asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to bring to the attention of the farming community the need for greater and more stringent safety precautions for farm machinery, especially tractors.

New regulations laying down a safety code for farm machines have been made recently and the Agricultural Departments are using all the means at their disposal, including free leaflets and farm visits and demonstrations by an enlarged staff of field officers trained in safety work, to improve standards and encourage safety consciousness on farms. The Department's film on tractor safety has been seen all over the country.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything possible is being done on farms to reduce the number of accidents? Is not more education needed of tractor drivers, especially about maintenance?

We can never be satisfied. Deaths in the year up to 30th September were 19 down on the previous year to a figure of 119. That is a marked improvement, but accidents on farms will not be permanently reduced until farmers as a whole are persuaded that adequate safety precautions are both good farming and good business. I welcome the industry's initiative in forming safety committees in a number of counties.

What consultations has the Ministry had with manufacturers and the Engineering? Is not the design of safety precautions the key issue?

There is a later Question about that specific matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what has been the value of exports of pedigree livestock in each year of the last 10 years;

I am sending my hon. Friend tables showing the details for which he asks, and I will also place a copy of the tables in the Library of the House. Over this 10 year period exports of breeding cattle increased from£490,000 to£790,000 (an increase of 60 per cent.), and exports of agricultural and horticultural produce more than doubled, from£23 million to£49 million.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that Answer and the good news it contains. Can he give any information about the steps which the Government are taking to forward this most important export?

Yes, Sir. Both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are doing everything we can to bring the importance of this matter to the notice of potential exporters, and a large number of societies and organisations have had talks either with the Board of Trade or my Ministry on this subject in the last year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to make himself responsible for ensuring that any future projects involving the intensive rearing of lambs or any other four-legged farm animals do not involve cruelty to the animals either by the infliction of pain or by rearing under conditions that deny them natural light, pasture, and open-air freedom.

No, Sir. It is already an offence under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal. Whether cruelty exists under any particular system of husbandry is a matter for the courts to decide.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be, as apparently there is, an extension of the intensive rearing of four-legged animals under the broiler system, it is time that the Government laid down some minimum standards at least to ensure that the animals are kept in reasonable conditions and not reared in an unreasonable way?

I do not believe that there is any reason to suppose that these animals are not kept in a reasonable condition. The whole object of the intensive rearing system is that the animals should thrive at a much quicker rate than they would under a different system, and animals will not thrive if they are suffering.

Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation to prevent any possibility of the forced feeding of four-legged animals? Is he not aware that birds are force-fed into the crop, which is slightly different from the forced feeding of a four-legged animal?

I do not know of any examples of that.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there was evidence of real cruelty to calves reared under this system in Holland, which was beginning to spread to this country, and that the Dutch Government introduced legislation to ensure that proper standards were maintained?

A survey carried out a year or eighteen months ago indicated that a few score farmers throughout England and Wales were rearing calves for veal by intensive methods. My latest information is that the numbers doing so are falling. Experience has shown that there is no reason why beef should not be reared this way in perfectly satisfactory surroundings.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his regular inspection facilities are sufficient to find out what is happening?

Cruelty is a matter for the courts. The Protection of Animals Act exists, and if there is evidence of cruelty to animals, then it is a matter for the courts.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in locating new fishing grounds in the South Atlantic; and if he will make a statement.

As my hon. Friend knows we set up at the beginning of last year as Advisory Group on Experimental Fishery Work, consisting of representatives of the industry the White Fish Authority and scientific advisers, to advise, among other things, on exploration for new fishing grounds. As a result we have considerably increased the number of research voyages. These have so far been confined to the North Atlantic, but the Advisory Group are now studying the possibilities in the South Atlantic.

Does not the situation of the fishing industry, whose catch has gone down by over 100,000 metric tons each year since 1959, demand that much quicker action should be taken? This Committee is taking a long time, and it seems to me that the essential work which could be done by the Government sending out exploratory trawler expeditions is not being done, and year after year goes by and nothing happens.

To be fair, it is not correct to say that nothing has happened. Voyages have been undertaken recently to the "Farm" area of South West Ireland, to the Dohrn Bank, to East Greenland and to the edge of the Continental Shelf north of Scotland, and there have also been voyages to the East Barents Sea and the south-west coast of Norway. We are doing this in cooperation with the industry, which is represented on this Committee. The Committee and the industry are considering with us the possibility of going further afield into the South Atlantic, but I do not believe that it would be fair to say that at the present time the Government are not making available to the industry the facilities which it thinks should be made available.

