asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the conclusion of the International Sugar Council in April, 1963, that sugar requirements were considerably in excess of supplies, what steps he took to increase home production of sugar

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) on 15th November.

:May I ask the Minister why the announcement was so long delayed? Surely there was an indication that there was going to be a shortage well before the crisis caused by the hurricane? Why were not steps taken earlier to increase home production?

Action was taken in plenty of time and the acreage has, in fact, been taken up.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if there is a need to ensure against fluctuations of world sugar prices there might also be a need for growing more at home, and there might be a need to look at the question of siting factories more strategically in the country so as to avoid the present uneconomical transport arrangements?

:My hon. Friend has a later Question relating to this point. At the moment we have factory capacity capable of handling all the beet produced in this country. If we opened a new factory it would mean closing down an existing one, and I do not think that that would be a sensible policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the tonnage of white sugar likely to be produced from the British beet sugar acreage this year

The current sugar beet crop is expected to produce the equivalent of 750,000 tons of white sugar.

Following the Minister's reply to the first Question, may I ask whether he is aware that they are not producing much more in County Durham, in Northumberland, in the North Riding of Yorkshire and in Cumberland because of the absence of a sugar beet processing factory? Will the Minister seriously consider, as his hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Loveys) suggested, siting such a factory in the North so that more production can be made and more acreage can be taken up?

:I fully understand that sugar beet growing counties would all like factories within their counties. Strategically placed all over the country there are a number of factories which, in order to be at the peak of efficiency, have to be of a certain size. We think that we have the right number of factories, and that they are distributed in broadly the right manner.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this again? We are anxious to have a factory in the North. I am not pleading for Cumberland. It should be in the North, but I would prefer one in Cumberland. Will the Minister look at this again?

I have looked at it and I think that we are right.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the British Sugar Corporation has received sufficient offers from sugar beet growers to obtain the target of an extra 20,000 acres in 1964; and from which counties the offers have been received.

:Yes, Sir. All the main sugar beet growing counties have responded.

:Would not my right hon. Friend agree that though there has been a welcome increase in the acreage in many parts of the country there has been a drastic reduction in sugar beet growing, at least in the South, over the last six or seven years and that this is still continuing? Would not he be prepared to make an adjustment in the present freight charge arrangements so that there may be less disincentive for the growers who are some distance from factories to grow sugar beet?

:I suspected that my hon. Friend would ask a supplementary question of that nature in view of the supplementary question which he asked in connection with Question No. 1. My hon. Friend must remember that his county is not the only county where sugar beet is being grown and where there is no factory. Neither is it the only county where sugar beet growers would like to have a factory. If every county where sugar beet is grown had a factory the number of factories would be uneconomic.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Covent Garden Market Authority has now made recommendations to him about the re-siting of Covent Garden Market; and if he will make a statement

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to the views of the Covent Garden Market Authority about the suitability of the Beckton site; and if he will make a statement

:The Covent Garden Market Authority has not yet given me its considered views on the future location of the market.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am disappointed by that reply? It is two years since the Act was passed and eighteen months since the Authority set up a panel of experts to look at this question. Is it not time that it now came to a decision, in view of the implications of the Buchanan Report, which makes it essential that the traffic congestion at the present site is removed as quickly as possible?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a matter for the Authority which was set up by Statute by this House. As my hon. Friend said, the Authority commissioned an inquiry, a good deal of the results of which have been made public, showing the different costs of putting up a market in different places. Recently the Authority made a public statement to the effect that it was engaged in making a detailed study of a new site where the railways can provide more land than was hitherto thought possible. I hope to get the Authority's view on that early in the new year.

Is the Minister aware that, in view of the Agriculture and Horticulture Bill and the debate that we had last Thursday, the delay in relation to Covent Garden is intolerable? If the right hon. Gentleman pressed a little harder and took the initiative, I am sure that this could be speeded up.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it could be speeded up. Once the decision is taken on where the market should be sited, I have no doubt that thereafter the matter will proceed with all speed. It is difficult to decide where the market ought to be, and the Covent Garden Market Authority, which has eminent people on it, must, I am sure, be given time in which to make a considered decision.

Will my right hon. Friend say what he means by "all speed"? My recollection of the debate in 1961 is that the traffic problem then was a matter of great and serious urgency. Will the Minister put pressure on the Authority to make up its mind quickly?

