asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the date early in 1963 upon which a compulsory policy for swine fever will be introduced.

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) on 18th July, it is too soon for me to give the exact date on which the slaughter policy will be introduced, but it remains my intention that a start should be made early in the New Year.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that it would be of great help to farmers if he could announce well beforehand the date on which the scheme will start? One might suggest that it could be made earlier than he has anticipated in view of the amount of money he will save in respect of slaughter due to fowl pest.

As to the question of the date of announcement, I have in mind what my hon. Friend has said. I will announce it as soon as it is fixed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what negotiations he has now had with the European Economic Community concerning British horticulture.

A working party of the Conference has considered the problems of horticulture in the United Kingdom and has reported to Ministers who had a short preliminary discussion yesterday.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the answer is a lemon it will not be good enough, and that this is one of the most important areas of the whole negotiations? Will he use his best endeavours to try to get conditions which will give reasonable security to British growers?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I am fully aware how vital it is, both within the negotiations and for the horticultural industry, that we should gat reasonable arrangements.

Is the Minister aware that there is concern in the horticultural world about the position of the Government? As yet Government spokesmen on this matter have given the impression that they are prepared to go into the European community without any adequate safeguards. When are we likely to know what really are the safeguards the Government wish to have?

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) knows well that these matters are still under negotiation. We have not on any subject within these negotiations made public what is the position of Her Majesty's Government.

The Minister has not answered my question. I asked what really are the safeguards the Government desire? What is the Government's policy on this? I am only afraid that Government spokesmen for agriculture—and, indeed, the Lord Privy Seal—because of a European concept will go in without giving these safeguards. I want to know What they are.

The hon. Member asks what is the position of the Government on safeguards for the horticultural industry. I said that that is a vital element within the negotiations. It is part of the negotiations, but we are not making them public.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue as a White Paper the text of his statements made at the meeting with Ministers of member States of the European Agricultural Community.

My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal's opening statement was, of course, published as a White Paper, but the detailed discussions which are taking place during the course of the negotiations with the European Economic Community are confidential, and the statements made during them are therefore not published.

Is not the Minister aware that the Lord Privy Seal made a statement on Euratom which was very detailed and Chart we have not had from the Minister of Agriculture anything comparable to that statement? Is he now aware that there is a feeling in the country that the Government have been rather lackadaisical about this and that the Lord Privy Seal will give everything away in agriculture and get nothing in return? When are we to have a detailed explanation of the Government's agricultural policy in relation to the Common Market?

My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made dear after his statement on Monday that he had published White Papers on the opening statement in the negotiations with the E.E.C., the Coal and Iron Community and with Euratom. These are the only published statements, and the proceedings within the negotiations have not been published.

Can my right hon. Friend give some firm assurance to the horticultural districts, following the current round of negotiations, because those districts are very worried and would like a clear exposition?

The Government's position is as it has been set out all the way along. We have not been able as yet to come to a final agreement with the E.E.C. countries and we are in the process of negotiation. We had another meeting yesterday and there will be further meetings.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Privy Seal's statement on agriculture on Monday was very vague? No real assurances have been given as yet to our producers. Is not he aware of the detailed regulations issued by the Community and also the statement issued as recently as yesterday by the Common Market Commis- sion to set up an agricultural advisory committee? We do not know the Government's view on this. The House is anxious to know what it is.

The hon. Gentleman says that my right hon. Friend's statement on Monday about the position of agriculture was extremely vague. But my right hon. Friend gave a very clear and concise explanation of what had been happening during the week. He was not attempting to set out the Government's position on agriculture as a whole. He was reporting to the House the outcome of the negotiations "in the round" the previous week.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that, under the terms of the provisional agreement reached on 21st July between Great Britain and the Six on the subject of agriculture, the farming community of Great Britain will be as well served as they are under the present system; and if he will make a statement.

The provisional agreement reached with the Six on annual reviews and a further assurance for farmers in the Community deals with only a part—albeit an important part— of the arrangements that would affect our farmers if we join the E.E.C. Negotiations on other closely related aspects are still going on. Until it is possible to take an overall view of the whole of the arrangements for agriculture in an enlarged Community, it would be premature to make comparisons with our present system.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that practically nobody in the agricultural industry or connected with it is at all happy about the announcement made about the arrangements come to on reviews the other day? When is the farming community of this country to have some real assurance that it will not be irreparably damaged if we enter the Common Market? What plans are being made for agriculture if we do not get in?