Is it not the case that the grounds in the North Atlantic to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are well-known to the industry to be over-fished or too dangerous to fish in because they are uncharted? Further, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Japan and Russia are producing millions of tons of fish while we are not producing a million, though once we were the greatest fishing nation of the lot? Something really should be done about this matter.

I do not want to give either my hon. Friend, who very wisely has this very much at heart, or the House the impression that a lot is not being done. We are working in close cooperation with the industry, and it may be that a voyage to the South Atlantic is something which the industry would like to see done in the future, but so far, not unreasonably I think, we have concentrated our research work on those grounds which vessels at present in existence in the fleet could reach.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the heavier imports of French wheat in September and October this year have been a cause of the low market price for the home-grown wheat crop; and whether he will estimate the increased cost to the Exchequer in deficiency payments arising from this cause.

Imports of French wheat have not been very large this season, and I do not think that so far they have been a major factor affecting the price of home-grown wheat. As regards the future, the outlook seems more reassuring, because I understand that the French have already made export contracts for a large part of their disposable surplus of wheat and that much of the remainder will be required for animal feed.

Yes, Sir, but will my right hon. Friend put me right over this? I understand that the French wheat has been bought from French farmers for about£30 a ton and sold here for about£20 a ton. Would not it be very unfortunate if, at a time when it is being said that the deficiency payment for home-grown crops is too high, these figures were to be seriously added to by dumping wheat from France, or Belgium, or any of the other European countries?

I would not quarrel with the figures given by my hon. Friend. Under a different system of support the market price for wheat in France is higher than in this country, but, as regards dumping to which my hon. Friend referred, it is not only a question of the dumping and the actual price at which the article is sold. It would have to be proved that damage was being done to the home industry.

Does not the right hon. hon. Gentleman realise that it requires only a small quantity of wheat on top of the biggest crop that we have had for a long time to create the conditions to which the hon. Member for Kings Lynn (Mr. Bullard) referred?

I am sorry; I did not understand the hon. Gentleman's question.

Between 14,000 tons and 17,000 tons is nothing when we have a surplus in this country anyway. What creates the difficulty is the fact that wheat is coming in, irrespective of the quantity.

It is the other way around. It was 17,000 tons last year and 14,000 tons this year. There has been less imported this year than last year, but where our import regulations generally are concerned our system of support is based, first on market prices to the farmers, and secondly, on free imports subject to anti-dumping regulations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the operation under the recent Sea Fish Industry Act of the grants and loans to foreign shipyards, indicating how many orders for the building of ships have been given and how many grants and loans, respectively, have been applied for and authorised and the amounts of those grants and loans to British and foreign shipyards, respectively.

Under the 1962 Schemes there have been 41 applications for grant: 40 of these were for loan as well. There have been no applications for a vessel to be built abroad. So far 11 applications have been approved for grants totalling£94,000 and loans totalling£65,000. These grants and loans are given to our fishermen; they are not available to shipyards, whether in this country or abroad.

In thanking the Minister for these figures, may I ask whether he does not realise that the giving of grants and loans to foreign shipyards in competition with British, and particularly Scottish, shipyards where the position is acute and menacing for the coming winter, tends to increase the already great and growing unemployment in those shipyards? Will he say what practical steps he plans to deal with that sad situation.

First, I am responsible for the fishing industry and not for the shipbuilding industry. Secondly, the figures show that when we brought in these new regulations we were right when we told the hon. and learned Gentleman that we did not think that he had anything to fear, that it was unlikely that grants and loans would be paid to foreign yards to any appreciable extent as a result of these regulations. As I said in my Answer, since they were brought in there have been no applications at all for vessels to be built abroad.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the current negotiations with the Common Market countries, what steps he is taking to protect and expand the British fishing industry and British exports of fish.

The Government's policy for the fishing industry is embodied in Command Paper 1453 and the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962. The European Economic Community have not yet started to discuss their fisheries policy, but the Community countries are substantial importers of fish and our exports might be expected to benefit accordingly if we were to join.

Whatever result may emerge from the Common Market negotiations, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is very satisfactory that the great nations, who have apparently antagonisms in other spheres, co-operate and work together in scientific matters, particularly in the exploration of the sea? But notwithstanding that, will the right hon. Gentleman say what plans he has to protect British fishing in those circumstances?