Once the decision is taken on where the market should be built, the building of it will proceed with all speed, but it is necessary to consider a number of factors before determining where the market should be.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet received the Report of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances on the use of chlorinated hydrocarbon in agriculture and in gardens; and if he will make a statement

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) on 2nd December.

May I take the opportunity of refreshing my right hon. Friend's memory that in reply to hon. Members in this House last summer he indicated that in view of their concern the matter would be referred to the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances, which would report to him and, presumably, to the House? That is the Report to which I am referring, and I should be most grateful to know when it will be available.

That is the report to which I also was referring. The reply to which I referred my hon. Friend was that which I gave on 2nd December to the effect that I was hoping that the Committee might be able to complete its review on chlorinated hydro-carbon early in the New Year.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the total requirements for bacon and ham on the United Kingdom market for 1964, 1965, and 1966; and what his estimates are of home production in those years

:For the year beginning on 1st April, 1964, the recent understanding between countries supplying bacon to the United Kingdom market envisages total commercial supplies of between 615,000 and 640,000 tons, of which home production should provide about 36¼ per cent. I cannot forecast what the level of requirements will be in future years.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he not think that it would be of assistance if some forecast of future years' pattern of production could be evolved, especially bearing in mind that only seven or eight years ago British production of bacon and ham was far higher and foreign imports were far lower than they are under the present pattern, which has been more or less crystallised by the recent agreement?

The 222,000 tons, in round figures, which British producers will be producing under this agreement is the highest quantity of bacon produced by our own home producers since 1955. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that I cannot foretell what the future increase in consumption will be, neither can I foretell how the demand will move on the part of the consumers for British as opposed to imported bacon.

If the British producers can secure a greater proportion of the market, will they be allowed to keep that proportion that they have secured by their own efforts?

:Provision is made in the agreement for the percentage shares to be changed in the event of a substantial change in marketing conditions. I think that is what my hon. Friend has in mind, and this is expressly provided for in the agreement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has about future movements in the price of bread; and if he will make a statement

:I regret that I can make no useful prediction on future movements in bread prices.

:Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that he should, at least, be watching the situation because now the price for a 1¾ 1b. loaf, not a 2 lb. loaf, is anything from 1s. 1½ upwards, and the price for the brown 14 oz. loaf is 9d. and for the 1¾ lb. Hovis 1s. 8½d.? This is a commodity which is absolutely vital to the people of this country. Should not the Minister be watching the situation?

:I do not know what the hon. Lady would wish me to do after I have watched it. Of course, she is aware that the cereal market is much stronger this year than it was last year, that the world price of cereals is considerably higher this year and that this is reflected in the price of flour.

asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food if he will inquire into the causes of flooding on the Medway with a view to giving special assistance to the Kent River Board and the Upper Medway Internal Drainage Board

The basic problem here is the inadequate capacity of the river at times of peak floods, which occur about every five years. No scheme for the improvement of this part of the Medway has been submitted to my Department, so the question of financial assistance does not arise.

I understand that the river board has estimated that an effective scheme to deal with the flooding would cost about £2¼ million. It has very properly considered whether the benefits to be expected would justify this expenditure and finds this is not so.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that it is the same people, some of my constituents and the constituents of one of my hon. Friends and neighbours, who suffer year after year, and although it may seem that £2¼ million is a lot of money to other people, to these people who suffer every year £2¼ million is only a very reasonable expenditure? Will my hon. Friend look at it again?

:I certainly understand my hon. Friend's anxiety, but I would point out that we have not had a scheme submitted to us by the river board concerning this and it does not seem to consider the expenditure justified. We deal as sympathetically as possible with applications as they come in.

:Can we reach an early scheme?

asked the Minister of Agricuture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the danger to animals and birds, he will introduce legislation to make it an offence to discard nylon fishing line in waters in the United Kingdom

My right hon. Friend does not feel it would be right to ask Parliament to make a criminal offence out of this.

:I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that reply, but would he bear in mind the tremendous increase and interest in this sport, that evening classes for angling are held even in such urban constituencies as Muswell Hill, and would he watch the situation very carefully?