I disagree profoundly with what my hon. Friend says about the provisional agreement, as he terms it, which was arrived at on 21st July. It concerns only a particular sphere but a very important sphere to which I believe the House and certainly the agricultural community attach the greatest importance. It is that there should be a continuation of our annual review and also that the Community should adopt the concept of our annual review. This is what has been done in these negotiations. Of course, an annual review is not an end in itself; it is only a means to an end. As I say, there is a lot of work yet to be done on matters which would flow from an annual review.

The Minister has just said that an annual review is not an end in itself. When can he give an assurance to British farmers that we will not enter the Common Market on terms which will result in a decrease of the profitability of British agriculture? When can we be given an assessment of how many small farmers will survive if we enter the Common Market?

My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal and myself have said time and again that it was essential that we should achieve in these negotiations arrangements which would safeguard the vital interests of agriculture. This we have always said and it is very much in our minds today.

Will my right hon. Friend explain one point in the tentative proposal of last Monday? What will be the channel of communication between the British agricultural industry and the European Agricultural Commission if this process of annual review is adopted?

To begin with, it will be at national level between the farmers' unions and the Government. When the national review and the Community reviews are being undertaken, there will be discussions between the Commission and representatives of producer interests.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take action to ensure that Altaswede seed imported into the United Kingdom is stained to make sure that it is not mixed with other home-grown clovers thus spreading the risk of red clover stem eelworm.

The Seeds Regulations, 1961, require the variety and country of origin of red clover seed to be declared by the seller. We are satisfied that these requirements give the buyer of seeds adequate protection against admixture, and we do not think that the staining of Altaswede seed imported from Canada is necessary for this purpose, or would have any effect upon the incidence of red clover stem eelworm in this country.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in Canada and the United States they use a method of staining seed to ensure that infected seed does not get involved with their domestic supplies? Would he not consider, in view of the importance of the export of clover seed from the Eastern Counties, banning all infected seed from coming into the country?

I am aware of the regulations in force in Canada. Experience has shown that Altaswede seed is not unsuitable for growing in this country and that it is particularly useful when supplies of home-grown clover seed are short. There are no plant health reasons why this should be stopped at this moment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the decline in the quantity of home-produced bacon in the past seven years and the increase in bacon imports by 95,000 tons in the same period, he will now impose a quota on future bacon imports.

No, Sir. The home pig producers' return is safeguarded by the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme which relates the guaranteed price of pigs to an annual number of certifications of around 10·5 million. This arrangement was agreed with the farmers' unions in 1961 and takes into account the supply position, the level of home demand and the cost of the deficiency payments to the Exchequer.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the increase of 100,000 tons in the home consumption of bacon pig, which has occurred in the past eight years and which has been met entirely by foreign imports, is a very unsatisfactory position? Could my right hon. Friend advise me how it is possible for bacon producers to reduce their costs and become more competitive if the market is to continue to be swamped with foreign imports?

My hon. Friend talks about the market continuing to be swamped with foreign imports, but I am sure he realises that, if we had endeavoured to alter our import-export trading arrangements with other countries in tune with the movement of the pig cycle, this would not have been to the advantage of this country as a major trading nation.

Will my right hon. Friend keep in mind the fact that there is a prospect of another 1 million pigs coming forward at home—this despite the disincentive, because we are running at over 10½ million pigs a year? Would it not be well to have a look at the import side of this bacon picture so that we can have a better balance and can give reasonable encouragement to the home producer?

Certainly, within our international obligations and responsibilities. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, the national pig herd has increased considerably. Whereas 10·5 million was the figure agreed with the farmers' unions to attract the basic guarantee, it is now upward of 11½ million, about 1 million up on forecast certifications— this despite the disincentive, which has been masked to some extent by the amount of the feed formula which has an important part to play. We shall have to look at the whole question at the next review.

Does not this show that the moment the Government apply a disincentive in one direction they are bound to get increased production in another? The disincentive with respect to milk last year has now resulted in an increased pig herd. What is my right hon. Friend going to do about it?

I do not believe that is the case so far as the pig herd is concerned. We have endeavoured through the flexible price guarantee to have some effect upon the large rises and falls in the pig herd, and I still believe that the basic thought behind the flexible guarantee could make a considerable contribution towards this. The movements in price at the different levels of production have not been sufficient to act as a disincentive.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to increase the membership of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are considering the future composition of these two bodies, including the possibility of varying the number of members, and we will make an announcement well before the end of this year, when the appointments of all but one of the present members expire.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give a little urgency to this matter, in view of the fact that the record of these bodies in the past in connection with labour relations is not too good and they obviously need a specialist in dealing with the trade unions and their own workers?