I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman feels that there is scope for international action in research, and, as he knows, we made some contribution to this by a ship that was built in Aberdeen, the "Discovery". We shall certainly continue to play our part in this.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will give the composition of the Working Party of officials set up to advise him on the future of the forestry industry;

The Working Party, whose appointment I announced in the House on 1st August, includes representatives of all Departments who have an interest in all the different aspects of the subject, and I hope to receive its report during the spring of next year. It has asked a wide range of organisations connected with all aspects of forestry for written evidence and has already received several memoranda.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his somewhat noncommittal Answer. I had hoped that he would be able to tell us why it was that representatives on this Committee had not been taken from all parts of the forestry industry. What he has told us is that they have been taken from all Departments, and that is why I say that his Answer is non-committal. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that in taking evidence this Committee will take it from all parts of the forestry industry itself, both producers and merchants, by which I mean the trade?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. This Committee was set up as a direct result of what was announced by my predecessor in July, 1958. When my predecessor made that statement about forestry policy he said that the Government intended, within five years, to review, in the light of national needs, the Forestry Commission's planting programme for the years after 1968, and also the structure of grants to private woodland owners. This is what the Committee is doing.

Is the Committee dealing with forestry in Scotland?

Yes, Sir. It covers Scotland as well.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he will publish the precise terms of the agreement announced by his Department in a Press Notice of 1st November as settled between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic to extend the powers of the British Sugar Board for the benefit of the Irish sugar industry.

The Press Notice, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House, gave the fullest details avail- able of the arrangements which had been agreed in principle for trade in sugar between Britain and the Irish Republic. I shall be presenting these arrangements to the House in the debate on the Second Reading of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill on Wednesday. A formal agreement cannot be signed or published until the necessary legislation to amend the powers of the British Sugar Board comes into force, but I am arranging in the meantime to place a copy of the draft agreement in the Library of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the provisions of this agreement look suspiciously like the British consumer and taxpayer subsidising a foreign sugar refinery in the Irish Republic by a substantial sum of money every year to enable that foreign refiner to make an onslaught on the British sugar market, and does he consider that it is the duty of his Ministry to give money to the Irish to undermine British sugar refiners in this country?

This is a subject which could be explained perhaps in greater detail. This is a complicated agreement and régime for the sugar industry as a whole. This arose out of the new régime that was brought in some time back which would be of benefit both to the Commonwealth and the refineries at home. The side kick, as it were, from this was that it affected the price at which Irish sugar would be imported into this country. The extra surcharge has been accruing meanwhile to the Sugar Board. This will not affect the price of sugar to the consumer in any way. Irish sugar has been coming in at the rate of about 12,000 tons recently and under this agreement it is limited to 10,000 tons.

Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that the British sugar refiners see no advantage to their interests in this matter, and has not he seen the report in the Evening Standard of 15th November to the effect that the Irish Sugar Company is known to be producing large quantities, selling its products on the Continent, and preparing an onslaught on the British sugar market? Why should my right hon. Friend assist the foreigner against interests in this country?

I doubt whether it is preparing an onslaught on the British sugar market, because in the agreement the figure is limited to 10,000 tons and it must all be Commonwealth sugar.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now announce the date upon which a compulsory slaughter and compensation policy for swine fever will be introduced.

Yes, Sir. A compulsory slaughter policy for swine fever with compensation will be introduced in England and Wales and Scotland on Monday, 11th March, 1963. The Secretary of State for Scotland and I will be making a joint Order for this purpose in the near future. Full details of the Scheme were given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Clive Bossom) on 31st July, 1961.

I am astonished and delighted to hear a straight answer to a straight question from my right hon. Friend. Would he appreciate how much good this will do in the farming industry, and could he tell me what would be the cost of this to the country per annum?

I am glad to have been able to astonish my hon. Friend. It would be of the order of about£1¼ million per year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state for the financial year 1961–62, and in respect of each product for which a deficiency payment was made, what percentage increase in market prices would have been necessary to provide producers, from market prices alone, an income equal to that which they received from actual market prices plus deficiency payments.

I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT estimates of the figures requested for the guarantee year 1961–62, together with those for the two previous years, since figures for a single year can be affected by unusual market fluctuations. Deficiency payments in 1961–62 accounted for about 16 per cent. of the total market value of all food produced in this country.

I shall await these figures with interest, but can the Minister at this stage say whether they do not reveal that if Britain should enter the Common Market and abandon the deficiency payments system without getting something pretty substantial in return, then either British farmers will suffer considerably if these price increases are not brought about or British housewives will suffer very considerably if they are brought about?

The hon. Gentleman knows that under the common agricultural policy the market prices will be considerably higher than they are in this country. As to the question of the increased cost of food, there are other Questions on that subject on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the tonnage of maize imported into this country during the first ten months of 1962 as compared with the same period in 1961, and the estimated tonnage of the home-grown barley crop for 1962 as compared with 1961.