Yes, indeed.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations in regard to the length of journey by sea, rail and road, and to ensure that cattle exported for slaughter are humanely treated and humanely slaughtered, are made by him when granting a licence to export such animals; and what steps he takes to make certain that these regulations are fully obeyed

Licences issued by the Board of Trade are required for the export of cattle for slaughter to Europe and they are issued only in respect of those countries which have given assurances that the cattle will not be re-exported or moved more than 100 kilometres from the port of disembarkation and that they will be adequately fed and watered and humanely slaughtered. Undertakings have been given by Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Western Germany and we naturally accept that they are honoured. There are no limitations on the length of the sea journey, for the Animals (Sea Transport) Orders provide for the protection of animals carried by sea. The Exported Cattle Protection Orders require that, before being exported to the Continent, cattle shall be rested, fed, watered and certified fit before shipment. Local authorities and the police assist Ministry officers in ensuring that these Orders are effective.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but would he not agree that the export of cattle for slaughter is a most undesirable trade in view of the fact that we are already very large importers of meat and cattle for food? Will he make doubly sure that in the event of cattle being exported to Italy or Spain they are humanely slaughtered, because the humane killer is not used in Spain and only in the minority of slaughterhouses in Italy?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that this traffic should be banned. There is a demand for our live animals on the Continent, and I see no sufficient reason at the moment why this should not be met if producers in this country are prepared to do so.

:With all the modern methods of refrigeration, is it necessary to export live animals? Why cannot they be slaughtered here?

:That depends entirely on the trade. There is a demand for our animals on the hoof on the Continent, and I see no reason why this should be interfered with at the moment.

:Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a demand in certain continental countries for live horses from Ireland and that the manner in which they were treated caused such disquiet in this country that every effort was made to get it stopped? This has very largely been discontinued from Ireland and horses are now slaughtered there and exported in car case. Why cannot this be done in the case of cattle from this country?

:This is an entirely different case. I think that the present situation adequately safeguards those cattle which go overseas.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken on the report of the Food Standards Committee on the contents of meat pies

My right hon. Friends are considering this Report in the light of the representations made to us since it was published.

:Can the Parliamentary Secretary say on what date he received the Report of the Food Standards Committee, which consulted all the trading interests concerned? Why has it taken so long for this palsied Government to make up their mind on how much meat there should be in a meat pie?

:The Report took seven years to produce. We received it eight months ago. My right hon. Friends are giving it their consideration.

:Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is a very important question for people all over the country, and even in this House? It is important to housewives and also to health committees of local authorities who have to deal with this problem. No standard whatever is imposed merely by reference to the amount of meat. Could not the consideration of this Report be hurried up, rather than that we should have the Minister saying that it took seven years to produce? It might take the Governmnet seven years to give a decision.

I can assure the hon. Lady that it will not take seven years. My right hon. Friends are seized of the importance of this matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many companies in England and in Scotland are now in areas on their payments under the White Fish Authority grants to loans schemes; and, in each case, what is the total sum involved.

Eighteen companies in England and Wales owe the White Fish Authority £660,000. Thirty-nine companies in Scotland owe £640,000.

:Do not the figures illustrate the difficult position in which the industry is being placed by the unilateral extension of fishing limits by foreign Governments? Is my hon. Friend doing anything special to deal with this default? Can he do anything further to assist these companies?

:My hon. Friend will be well aware that there are always considerable fluctuations in the fortunes of the fishing industry. They are not the same from one year to another. But there has been a considerable recovery in fishing in the North Sea during the current year. My hon. Friend will also be aware of the efforts that we are making at the International Fisheries Conference, convened on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government, to improve the whole position of fishing and trade in fish in countries off whose shores we fish.

Is the Minister aware that these companies are typically the smaller family concerns in the industry, and that they are not going to float into the "black" simply on their own accord? Does not the Minister think that the Government will have to take additional measures if these companies are to survive at all in the next few years?

As the hon. Member will know, a moratorium has already been granted for a certain period in respect of loans to certain companies. The hon. Member will also be aware that a considerable number of amalgamations have taken place, or are in process of taking place.

Does not my hon. Friend consider that this large figure may be in part due to the incompetent underwriting of this Government agency, as opposed to the normal underwriting procedure of commercial firms offering marine mortgages?

:These were grants and loans given to firms for the rebuilding of the fleet, which was necessary in view of the fact that at the end of the war the fleet was seriously run down.

Can the Minister complete the picture by telling us how many firms applied for a moratorium on repayments and how many applications have been granted?