I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. I believe that these bodies have contributed beneficially to the fishing industry as a whole; but, as I say, I will make an announcement in the fulness of time on the new membership.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, to combat the menace of wood pigeons, he will take steps to make cartridges available at reduced prices to recognised individual expert shots operating on a country-wide basis.

No, Sir. Grants towards the cost of cartridges for shooting wood pigeons are available to rabbit clearance societies, who may provide cartridges for recognised shots if they wish.

Is my hon. Friend aware that whilst it may seem very satisfactory on paper, it is not working out in practice? Is he further aware that I know the name of one expert wood pigeon shot who has killed over 100,000 wood pigeons but who has now given up because he finds that to continue under the present scheme he would have to join no fewer than forty of these rabbit clearance societies?

It is not necessary to join the societies. One only has to be recognised by them. If the gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers was a recognised shot, my Department could arrange for him to get these cartridges with the minimum amount of difficulty. I think the gentleman concerned might well come into this category.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the wood pigeon in Norfolk is one of the worst of several pests that we have on our farms and that it does tremendous damage? If he cannot agree to the suggestion made by his hon. Friend, will he at least ask his right hon. Friend to give careful consideration to the proposals in the letter which I sent to him a couple of days ago from the Norfolk branch of the National Farmers' Union for dealing with these pests?

I am aware of the damage done by wood pigeons, and everything possible is being done to eradicate them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the increasing damage to farm and garden crops by wood pigeons in recent years, he will consult the National Farmers' Union, ornithologists and pest destruction experts on further measures which might be taken to reduce their numbers.

We are aware of the increasing amount of damage being done by wood pigeons. The Ministry is in constant consultation with the interests to which my hon. Friend refers, and with the Advisory Council on Rabbits and other Land Pests, on further measures to reduce the number of wood pigeons.

In addition to what we are achieving at present, could not more be achieved possibly by the giving of some sort of tranquiliser to the pigeons so that they could be caught more easily on the ground?

I shall give thought to that suggestion.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state, to the nearest convenient date, the number of poultry slaughtered as a result of the present outbreak of fowl pest in Norfolk; how many of these were ducks, turkeys and chickens, respectively; what was the amount paid out in compensation; what new measures are being taken to combat the outbreak; and if he will make a statement.

Infected area restrictions controlling the movement of poultry into, out of, and within central and eastern Norfolk have been in force since 30th March. From then until mid-July, 411 outbreaks were confirmed in Norfolk, involving the slaughter of nearly 1½ million infected and contact birds. Of these approximately 1,200,000 were chickens, 231,000 turkeys, 16,000 ducks, 3,000 other birds including geese and pheasants. The total compensation for these birds is estimated at about £1¼ million.

While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for that lengthy reply, may I ask him if he is aware that the number of poultry of all sorts involved in this most recent outbreak in Norfolk and the resultant cost are of great concern to us all? As to the statement which was issued by his right hon. Friend a few days ago, is the hon. Gentleman aware that most people in Norfolk, and especially the farmers who have been in the poultry trade for nearly fifty years and have never suffered from fowl pest, will welcome the new proposal that slaughter and compensation should stop, but will the hon. Gentleman make doubly sure that adequate supplies of vaccine are made available as soon as possible at reasonable prices for poultry keepers?

Yes, we will.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the continuing high prices of meat and the failure of the predicted increase in summer supplies to materialise, if he will make a statement on the present position and the prospects for the next three months.

As I explained to the House on 2nd July, I expect that during the later summer months there will be a considerable increase in the number of cattle and sheep coming on the market and that this will be reflected in price movements both at wholesale and retail level. The poor spring and late grass season this year have retarded marketings, particularly in the case of sheep and so tended to keep up prices in the late spring and early summer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when he made that statement he implied that the butchers were to blame for the high prices when, in fact, the wholesale prices were going sky-high? Is he further aware that last week the president of the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations accused the Minister of sheer electioneering for the by-elections and of hoodwinking the housewife by that statement? Since none of us in this House believes that the right hon. Gentleman would descend to such sordid practices, will he make a statement denouncing that suggestion of the Federation?

The hon. Gentleman has completely misinterpreted what I said. The statement to which he refers was made in May and not in July. I said that we saw a considerable increase in marketings during the summer months, that at the moment prices were high in the wholesale markets, that we envisaged these prices would fall when the cattle came forward in greater numbers and we expected the fall in wholesale prices to be reflected in a fall in retail prices in the shops.

As I understand that the Minister has now been converted to the view that he cannot operate a deficiency payments scheme satisfactorily in a free market, and as there are obvious dangers in prophesying price movements, will he undertake to publish a price schedule week by week showing what retail prices of meat ought to be, based on the F.M.C. price list, which would be of great benefit?