In the first nine months of 1962, maize imports amounted to about 3·5 million tons compared with about 2·4 million tons in the same period last year. I regret that the figures for October this year are not yet available. The homegrown barley crop this year is provisionally estimated at just over 5½million tons compared with just under 5 million tons last year.

Can my right hon. Friend say why it is necessary for us to have higher imports of maize this year in particular when we have a record barley crop on our own home farms to get rid of?

Yes, Sir. But my hon. Friend will bear in mind that he asked for the figures for the first ten months of the year and I am able to give him only the figures for the first nine months of the year? Much of this was when the last harvest was being shifted, and he will remember that in the early part of this year the price of barley was quite high. It was all shifted off our farms and there was this considerable importation of maize brought about by a higher demand for feedingstuffs as a whole.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we shall get rid of the home barley crop satisfactorily in spite of these imports?

Last year the importation earlier in the year doubtlessly led the trade to look for other sources of supply when the barley was higher priced, including maize, and substantial commitments were made to buy forward. Much of this maize is now coming in but while we have this large home crop to be moved the compounders have given a general undertaking to do their best to take up home-grown barley, and I must look to them not to prejudice this by committing themselves to excessive purchases of maize abroad.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the recent evidence collected from the lightships off the East Coast of England that there is a migration of wood pigeons from the Continent of Europe; and what additional steps he intends to take to deal with this pest.

I am told that a few wood pigeons arrive on the East Coast of Britain in most autumns. Occasionally, as in 1959, large numbers have been recorded, but even these are relatively small in relation to the resident population. It seems that these birds eventually emigrate from the South Coast. As a result of the intensified drive against wood pigeons, 340 rabbit clearance societies have mounted shoots this year compared with 163 in 1961. There has also been an intensification of nest destruction and our experiments with narcotic baits are being continued.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that these migrations from the Continent are much bigger than his Ministry will ever admit and that the article in Country Lifelast week shows that very large numbers of pigeons come in? As scientific evidence must be available about how homing pigeons home, would it not be possible to have some scientific means of diverting wood pigeons from this country by some form of radar or radar communication?

That seems to me to be an interesting proposal, but it is a question which had better be addressed to my noble Friend the Minister for Science.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will conduct a survey of wholesale fruit and vegetable markets in England and Wales with a view to preparing a national plan for a modern, efficient and economic marketing service.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of horticultural marketing.

The whole problem of horticultural markets and marketing generally is a matter of prime importance to the industry. Under recent Government policy horticultural markets are generally the responsibility of local authorities and the responsibility for the improvement of the techniques of marketing is something which must be left primarily to the industry itself. Of course the Government is seized of the importance of the whole question and are giving thought to the matter, but I am not now in a position to make a statement.

That statement is very unsatisfactory. Is not the Minister aware that, in view of the coming dissolution of the Horticultural Marketing Council, there is urgent need to improve marketing in this sphere? Whether we go into the Common Market or not, we must have improved marketing in horticulture, the responsibility far which must be with the Government. It is not sufficient simply to leave it to the industry to survey policy.

The Horticultural Marketing Council was not set up to take over responsibility of the Government but to take on responsibility which the industry itself had. It was set up with the full intention of allowing the industry to improve its marketing arrangements. It had a three-year run; Parliament voted it money for three years. It was made clear at the time that if at the end of three years the industry decided to provide enough money to keep it going, it would be kept going, but that if the industry decided that it was not sufficiently in its interest to keep this body going, further Government funds would not be forthcoming. It is, naturally, a source of regret that the industry did not see fit to keep the Horticultural Marketing Council going. On the other hand, there have been various proposals from the industry about how to replace the job done by the Council. [Interruption.] This is for the industry to do under its own steam. Various proposals have been made and we shall be looking at them with interest.

Has not the Horticultural Marketing Council been charged with the task of planning or replacing the country's markets? At the moment, nobody is carrying out this task. The need far reorganisation of our marketing system is urgent. If the Ministry will not take on the job, nobody else will do it. Is this how we are to meet the challenge of the Common Market, with no ideas and nothing whatever being done?

The Horticultural Marketing Council was not charged with reorganising the country's major markets. I agree that there are some private markets, but, generally speaking, they are the responsibility of local authorities.

Is not the Minister aware that the markets in many of our centres are completely out of date and that even in France the Government have accepted a measure of responsibility? Why do we lag so much behind? Why do not the Government do something?

The Horticultural Marketing Council has not yet been wound up. An announcement has been made. It will not be wound up until the middle of next year. As I said, I am not yet ready to make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if adequate supplies of fowl pest vaccine are available to meet all demands, especially in the worst affected areas.