:I could not give that figure without notice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has completed his review of the problem of creating economic farms out of uneconomic holdings

:I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave my hon. Friend on 22nd July.

:Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that this is a complicated and long-term problem, involving fixed equipment and many other things, and that premature conclusions might be unwise?

Yes. There is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says. These are not decisions into which we should be rushed lightly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of land are now in the charge of his Department; how many are retained for research; and how many he intends to transfer to the Forestry Commission

On 1st December, about126,000 acres were in my right hon. Friend's charge. Of this, 13,400 acres are being retained for experimental and research purposes and 17,200 acres are being retained for other departmental purposes. Fifty thousand acres are in the process of being sold. This leaves 45,000 acres, of which over 5,000 are earmarked for transfer now or later to the Forestry Commission. The remainder will be sold or transferred to the Forestry Commission as opportunity offers.

:Is my hon. Friend aware that judging by the answer which his right hon. Friend gave last March, when there were 74,000 acres due to be sold, these sales are going rather slowly? Could they not be expedited?

That is not quite true. In 1962–63, 13,600 acres were sold, and in the current year I expect that about 50,000 acres will be disposed of.

Is the Minister satisfied that the product of the Forestry Commission remains an economic proposition these days, bearing in mind the technological improvements in respect of mechanical props which are being made in the coal-mining industry?

:Yes, I think so, especially in view of the fact that we are importing a large amount of timber at the moment.

Out of 126,000 acres, how much was held—both in Wales and in England—by the Land Commission, which the Government wound up?

I could not give an answer to that question without prior notice. If the hon. Member will put down a Question on the matter, I shall try to answer it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in connection with the recent agreement reached between Great Britain, Japan, Norway, the Soviet Union and the Netherlands with regard to whaling operations, the observers, who under the agreement will accompany the whaling fleet, will be instructed to ensure that the most humane methods are used in connection with the capture and killing of the whales

The duty of the observers under the agreement is to verify the observance of the provisions of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The provisions relate to the conservation of the whale stocks and not to the methods by which whales may be captured and killed.

:Does not my hon. Friend agree that some of the methods used to slaughter whales cause diabolical cruelty? Now that there has been some agreement on the conservation of whales, would it not be right and proper to try to reach agreement on their killing so as to ensure that they are killed in the most humane way possible?

The Commission's investigations reveal that the newer methods are much more humane, and that there are possibilities of improving them still further, and developing new and better ones. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will keep this matter in mind.

If the new methods are more humane, why should not there be an insistence upon their use, instead of the old ones which are so cruel?

:This is a matter for the Commission. At the moment we do not do any whaling. We are on the sidelines, so to speak.

Then make representations.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional steps he is taking to promote interest in the Agricultural Apprenticeship Scheme, in view of the fact that the number of new entrants this summer was 20 per cent. fewer than in 1962

:The number of apprentices placed on farms this summer was in fact about 10 per cent. less than for last year, but I do not think this is necessarily significant or indicates the need for special action. As I told the hon. Member in reply to his Question on 22nd July last, this is the industry's own Scheme, but we give it active support and help to make it known to suitable farmers and farm workers. In the last quarter the number of approved applicants increased substantially over the corresponding period of last year.

:I am glad that the decline is shown to be rather less than has been reported in the Press, but does not the Minister recognise that it is a serious matter that there should, be any decline from a figure which was already too low, and at a time when the Government generally are beginning to recognise that they have a new responsibility for training in industry? What does the Minister see as the Government's part in agricultural training, which is supposed to be heralded in the Industrial Training Bill?

:This is an extremely important subject. We want to encourage as many apprentices as possible to come into the industry, but this is a matter for the industry itself. The position will be greatly helped by the passage of the Bill which is now before the House. When it has gone through the House a great deal of help will be accorded to the industry.

But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the response to the call for young people to enter agriculture apprenticeships is very disappointing over the country generally? Does not he agree that to a large extent the future of British agriculture depends on the number of young people who are trained under this Scheme? The situation in the future will require fewer workers, who must be better trained. Will not the Minister take additional steps to put over to farmers and young workers the importance of receiving better training under this Scheme?

:This is an important Scheme, but the hon. Member ought not to exaggerate too much. I agree that we want as many trained apprentices as possible coming into the industry. As I said in reply to his hon. Friend, the Bill which is now going through the House will materially help in this regard.

:Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friend is not exaggerating the importance of the Scheme? The Government should be pressing as hard as they can. A complacent reply like that which the hon. Member just gave is unworthly of him.

I am far from being complacent, as the hon. Member knows. I am saying that this is a matter for the industry.

It is not.

We are helping as much as we can, and the industry will be greatly helped by the Bill which is now going through the House.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why 350 baby seals were slaughtered on Fame Island recently

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why he ordered the destruction of seals at Farne Island; and if he will make a statement

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why part of the seal population on the Farne Islands was killed; what methods of humane killing were used; how many seals were killed; what further killings are planned; and if he will make a statement

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the destruction of young seals near Farne Island

:In 1959 a Consultative Committee under the Chairmanship of the Nature Conservancy was set up to guide research into the level of the seal population and its effects on the fisheries. The Committee published a Report in May this year under the title Grey Sealsand the Fisheries. It recommended that the breeding potential of the seals on the Farne Islands should be reduced by 25 per cent. over the next five years in the interests of the fisheries. I accepted this recommendation. In doing so, I had the support of the Nature Conservancy. The cull this year, carried out on 5th–7th December, amounted to approximately 350 calves—ten short of the target recommended by the Consultative Committee. Most of the calves were killed by Webley Scott pistol at point-blank range, with an inspector of the R.S.P.C.A. present.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this was a monstrously bad piece of public relations, bearing in mind that the Order came into force only on 4th December and that a large number of people in the country have been nauseated by the whole idea? I accept that it is probably necessary, but can my right hon. Friend say what happens to these grey seals after slaughter? Are the carcases used as fertiliser? Are the seals really a serious threat to the salmon fishing industry?

I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend accepts the need for this cull, and so do I. It was not a pleasant thing to have to do, but it was something which was necessary. It was recommended by the bodies to which I have referred, including the Nature Conservancy, and the operation had the support of the National Trust, which is responsible for the Fame Islands. It was not pleasant to have to order this cull to be carried out, but it was necessary. The seal population has grown considerably over the years. It is not a question of doing away with the seals but rather of keeping the size of the colony within bounds.

:Do I take it that we are to accept the Report of the Committee that it was absolutely necessary to destroy 350 seals? Is the Minister aware that many people feel that this was a massacre and the whole matter could have been dealt with in quite a different manner? Is he aware that they do not think that there has been an adequate survey of the fishing grounds in the North Sea and the effect of the operations of Russian fishing trawlers up to the three-mile limit? Is he aware that they consider that there are many factors on which enlightenment is needed and I hope the Minister can give it?

The necessary Order lay before this House for the customary 40 days. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Nature Conservancy and the National Trust would not recommend such a cull unless it were necessary.

:Nevertheless, in view of the many irreparable mistakes which men have made in their commercial, trigger-happy approach to wild life, will the Minister make a careful study of the expert opinion expressed against this project since it took place before he authorises any further slaughter of baby seals?

This Report was looked at by the experts, including representatives of the fishery interests, and, as I say, the Nature Conservancy, and they took a number of years to come to a conclusion on it. The conclusion at which they arrived was that there should be this cull. Naturally, a great number of people did not like the pictures which they saw in the Press and on television depicting the carrying out of this cull. Who would, indeed? But anyone who takes a responsible view—I am sure that they would include the hon. Lady—far from decrying the slaughter of the seals, would appreciate the need and applaud the efficient and humane manner in which this very unpleasant operation was carried out.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware that our fishermen know full well the depredations of the seal population and will welcome any humane methods of controlling that population?

:Is the Minister aware that those who know this part of the coast, including particularly the inhabitants of villages like Bulmer and Sea-houses, are aware of the damage done by seals, due to the tremendous increase in their numbers, and appreciate the difficulties which the Minister faced? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who saw the television programme depicting the slaughter of the seals—I saw it myself—appreciate the reactions from certain people? Will the Minister take note that those who know the damage which is done by seals appreciate that there must be some control exercised over their numbers?

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I believe that what has been done was necessary and represented a responsible approach to the balance of interests. Of course, we wish to see the seal colony continue. No one would think of doing away with them. But their number must be kept within bounds.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention to approve the proposal made to him by the British Egg Marketing Board to ban the sale of second quality eggs to the public, in a raw state, after 1st January, 1964

:The Board is an independent body operating under the British Egg Marketing Scheme, approved by Parliament. It does not require the approval of Ministers before exercising its powers, and consequently it has made no proposal to my right hon. Friend.

