made from the Liberal benches and across the Floor of the House, that there has been profiteering?

I have not heard any accusation of wholesale profiteering.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he estimates to have been the increase in farmers' rents in England and Wales during the last year.

From October, 1964 to October, 1965, an average of 7¼ per cent. or about 5s. an acre.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the word "rent" has just become to many farmers the most objectionable four-letter word in the language? Does not he think it time that the Prices and Incomes Board thoroughly investigated the whole question of exploitation of farmers by landlords?

As a farmer of long standing, I would not agree that the word "rent" has just become so objectionable. I have previously replied "No" to my hon. Friend's suggestion of a reference to the Prices and Incomes Board.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of meat exports in the first quarter of 1966 compared with the same period in 1965.

Exports of carcase meat of cattle, sheep and pigs, and offal, were valued at £3,337,000 in the first quarter of 1966 compared with £855,000 in the corresponding period of 1965.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result on the ban on exports of meat, many individuals and firms who have built up this valuable trade are likely to suffer loss through having to break contracts with customers overseas? Is he in a position to say whether he is prepared to compensate those people where they suffer loss?

I cannot do that. I took this step because I believed that it was right to protect our own beef supplies for the home consumer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this carefully because, over the past year, there has been a considerable development of exporting high-quality Scottish produce, in particular, to the Continent? This is of great benefit and may be of greater benefit to the country in future. Will he keep his mind open if the position appears reasonable?

I hope that, after the strike is over, exports will build up again, but I had to take the action I did in order to protect the domestic consumer at this time.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has to report in the research into hypomagnesia anaemia, its cause and cure, particularly in relation to beef breeds of cattle.

The basic cause is an insufficiency of available magnesium. Research is still going on. Risks vary from farm to farm but enough is known to allow the application of preventive and curative methods.

Can the hon. Gentleman state the number of deaths among beef cattle in any one year—last year, for instance? May we have an assurance that research will be pressed on with the highest priority?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman these figures offhand. I will try to secure them and send them to him. My farm in Scotland has suffered from this disease, so the hon. Gentleman can take it that I will see that research is carried on.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how far it remains the policy of the Government that agriculture should release 140,000 men during the period covered by the National Plan.

It remains the Government's policy to continue releasing manpower by increasing productivity in agriculture. I see no reason to change the forecast, which is that agricultural manpower will fall about as fast as during the last five years, but I am keeping it under review.

This figure represents over one-third of the existing number of workers in the industry. It will be an intolerable burden. Is it not worse when it is used as an argument as to why agriculture should not take its rightful place with manufacturing industry under the Selective Employment Tax?

But the industry has its rightful place in the national economy. The rate is not unusual, incidentally. The highest release of manpower was in 1956. I will watch the situation carefully, however.

On two occasions, the right hon. Gentleman has said that he cannot put agriculture on the same footing as manufacturing because, to give agriculture recoupment from the tax, would encourage it to carry more labour. Is he suggesting that it would carry more labour inefficiently? Is he not suggesting, in effect, that, if he gives the money back to manufacturing industry, it will carry labour more inefficiently?

I am not saying that at all. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend to, but he should not distort what I have said. I pointed out that agriculture is already given large support and that for this reason it was wrong to argue that it was comparable to manufacturing.

The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for agriculture in Wales. How many men in the agricultural industry in Wales will the policy of the Government make redundant, according to the National Plan?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down Questions relating particularly to Wales or to counties, I will do my best to answer them. I have no specific figures with me.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will approve for grant purposes the equipping of every police officer on duty with a personal radio which is effective in combating outbreaks of crime and violence.

My right hon. Friend has already approved schemes for eight police authorities and has given approval in principle for two others. These all provide limited numbers of sets. He will give sympathetic consideration to other similar applications, but it is doubtful whether the issue of personal radios to every man on duty would be justifiable.

Is my hon. Friend aware that demonstrations of this device have proved a very great success? Will he appreciate that it is much more than a Napoleon Solo gimmick? Will he consider granting police authorities these aids to enable police officers to combat rowdyism against which the devices have proved so successful?

I agree that this is rather more than a gimmick, but there are technical and operational problems which need to be solved and much more experience needs to be gained before we can determine exactly how far it can be used.

Can the Minister consider as an experiment in some part of the country where crime is particularly prevalent equipping all police officers with this equipment? That would yield better results than giving a few sets all round the country.