Adequate supplies of subsidised fowl pest vaccine are available to meet the demands in the worst affected areas. Issues of the subsidised vaccine were made available on 5th November in Lancashire and in ten Eastern counties, and supplies were extended to Hampshire and Nottinghamshire on 12th November. We hope to make supplies available throughout the country by the end of the year.

In thanking the Minister for that assurance, although, perhaps, greater speed may be needed, may I ask him a question about the vaccine? Are there any difficulties about storing it? If not, would it not be a good idea to have consultations with the manufacturers to ensure that we have adequate supplies in hand? If we get far too many supplies, could we not consider helping some of the new nations in the Commonwealth who have the fowl pest problem on their hands, too?

I do not foresee any difficulty in supplies once we get the original supplies moving. We must get an impetus behind the work, because it is a new event to manufacture this vaccine on so big a scale. However, I do not envisage any difficulty in supplies once we have the whole country covered. As to helping Commonwealth countries, this could certainly be looked into if any other country wished to follow our example and to go in for a policy of dead vaccine.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the working of the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956; and what proposals he has in mind for further regulations under that Act.

While there has recently been a welcome reduction in the number of deaths from farm accidents, more experience is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn about the success of measures taken under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956, in reducing accidents. I believe the Regulations and their enforcement by my Department will help in this way, but the active co-operation of everyone connected with farming is needed to make the safety code effective.

Will the Minister bear in mind that, despite what he has said, according to his Department's Report on Safety, Health, Welfare and Wages in Agriculture to 30th September, 1961, it appears that in 1960–61 fatal accidents with tractors numbered 64, including five children under the age of 15, compared with only 40 in the previous year? Does not the Minister regard this as something really serious?

The Orders and Regulations have been brought in over a period of time and a lot of them cannot become effective until we have given the industry time to bring in all the necessary safeguards on existing machinery. My figures are that fatal accidents on farms in England and Wales during the year ended 30th September, 1961, were 138 and to 30th September, 1962, 119. I agree that this figure is not significantly lower than it was some years back, but I hope that the hon. Member will bear in mind that it will take time for all the Orders and Regulations to come into effective operation.

Will my right hon. Friend consider getting in touch with the National Agricultural Advisory Service in the Isle of Ely and surrounding areas and see whether other parts of the country could follow up the excellent series of exhibitions and propaganda which has been produced by this body with a view to bringing home to everybody the intention of the Regulations?

We are extending those demonstrations. They have taken place throughout the whole country and were not limited to the Isle of Ely. If, however, there were any features of special significance from the Isle of Ely which my hon. Friend thinks were of special help, I will, of course, take note of them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the present use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and food storage; and what sums were provided by his Department for research on these matters in each of the last three financial years.

The general position on the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and food storage in this country is described in the Report issued a year ago of the Sanders Research Study Group. As I announced at the time, the Government accepted the Committee's recommendations for further research and is carrying them out through the various research councils and other competent bodies. These are the bodies mainly responsible for research. So far as my Department is concerned, additional surveys of food for possible chemical residues and other investigations are being considered. I regret that separate details of the cost are not available.

Will the Minister bear in mind that the Report to which he has referred said that more fundamental research should be undertaken? In view of the serious effects of these toxic chemicals, both to wild life and in food storage, will the Minister thoroughly pursue the matter?

Yes Sir. The Agricultural Research Council has set up a scientific committee under the chairmanship of Professor Frazer with just that object in view, to watch over the whole field.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that entry into the European Economic Community will not prejudice producer marketing boards.

There is, in general, no incompatibility between the functions of the agricultural marketing boards and the objects and methods of the common agricultural policy. Though some adaptation of their powers and duties might prove necessary, a wide range of functions would continue to be open to them. The Government therefore believe that the boards would have a valuable rôle to play in an enlarged Community of which this country was a member.

Is the Minister not aware that there has been uncertainty in view of a previous speech? Will he convey to Europe in particular that producer boards—the Milk Marketing Board, for example—are an essential lynch-pin of security for many of our small farmers?

We regard them as being of great importance and as being able to contribute considerably to the general economy of our agriculture.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in principle, there should be no reason why future marketing boards should not be set up once we have joined the Common Market?

From the point of view of the Common Market, whether it is a producer marketing board for one commodity or another is not a primary factor. It would depend on the reason we had from a national point of view under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958.

Can the Minister give an indication of what adaptation of the powers of the Milk Marketing Board will be necessary?