:Is the Minister aware that the withdrawal of a considerable number of edible eggs from the market has caused a great deal of apprehension among certain sections of the population? Is he aware that second quality eggs are sold at some periods of the year at least 23¼d. cheaper than first quality eggs? Is he aware that a large number of old-age pensioners do not regard second quality eggs as better than first quality eggs but they do regard them as better than no eggs at all, and that this will reduce considerably the income of egg producers because it is intended that the price for second quality eggs will be considerably less after 1st January than up to date?

The hon. Gentleman has asked many questions. The eggs are not to be withdrawn from consumers. The Board has decided that eggs withdrawn after 1st January will be made into liquid egg. There will be an adequate supply of small eggs for old-age pensioners to buy if they wish. It is the extra small eggs which are being withdrawn. This will not make any difference to the supply of small eggs. It will have exactly the opposite effect on the returns of the producers to that referred to by the hon. Gentleman. It will increase their prices and it will help them.

:Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an undertaking that the eggs which he says will be on the market for the use of people who want cheaper eggs than first quality will not be dearer than the present price for second quality eggs?

:That is a matter for the Egg Marketing Board.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that sheep are being exported by air for slaughter; and what regulations govern the transport of such animals by air

:We are aware that sheep have been flown to France and Belgium. The Transit of Animals Orders to not at present extend to air transit, but inspections by our veterinary officers have indicated that conditions are satisfactory, and we have no evidence that sheep suffer when transported by air. My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement shortly about the extension of the Exported Cattle Protection Orders to sheep and pigs, and he is considering the general question of regulations for the protection of animals in air transit.

:May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the subsidy designed to keep the price of meat fairly stable in the British market is also paid on sheep going abroad for slaughter? Is he aware that, contrary to what he has said, I have information that the condition of these animals in transit is extremely unsatisfactory? Why should we meet the demand of a trade which involves cruelty and suffering?

:The subsidy, or deficiency payment, is paid to the producer on certification of his stock going through the market on the hoof. It is a producer subsidy and is not for the consumer. In view of the present demand, there is no reason why this trade should be stopped.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the use of air transport for exporting livestock is probably much morehumane and quicker than the use of ships, and will he not discourage the use of air transport for this purpose?

:It is certainly quicker and there is the added safeguard of the air transport safety requirements. These are a safeguard for the animals.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much he estimates pig producers will be underpaid in the present year as compared with the guarantees given in the 1963 Price Review; how this comparies with the outturn for the previous year; and if he will make a statement

I do not estimate that producers of pigs will be underpaid the guaranteed price this year, taking account of the adjustments for feed and the flexible guarantee. I assume, however, that my hon. Friend is referring to the effect of the operation of the flexible guarantee arrangements for pigs, and as the explanation is unavoidably long and technical, I am having it circulated in the Official Report.

My right hon. Friend assumes correctly, but may I ask him one supplementary question? I have been given to understand that the amount by which pig producers may be underpaid is about £8 million. Will he therefore make a supplementary payments order, as was done in 1956, in order to implement the guarantees given in the Price Review?

I cannot accept what my hon. Friend said. The flexible guarantees are designed on an assessment of production potential and there is a formula which has been worked out and which is used. As the assessment of production potential is for a period of between ten months and 12 months ahead, nobody can expect it always to be accurate. The weather and the incidence of swine fever, for example, have an effect. But this formula is accepted by leaders of the industry as being the right and proper formula.

Surely if the flexible guarantee works in a manner which is not considered satisfactory by many people in the agricultural industry, this is likely to influence their judgment in any further use of the standard quantity system for other commodities.

The whole point of the flexible guarantees is to act as an incentive or a disincentive at a time when it can have an impact on the quantities produced in the months ahead. In order to do that it must be taken upon the production potential as opposed to the number of pigs actually coming on the market in any month. That is its whole basis and its main feature. It is a valuable feature. I think that it is appreciated that from time to time estimates will prove to be too large and at other times too little. In the latter case there might be more differences of opinion than there are in the former case.

asked the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what quantities of turkeys have been imported from Hungary and Argentina in 1962 and up to the latest available date in 1963; and whether it is necessary for these birds to bear visible indication of their foreign origin when offered for retail sale

:The importation of turkeys from Hungary is prohibited by the Poultry Carcases (Landing) Order. 1955. Imports from Argentina in 1962 totalled about 73 tons, and this year up to 31st October, nil. The answer to the second part of the question is, "Yes".