Retail prices vary considerably up and down the country. Wholesale prices are readily available. Significant movements in wholesale prices are frequently recorded in national organs and many people see them.

The Minister talked about a cut in the summer—

Order. We must get on.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the number of farmers in the United Kingdom in 1939, 1947, 1956, and at the latest convenient date.

As the agricultural returns relate to holdings, it is not possible to give the actual numbers of farmers in these years. The number of holdings in the United Kingdom, excluding holdings in Great Britain consisting solely of rough grazings, was approximately 525,000 both in 1939 and 1947, 512,000 in 1956 and 470,000 in 1961. A large proportion of holdings are worked part-time, and some are worked as distinct units within a single farm business.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this gradual decline in the number of holdings is causing concern in farming circles, particularly among small farmers who are very apprehensive about their future in view of the possibility of our joining the European Economic Community? Can he give any estimate of the number of small farmers who are likely to go out of business if we join the Common Market, having regard to the large number in the Six who have already been put out of agriculture?

The amalgamation of smallholdings is inevitable with the growth of modernisation and increased efficiency. This is bound to happen. It is much too soon yet to give an answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Is my hon. Friend able to give the number of farmers included in the total decrease who have been removed from their land because of the spread of towns, new towns and building, or are those figures not available?

I have not those figures available at present, but I will look into the matter for my hon. Friend.

As the decrease has been alarming during the past six years, can the hon. Gentleman give any reasons for it? Does he expect that the decrease will continue at the present rate, and for how long? Also, does he think that a decrease like this is desirable in the interests of British agriculture?

I do not agree that the decrease has been alarming. A decline from 512,000 to 470,000 in just over seven years is not alarming, though it is the trend. The reasons for it I have already given. The hon. Gentleman must realise that in the economic circumstances of the day, expansion, mechanisation and increased efficiency sometimes warrant such a decrease. This is what has been happening.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his proposals to increase the potato acreage for 1962.

The 1962 potato crop is already planted.

I accept that, but what about the position in 1961–62 and 1962–63 in relation to the future programme, since the Government have through their policy deliberately restricted the acreage?

The Question asks about our proposals to increase the potato acreage for 1962. The hon. Gentleman now asks about 1961 and 1963 as well. I find it hard to understand exactly what he wants by way of information.

The Minister knows that the Government's policy was to restrict the potato acreage and that this brought about a shortage which has caused concern in many parts of the country. I want to know, for the next twelve months and beyond, whether it is the Government's intention still to have this restrictionist policy. The Minister can be very clever about it, but he knows the purpose of the question. I ask him to give a straight answer.

We had a long debate about this and about the object of the Government and the object of the Potato Marketing Board. This is to use the information which it collects and has available in order to exhort, or the reverse, growers in an endeavour to get an acreage of 750,000 acres or thereabouts each year. Of course, the yield varies tremendously. If one can keep the acreage steady, at least one has a chance, taking one year with another, of coming out roughly with the right amount of potatoes, but with a commodity which varies in yield such as this does one is bound to have wide variations.

But is not the Minister aware of the concern which is felt?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has now had from fishing interests and from other sources advocating the extension of the existing three-mile limit off the British coast.

In addition to those referred to in my reply of 2nd April, I have received representations from the National Federation of Inland Wholesale Fish Merchants.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that inshore fishermen are very concerned about damage to their nets caused by foreign vessels operating just inside or just outside territorial waiters —[Interruption.]

Order. I should be obliged if the House would leave to me the duty of maintaining order, bearing in mind that a running commentary during Questions creates awkwardnesses for other people in hearing.

Is my right hon. Friend aware also that off the Scottish coast there are anomalies which allow foreign vessels to fish where Scottish vessels are not allowed to fish? Could not all these matters be overcome by an extension of the existing three-mile limit?

I am aware of the problems which my horn. Friend raises. As he knows, this is a question of what is in the best interests of this country as regards our fishing limit and also of our international obligations in this respect. I am well aware of the case and of the strong feelings of inshore fishermen in this matter. It is something which we have to watch continuously, but, in my view, this would not be an opportune moment to move to extend our fishing limit.

Will the right horn. Gentle-man remember when he is considering this matter that his hon. Friends behind him supported the ban on British fishermen though it was opposed from this side of the House?

My hon. Friends are very well aware of the nice balance in this and that there are interests which are in flavour of extending the limit and also that the British Trawlers Federation is anxious that it should not at this time be extended.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will amend Section 9 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923, in so far as it relates to the clearance of coarse fish, as recommended by the Bledisloe Committee.