The milk regulations have not yet been published by the Community and so it is not possible to say. I have in mind that the Government would be responsible for seeing that the common agricultural policy was carried out and to that extent they might have to take extra powers over the producer marketing boards to ensure that they were fulfilling the common agricultural policy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last year in public in Paris Dr. Mansholt expressed an opinion that producer marketing boards were an exceedingly advantageous form of agricultural administration and that he was in favour of them?

I cannot remember the exact words used by Dr. Mansholt. I know that the Community had this much in mind as being a valuable part of the common agricultural policy. There are large-scale producer co-operatives on the Continent which are not dissimilar in their objective.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimates he has now made of the increases in the retail price of butter, cheese, eggs and milk which would be necessary consequent upon the adoption by this country of the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community;

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has now made of the increased cost of food for the average family in the event of Great Britain joining the Common Market and accepting the agricultural policy of the Six.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has now made of the increased cost of food per week for a family of five people in the event of Britain joining the Common Market and all British farm subsidies under the joint agricultural policy being abolished; and if he will make a statement.

I cannot estimate the extent of the rise in food prices in general or the particular items, because it is not known what the prices for different commodities are going to be in the Common Market period; the pace of any rise would depend on the length of the transitional period. But we have reasonable grounds to expect that, if we joined, the average increase, taking one commodity with another, would be small and gradual.

Is the Minister aware that Mr. Weingarten, chief economist of the National Farmers' Union, has made a categorical statement about increases in the prices of certain commodities which would result were we to join the Common Market? Is the Minister aware that he said that butter would go up to 6s. a lb., that eggs would go up from 3s. 3d. to 4s. 5d. a dozen, that the price of cheese would be up by 50 per cent. and that he gave a whole lot of other figures? Is the Minister also aware that Mr. Strauss, in his recent book on the Common Market, has based estimates on the I.L.O. food index which tend to show that the average increase in price per head per week for food in this country if we join the agricultural policy of the Common Market would be an increase from 4s. 6d. per head per week to 5s. 3d. per head per week, and can the Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I have two Questions, Mr. Speaker——

The trouble about the hon. Lady's supplementary question so far is that it has consisted of giving information. May we have the question?

I was giving the information because the Minister seemed to be so devoid of it. As everyone else in the country seems to have this information, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he owes it to the consumers to put some estimate before them now, so that they may know what kind of increase in food prices to expect?

It is not the duty of the Minister to hazard wild guesses in this regard for the benefit of the House of Commons or Parliament——

He should make accurate estimates.

To make an accurate estimate is quite impossible, because we do not know what are to be the harmonisation prices of different commodities. Neither do we know what the length of time is to be while we are changing over from one system to another. Broadly speaking, the increases referred to by the N.F.U. economist and the hon. Lady are increases at the farm gate, which is quite different from any increase which is likely to take place in retail prices. A large element in the retail cost is the cost of manufacture, the cost of distribution and the like. I hope that the hon. Lady will not fall into the same trap as did other hon. Members opposite at the time when the food subsidies were removed some years ago. At that time all sorts of scare stories were current about the price to which certain commodities would rise, but these fears were nowhere near realised.

Is the less than frank answer by the Minister related in any way to the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman to keep a "poker face" before the South Dorset by-election, bearing in mind the very great interest which consumers now have in the likelihood that prices will rise? In view of the Minister's answer to Question No. 16, that deficiency payments account for 16 per cent. of the price that the farmers receive, is not the estimate produced by agricultural economists, that food costs to the average family will go up from£5 4s. to something like£6 a week—an average rise of over 15s. a week for each family—likely to be the case? Is not it about time that the Minister was frank about this matter?

The hon. Gentleman can make any estimate he chooses. From the point of view of the Government, there are various essential factors which they do not know. I can only stress them again. We do not know what will be the harmonisation prices in the transitional period, neither do we know how long that period will be. So we cannot tell the extent to which there will be a rise in food prices. We have always acknowledged that a feature of a common agricultural policy would be an increase in food prices to the consumer. But we cannot make an estimate of what might be the increase because there are so many matters about which we cannot be certain.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I share, in a diminished measure, the apprehension of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)? But is not it a fact that the estimates which the hon. Lady has given of the possible increase in prices fall very far short of the estimates given at the time when the food subsidies were removed, when it was said that the price of eggs would rise to 1s. each and that butter would be 10s. a 1b.?

That is quite true.

Is the Minister aware that in an interview he gave recently to the English Press Dr. Mansholt stated the percentage increase? Is the Minister further aware that the cereal regulation which the right hon. Gentleman has praised could well mean higher feed prices for livestock producers, which might have another effect?

Of course, a rise in the cost of cereals would bring about some rise in the cost of the derivatives of cereals and everything manufactured from them. There has never been any denial of that.

Since the Minister says that there are so many unknown factors, how is it possible for him to hazard the wild guess that the increase in price will be only small?

Because that is self-evident.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman's problem that neither he nor the Government will state the price of food which is to be paid and, therefore, he is not in a position to say what it is? Under the Common Market policy, will not it be settled in the interests of Europe?

To a large extent the harmonisation prices will be arranged at each agricultural price review for particular commodities in the same way as our present system of guaranteed prices. What we cannot do now is forecast what the prices are likely to be at the end of the transitional period.

asked the Minister of Aviation whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by foreign visitors and home travellers in understanding many of the messages and instructions given over broadcasting systems in airways stations for which he is responsible; and whether he will ensure that the apparatus works efficiently and that operators should be trained to articulate and announce clearly.

I am well aware that public address systems have their limitations. The equipment at aerodromes for which I am responsible is, I understand, efficiently maintained, and at Heathrow the operating staff, both of my Ministry and of the airlines, are specially selected and trained. At the other aerodromes, announcements are usually made by airline staff, and I will bring the right hon. Gentleman's observations to the notice of the airlines concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a serious matter, not only in this country, but in railway stations and air stations all over Europe? People miss planes and staff have to spend time looking for passengers who have not heard the destination or the plane announcements. Is there any way of getting these people to articulate properly so that passengers can understand their plane times and destinations? Will he take steps to give them some tuition in elocution so that they speak clearly?

I take the point of the right hon. Member. There is a good deal in it, although there may be some difference of opinion as to correct articulation north and south of the Border.

Will my right hon. Friend arrange with the chairman of B.E.A. to ensure that less chit-chat takes place in B.E.A. aircraft, particularly as passengers are asked to look at a little booklet on safety which is given to them? There is far too much chit-chat. Could not my right Friend see that it is cut out?

I take the point made by my hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent aircraft, not on scheduled flights, and under no ground control, can fly in or through the London Terminal Control area and in the airspace used for holding aircraft awaiting their turn to land; and whether he proposes to subject all aircraft entering these zones to ground control.

Aircraft not under ground control may fly in the London Terminal Area and in the holding area only when they can comply with the visual flight rules. In instrument weather conditions, all aircraft are subject to Air Traffic Control. Since early 1961, all aircraft flying in the airways and in the control zones around Heathrow and Manchester have been required to comply with instrument flight rules in all weather conditions. We are now examining the possibility of extending these rules to the whole of the London Terminal Area.

Is it not a case that at the moment any pilot can fly in the London Terminal Control area in visual flight conditions outside the control zones and notified air space without advising Air Traffic Control of his flight, his future intentions or his whereabouts? Is that not a danger to the great amount of controlled traffic which is in the holding area, or could be in the holding area, at that particular time?

I am satisfied that there is no unnecessary or unacceptable risk involved in our present system, but this does not mean that we are not always continuing to improve it as traffic increases. At present only a small number of aircraft may be flying above 5,000 feet in the London Terminal Area which are not flying under Air Traffic Control.

Does the Minister not realise that so long as a great many holding patterns are outside the control zones there is bound to be possible danger to other protected aircraft?

If the hon. Member looks at what I have said, I think he will see that under present circumstances there is no unacceptable risk involved.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he has now completed consideration of the application from British European Airways for an annual subsidy on Scottish services; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. The Coroporation's recent application is being considered, but I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Is it not a fact that the Highlands services in Scotland are threatened with curtailment unless they get a subsidy? Will the Minister say why the Government permit a rival private service to be run on three days a week between Manchester and Glasgow and Wick when there is an excellent daily service provided by B.E.A.?

That is rather a different question. If my hon. Friend would like to put down a Question on that I shall do my best to answer it.

Does not the Minister realise that it makes it all the more difficult for B.E.A. to fulfil its functions in this part of Scotland if his Ministry sanctions an opposition service of this kind?

I refer the hon. Member to what I said in answer to the debate recently when I volunteered some ideas on this subject.

Will my right hon. Friend consider whether first-class flights with an inclusive fee for drink and food are economic on a one-hour journey and whether there is any evidence to show that the additional£3 has attracted passengers other than those travelling on expense accounts who would be travelling anyway?

The level of fares is a matter for the Corporation.

Would the Minister agree, following this interchange of questions and answers, that the Licensing Board is interpreting the Act in the way in which the House believes it should be interpreted? Will he consider many of the judgments which are being made by the Board to see if there is adequate coverage on the routes? If so, will he refuse to agree to license any more?

I am always ready to consider anything which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) suggests.

rose——

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 49, which is in my name, is practically on the same point. Could I be allowed to deal with it in a supplementary question?