My right hon. Friend is at present considering this and other recommendations by the Bledisloe Commiteee, the majority of which, if accepted, would involve amending legislation, but I am not yet able to make a statement.

Does my horn. Friend realise that in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland there is no such limitation as is imposed by Section 9 of the Act? Does he understand the importance of this to the trout-fishing interests?

I realise the importance of this and I realise that in Scotland the limitation does at present apply. This is one of the points which my right hon. Friend will be considering before he brings proposals before the House.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what technical assistance he is giving to the Horticultural Marketing Council in the preparation of a national plan for regional wholesale fruit and vegetable markets, and for the most efficient designs for such markets.

Most wholesale markets are owned by local authorities, and the preparation of a national plan is not one of the functions of the Horticultural Marketing Council, as laid down by the Horticulture Act. But it is prepared to advise on the layout and facilities of individual markets, and such technical assistance as my Department can give is always available to it.

Does this mean that the Minister is satisfied with the present position? Has he read the pathetic Report of the Horticultural Marketing Council which makes perfectly clear that we need new wholesale markets in this country? Has he read the Report of the National Farmers' Union committee about the French five-year plan to create a network of wholesale markets in France? Will he realise that, if we are to go into the Common Market, the costly and inefficient marketing arrangements which we have in this country ought to be wiped away and we ought to have better and cheaper markets to offset the increases in prices which will come from entry into the Common Market?

I have, of course, seen both of these Reports, and most interesting they are. In this country, since the Runciman Committee recommended that there should not be a central marketing authority but that markets should be in the hands of local authorities, this has been the policy we have pursued. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether I am satisfied with the situation today. The answer is that no one can be satisfied with the small amount of progress which has been made in modernising markets. This is a matter of the gravest importance for the horticulture industry as a whole, and it is exercising my mind very much at present.

What does the Minister intend to do about it—nothing?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the fresh evidence of the dangerous long-term effects of synthetic insecticides and other toxic sprays on birds, animals, fish and human beings, a copy of which has been sent to him, whether he will put in hand an investigation into the claims made by the manufacturers of these sprays, with a view to the introduction of regulations to prohibit the sale of all sprays that are not completely safe and harmless to all animals and fish.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to the recent series of articles in the New Yorker on possible dangers arising from the use of pesticides. These articles do not appear to contain fresh evidence, and I am satisfied that the arrangements we already have in this country for investigating new agricultural pesticides before they are put on the market provide adequate safeguards for human beings and wild life.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most frightening aspect of these articles is not in the articles themselves but in the expert evidence quoted that the poisons remain in the soil, that persistent and repeated spraying is killing wild life, birds, animals and fish in the streams, and that there is evidence that the poisoned soil is causing diseases in animals which may well be transmitted to human beings? Would he not agree that in these circumstances and in view of the long-term prospects of the continual poisoning, we ought to ban immediately many of these sprays?

No, Sir. The technical and scientific advice to me on this matter is that there is nothing new in the way of evidence in those articles that was not already known at the time when the research study group went into the whole question and produced a report which has been accepted both by the medical authorities and by wild life interests in this country.

Will my right hon. Friend keep a sense of balance about this? As well as studying the articles in the New Yorker, will he also pay special attention to the report of the committee to which he has referred and which was presided over by Professor Sanders? Will he not agree that there is nothing particularly healthful in having crops messed on by birds, pigeons, rabbits, and other animals, and that we need to create a paradise for people as well as for pigeons?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says, and I can assure him that I shall do my best to maintain a sense of balance.

Will the Minister bear in mind that much of the expert medical and scientific evidence in America has contradicted its previous views on these sprays and that it is the long-term effect of the sprays which is now causing concern? Although we may not want crops dirtied by birds, we certainly do not want crops which will cause cancer in animals and human beings.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should make too much out of this from the articles that have appeared in a magazine. As he knows, the greatest precautions are taken and no dressing or pesticide is allowed to be used unless it has been tested and passed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his approach today, no doubt unwittingly, might be interpreted as being complacent? Does he not recollect that the Estimates Committee last year recommended a full inquiry into the effects of chemicals in industry both on natural life and human life? Does he realise that there is a problem here? Although he may be perfectly right in taking this comforting attitude will he institute a comprehensive inquiry into a matter that is causing immense anxiety to all interested in natural life and human health?

Yes, Sir. I can assure my than. Friend that the most helpful report and recommendations of the Committee to which he has referred have in fact been implemented and that there is constant research going on into this.

We have dealt with only fourteen questions by four minutes past three. I desire to renew my request to hon. Members to keep supplementary questions short.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the Government moneys involved, how far work has progressed on the new out from the Lark to Denver sluice; and when he expects it to be completed.

Excellent progress continues to be made on the cut-off channel, and the contractors are well ahead of schedule. At the present rate of progress, and provided no unforeseen difficulties occur, it is expected that the channel will be completed by the end of 1963.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, when making grants available to the Great Ouse River Board for a cut-off-channel and other new works, he will make it a condition that the completed waterways shall be available for use by pleasure craft and barges.

No, Sir. The managements of the channels constructed under the Great Ouse Flood Protection Scheme is a matter for the river board.

In view of the excellent work done by the Thames Conservancy both in improving drainage and boating facilities, could not a directive or lead be given by the Minister to other bodies, like the Great Ouse River Board, to do the same?

The things that have been done by the Thames Conservancy Board will undoubtedly be taken into consideration by river boards in the future.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to inform farmers, and especially fruit and grain-growers, of the possible effects on their crops of defoliating agents capable of being used in war.

I do not think I can give special advice to farmers about the effects of defoliating agents, nor would this appear to be necessary as there is no serious risk of their being used in war time against this country.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the evidence given to the United States Representative Sub-Committee as long ago as 23rd March, 1961, shows that complete areas can be stripped of leaves and of crops and fruit? Is it not likely that the Soviet Union could also use this, and should not the farming community of this country be fully informed of the possibilities which exist in this respect?

I am aware of this United States report. There are considerable difficulties inherent in delivering this kind of poison against this country. When we look at all the dangers today, there are much greater threats than this, but I will consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of reports by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, Animal Health Branch, that a virulent African type of foot-and-mouth disease is present in Turkey, what special precautions he is taking to ensure this disease is not brought into Great Britain.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are to be taken by Britain, in conjunction with other European countries, to safeguard herds and flocks against the African virus of foot-and-mouth disease which has lately attacked stock in Israel, Syria, Jordan and Turkey.

It is of vital importance to us that this disease should not spread through Europe and thus place us at risk. The Director General of F.A.O. and the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, of which my chief veterinary officer is chairman, have been considering urgently the foot-and-mouth disease situation in the Middle East, and I understand that the Director General intends to make recommendations as to the measures necessary to prevent the spread of the disease into Europe.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we are not taking any meat into this country from the countries that are so badly infected, because we know that the virus can readily be carried in carcase meat? Will he assure us that Pirbright is working on a virus that may give us some kind of immunity if this disease should spread into Europe?

We do not import any uncooked meat from any of the countries in the Middle East or the countries mentioned in the Question. We have traditionally and for a long time had a small established trade with Africa for small quantities of uncooked meat and there is considerable veterinary control and restriction on the movement of that meat. The virus concerned is being worked on and a vaccine is being produced at Pirbright bait it would not be for use in this country if this disease were to come here. It would be by slaughter that we would eradicate it.

In view of the fact that the Continent controls foot-and-mouth disease by vaccination and that they do not have a supply of vaccine to control this virus, and that we import meat from Europe, will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that if this disease spreads from Turkey into Europe no meat will be brought into this country?

I shall, of course, keep a very close watch on that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of smallholders in Norfolk; and what are the numbers of farmers engaged in horticulture in Norfolk, giving separate figures for those engaged full time and for those engaged part time.

As at 31st March, 1961, the number of statutory smallholdings in Norfolk, provided by the County Council, was 1,267, of which 705 were full-time holdings and 562 were part-time holdings. In addition there are 7,000 to 8,000 small farms and holdings owned privately.

I thank my hon. Friend for that very full Answer. I will not repeat the question asked earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), but may I ask my hon. Friend whether the Government are aware of the great worry among the small farmers, not only in Norfolk but all over the country, about the present negotiations?

I am fully aware of the feelings of my hon. Friends and of the small farmers, but I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon.

In view of the enormous importance of the horticultural section of agriculture in Norfolk generally, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the misgivings which horticulturists have about the negotiations which are going on which seem to involve a temporary arrangement in the transitional period only as regards the future of horticultural policy in Europe? Will he ensure that there is something more permanent than a temporary transitional arrangement?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend's remarks and will bear them in mind.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the evidence of the increasingly distressing circumstances in which many of the surviving Polish ex-Regulars have been living in the United Kingdom in the last six months, he will now take the necessary steps to ensure that they may receive a military pension.

There are some difficulties about the solution suggested by the hon. Member, but I am considering whether there is anything more that can be done to help in cases of distress.

I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. In view of the protestations on this subject which have been made to the Prime Minister and to others in the past, may we now have some hope that the new Minister will adopt a more liberal and enlightened policy on this subject and will correct what has been a manifest injustice for many years past?