I think that if we did that we might tend to prevent the right hon. Gentleman getting there.

asked the Minister of Aviation what financial help he proposes to give to the development of the Leeds and Bradford West Riding Airport.

I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 19th February, 1962. He was then told that the local authorities had been informed that their application for a grant towards the cost of developing Yeadon Airport could not be approved.

Will the Minister bear in mind the great demand for this airport and that no help whatever has been given by the Ministry to any part of Yorkshire? Can he inform the House if it was his Department which advised a certain Government not to use the Leeds Airport but Manchester Airport?

My understanding is that there was an application for financial aid which was made and considered on its merits. Among the criteria adopted is the local authorities' need for help and the authorities were not able to demonstrate such a need.

Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that there is a great demand in Yorkshire for an efficient airport, but this particular one does not fulfil the need? Will he therefore conduct an inquiry as to the best possible site for an all-Yorkshire airport and help it to be established?

I think that is a matter for the Yorkshire local authorities.

asked the Minister of Aviation what action was taken by his Department in accordance with subsections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 22 of the Air Corporation Act. 1949, to ensure that the accounts of the British Overseas Airways Corporation in the years prior to 1961–62 contained more accurate estimates of the capital value of its aircraft fleet, having regard to the circumstance that the British Overseas Airways Corporation accounts for 1961–62 contained additional aircraft obsolescence provisions of£31,717,000, of which£26,245,000 applied to previous years.

May I first congratulate the hot Member on his escape from last week's tragic accident?

May I thank the Minister for his kindly wishes? As the matter has been referred to, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to express deep sympathy with the wife of the noble Lord who was involved in this tragic accident while performing his Parliamentary duty, and also the wife of the gallant squadron leader, Squadron Leader Stott, who died in the course of his hazardous work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

As I said, we have no powers to direct the Corporation in this matter. Advice has been given from time to time when our advice has been sought. Sometimes it has been followed, sometimes not.

It is quite clearly indicated in the Act that the accounts must follow the proper commercial practice, and it is quite clear that they did not follow proper commercial practice in this case. Surely it is the duty of the Minister to intervene when there has been at least a technical breach of the law?

No, Sir, it is not our duty to intervene on the accounts, on the figures. We are responsible for the presentation of the accounts, but not for the totals included in those accounts. When our advice has been sought we have given advice. Sometimes that advice has been taken and sometimes not, but our advice is on the form and not on the quantities.

If in fact there was a gross over-valuation of assets, does not this illustrate the wisdom of my right hon. Friend in asking a very highly qualified professional man to look into the whole affairs of B.O.A.C. in this connection?

asked the Minister of Aviation what consideration he has given to launching an entirely British space vehicle using British first, second and third stages.

Her Majesty's Government gave full consideration to the possibility of developing an entirely British satellite launcher. The cost of any such project would be heavy. The Government accordingly decided that the balance of advantage lay in collaboration with other European countries. My predecessor therefore signed the Convention for the European Launcher Development Organisation.

Is it not the case that the Government already had Blue Streak as the first stage, they have Black Knight which, with only minor modification, could be used as a second stage, and the only expense involved would be the third stage? Surely there would be a good purpose in having an entirely all-British launching project?

The cost would have been about double had we engaged on it ourselves.

asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement as to the replacement of the Beverley and Hastings aircraft.

As I told the House in the aviation debate on 18th July, 1962, the question of a replacement for the Beverley and Hastings aircraft is under consideration. This involves the study of a number of different projects as well as the possible harmonisation of the British requirement with that of other N.A.T.O. allies. A decision will be taken as soon as a full examination of all the implications can be completed.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if another N.A.T.O. ally's plane is used it will at least be built in Britain?

I should be very surprised if anything other than what my hon. Friend suggests were done.

Underlining the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), may I ask whether the Minister will bear in mind that this matter affects not merely one particular locality but the whole of the British industry? In those circumstances, and whatever decision he makes, will he see that the work is equitably distributed throughout all those areas which are at the moment threatened with redundancy?

I will certainly have regard to what the hon. Member said.

In view of the delay in reaching a decision on this matter, would my right hon. Friend consider placing an interim order so that planning can go ahead and there will be no unnecessary delay in replacing the old and ageing planes?

I do not think that it is possible to place an interim order until we have decided which design to go for.

While appreciating the difficulties in this matter, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that a decision is long overdue? Will he give an assurance that, whatever else is done, American aircraft will not be ordered to fulfil this requirement?

It is not in my hands to give an assurance as to the design eventually adopted. That is a matter for the Staffs concerned.