I think that everybody has a good deal of instinctive sympathy for the gallant officers and men who came to help us, but there are difficulties about that particular solution. I have not had time to examine the matter in great detail. I have tried to leave a little chink open so that I may examine it further.

When considering this matter, will my right hon. Friend have examined very fully the arrangements which the French Government have come to with the present Polish Government about providing the necessary finance to enable a pension as of right to be paid to Polish ex-Service men who live outside Poland?

Yes, Sir. I think that there is a good deal of misunderstanding about what other Governments have done and about what we have done. We have done a great deal for the Poles, but I will examine all these matters.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's present policy in regard to the independent nuclear deterrent.

asked the Minister of Defence what proposals he now has for strengthening the British nuclear deterrent.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated in the House on 26th June, Her Majesty's Government intend to maintain the British nuclear deterrent.

May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment? Is he aware that what people want to know is just how independent our deterrent is. If it is not independent, let us drop the pretence that it is. If it is independent, may we be told clearly Why it is necessary, as I think it is, that we should retain it? Will he tell the people these things in what I might call "home-truths"—that is, in simple, clear, forthright language which everyone can understand?

I shall endeavour to be intelligible.

Will my right thon. Friend consider the future generation of nuclear deterrents, and, in so doing, will he give particular consideration to the advantages of the Polaris submarine which at the moment this country does not possess?

Obviously these are all matters which will require consideration, but I cannot deal with all of them in answer to this Question.

Now that the right hon. Gentleman has assumed his new great office, will he consider again with a fresh mind whether it is in the national interest that we should maintain this so-called independent nuclear deterrent? Can he say whether we have been having any talks with America about the cost of Skybolt and whether it is true that the costs which we would have to pay are rising rather alarmingly?

I think that in the case of Skybolt we are getting an independent deterrent a great deal cheaper than we would have done if we had done the development ourselves.

May I press the Minister on this question of definition? What exactly does he mean by the "independent nuclear deterrent"? Do Her Majesty's Government seriously contemplate using nuclear weapons independently or even threatening to use them independently? Is not that an out-of-date as well as dangerous concept?

It is hardly for me to try to instruct the hon. Gentleman on the use of English. "Independent" means independent. However, I think that between allies a little more concentration on inter-dependence would not be amiss.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not in any way be influenced by the briefings that the members of the Opposition Front Bench get from the Pentagon?

I fully appreciate that.

While reserving my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he has yet had time to circulate throughout his Department the speech which he delivered on the subject of an independent nuclear deterrent when he was able to speak his mind as a free man from the back benches?

In view of the point made by the hon. Member, I will try to refresh my memory on the subject.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the present defence policy of Her Majesty's Government.

At a convenient opportunity.

May I refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory? We understood that as Chancellor of the Exchequer he was strongly critical of the heavy expenditure on defence at that time and felt that it contributed to inflation. Is he now prepared to agree to the reduction of Government expenditure on defence, or is he to be the gamekeeper turned poacher?

Tedious though it may be, I recommend the hon. Member to study the whole of my speech as Chancellor of the Exchequer and not just one part of it.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will invite Professor Don Leet to the United Kingdom to discuss with Her Majesty's scientific advisers his method of detecting underground tests.

No, Sir. All scientific information on this topic is welcome and no special invitation is needed to secure this end.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the House on 22nd May, the Prime Minister assured me that he would study any evidence made available by Professor Lewis Don Leet and that in response to that, Professor Don Leet wrote to the Prime Minister on 5th June sending the evidence and saying that he would greatly appreciate an opportunity of consultations with British scientists to test his claims but that so far the professor has had only an acknowledgment from the Prime Minister, who has cautiously transferred this Question, which I put down to him? Is it not absurd that when a man of that stature makes an offer to come and collaborate with British scientists, the offer is not accepted with open arms?

Far be it from me to prevent any consultations on this extremely important topic, but Professor Leet, like a great many other scientists in this field, is in consultation with the American Government. We have our own scientists, discussions are going on and there is close contact between us and the American Government. If we all started issuing invitations to one another, I do not think that it would really help.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will end all direct and indirect British assistance to France's nuclear weapon programme.

We have not been asked for, and are not giving, any assistance to France's nuclear weapon programme.

Does not the Minister admit, first, that Rolls-Royce assistance to Mirage vitally helps the French nuclear weapon programme as a whole and, secondly, that the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations greatly increases the danger of war?

In my last post, I made some small contribution to helping to get the Germans, the French and ourselves jointly to develop a vertical lift engine. I considered that a sensible thing and I very much hope that nobody will be opposed to any inter-dependence of that character.

Is the Minister suggesting that trading arrangements come before the matter of peace? That is the implication.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not supply a British guided weapons system for France's projected nuclear missile and will refrain from giving further instruction in low altitude bombing techniques to the French Air Force; and if he will ensure that no official design assistance is afforded to the French Mirage vertical take-off engine.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister deny that Hawker Siddeley is giving the French ballistic missile organisation information based on Blue Water?

No, I do not think so. The hon. Member has an exaggerated idea of what helps the nuclear deterrent. We cannot cut off all contact with France in case any piece of knowledge might be used in that direction.

Is not the real trouble that whilst, for largely prestige reasons, we insist upon maintaining independence for ourselves in this field, it is difficult to object to anybody else seeking similar independence and that this may have tragic consequences?

That depends on what the hon. and learned Gentleman means by "object to anybody else". The French are a nuclear Power for this purpose and also they are our allies in N.A.T.O. We understand their reasons for that.

Does the Minister consider it a good idea that the French should be an independent nuclear Power?

We fully understand the position of the French in this matter, as they understand ours. I make no criticisms of France.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty how many are at present employed on the staff and in the office of the Second Sea Lord; and what was the number in 1941.

Unfortunately mo figures are available for 1941. The nearest date for which a reasonably comprehensive figure is available is 1st April, 1946, when there were 679 persons employed in the Departments under the Second Sea Lord's superintendence, excluding naval ratings, for whom no figure is available. At 1st April, 1962, there were 485 persons employed in these Departments, including 66 naval ratings. There were five persons in the Second Sea Lord's personal office on 1st April, 1946, and five persons on 1st April, 1962.

Whilst appreciating what my hon. Friend has done in an effort to try to reduce these figures, may I ask him to bear in mind that my information is that in 1941 this figure was much lower than it is today and that if the reputation of the Royal Navy and the organisation behind it is to be maintained, it is essential that we get the best value for our money? Will he make all the efforts he can to try to ensure that this is achieved?

My noble Friend and I have given a solemn undertaking to this House that we will cut the headquarters staff of the Navy 1 per cent. every year for five years. We shall continue to do this. This area is not one which will be immune from that attention.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what methods are employed for prevention of deterioration whilst at sea of helicopters installed in frigates and other of Her Majesty's ships.

Manufacturing specifications take account of the special conditions in which these helicopters have to operate. Once in service, they are stowed in snips' hangars when not in use and additional protective measures are employed such as the de-watering oil process, the washing down of the external surfaces with fresh water, and using sprayed lanolin coatings.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the potentialities of a new type of collapsible aluminium hangar which has been developed in this country and which, I understand, is in use in the Royal Canadian Navy?

I was not myself aware of this, but if my hon. and gallant Friend sends me details I should be happy to draw it to the attention of our design authority.

asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty when it is expected that Her Majesty's submarines "Dreadnought" and "Valiant" will become operational with the fleet.

We hope to commission the "Dreadnought" before the end of this year. She will then require extensive triads, so I cannot forecast with any accuracy when in 1963 she will become operational with our fleet.

Is my hon. Friend aware that American nuclear submarines are now being built under the three-shift system, that about sixty are projected and that the latest will be built within a space of two years? Can my hon. Friend tell the House what the Admiralty will do to reduce the appalling time that is taken to build our own nuclear boats?

The Admiralty and Messrs. Vickers are very anxious to speed up this building to the greatest possible extent. There has been an element of two and even three-shift working since the "Dreadnought" was launched in October, 1960. I might add that we hope that some of the unofficial disputes which have taken place may be lessened when the shipwrights and the boiler makers amalgamate and that then we might not have quite the same trouble over demarcation that we have had in the past.

Has any decision been made whether these two submarines are to be followed by other nuclear submarines?

There is no decision at present.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the addition of two hunter-killer submarines is of limited value to our national security, whereas the addition of two Polaris submarines would be of very great value to our national security? Will he look into the matter again?

That is another question. We must, however, get into the business of nuclear propulsion and these submarines will give us valuable experience, both in building and in training and in the operating of these vessels.

The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, you terminated Questions today at 3.29 and 40 seconds—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—20 seconds ahead of schedule, thereby depriving me of the opportunity of asking Question No. 35. [An HON. MEMBER: "The clock had struck."] No, the clock had not struck. My right hon. Friend is quite wrong: it had not struck. We were about 20 seconds ahead of schedule. In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, could I be allowed the opportunity to ask my Question No. 35?

I regret we were not able to hear the hon. Member asking his Question, but I am afraid that the House has to entrust to me observing and heading what the time is.