Does that mean that my right hon. Friend and his Department are certain that Hungarian and Russian turkeys are not coming on the market at the moment at 1s. 10d. a lb., giving no indication whatever to the retail purchaser that they are tasteless, frozen birds and not good British birds?

:My hon. Friend is wrong on all three counts. There are no Hungarian turkeys coming into the market. There have not been any Argentinian turkeys as yet although there may be between now and Christmas. If they come into the market they have to have the country of origin or "Foreign" marked on every bird.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for giving incentives to farmers to make forward contracts

:Forward contracting is already practised to a considerable extent by pig producers. It may well be that there is scope for forward contracting playing a greater part in agricultural marketing. The extent to which it may or may not be advisable for the Government to give incentives to this must be a matter for the Annual Review.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that agricultural circles interested in the Question will also be very interested in the Minister's reply? I hope that he will explore the possibilities here because it seems to some of us—indeed, to anyone who understands agriculture—that this might be an incentive worth studying and introducing.

:Yes. The hon. Member knows that we give much thought to such matters. We are constantly thinking of ways by which the marketing of our produce can be improved.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the costs of agricultural production have risen in the latest convenient period

:Estimates of aggregate cost changes are prepared for the Annual Review each February. The change since the Annual Review last February will be prepared for the purposes of the 1964 Annual Review, and will be published in the White Paper following the Review.

While half-thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that he has given no facts to the House? Is he aware that these prices are rising? Will he kindly look into the possibilities of the existence of monopolies in agriculture and ancillary industries and check some of their activities, especially in the supply of fertilisers?

:I cannot accept that there are monopolies in the supply of fertilisers. There will be considerable increases in costs to be taken into account at this Review as there were at the last Review. A notable example is the increase in wages granted by the Wages Board. There is also likely to be some movement in rents, but I cannot assess these increases yet. That is not done until the Price Review.

Will the Minister use his influence, through the use of the fertiliser subsidies in certain industries which supply fertilisers, by pointing out that if the cost can be reduced to the farmer it is far better than giving a subsidy to the Tory Party?

I see no relationship between the two whatever.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his attention was first drawn to the request of the fishermen of Newlyn and Mouse hole for a light and a fog signal on the south coast of the Land's End peninsula; and what action he then took

:My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) raised this matter during a fisheries debate on 14th July, 1959. It was then referred to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport whose concern it is.

Will the Minister request his right hon. Friend to support the application which is being made by the Cornwall Sea Fisheries Committee and by the fishermen at Mouse hole and many other organisations to see that a light and foghorn are provided at this point as early as possible? As he knows, 39 lives have been lost in the last twelve years on this small stretch of coast, a great number, as he knows, in a recent wreck there.

I am fully aware of the position in Cornwall on this matter, but I gather that these aids are not considered necessary for general navigation It may well be that they would be very useful and necessary for fishing vessels.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional precautions he is taking this year to reduce the risk of death and starvation suffered by livestock on Dart moor during the winter months

Animals on Dart moor are all privately owned and the responsibility for their welfare rests with their owners who, I am sure, generally discharge their duty adequately. Nevertheless on request the Ministry has provided technical advice to the farmers on these matters. In the event of a real emergency developing the Ministry will give whatever assistance is appropriate at the time with the help of Local necessary. The Dartmoor Commoners Organisations and the Armed Services if Association and the R.S.P.C.A. have also reached agreement about certain stand-by arrangements.

:Will the Minister bear in mind that much of this suffering and death to livestock on Dartmoor is deliberately supported and encouraged by the Government subsidy, which enables the hill farmer to claim against reasonable loss by death or straying? Will the Government in these circumstances take the evidence which is available to them from the Livestock Protection Association and other people living on Dartmoor who know what the facts are and who do not want to see a repetition of the scandalous state of affairs which occurred last winter?

:I do not accept what the hon. Member said. I accept hardly a word of it. Only hardy breeds are eligible for the sheep subsidy, and it is restricted to the number of ewes which can properly graze the land. That is the answer to the hon. Member.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many orders for vessels have been placed with foreign shipyards under the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1962; what was the value of these orders; and what was the amount of grant and loan, respectively

None Sir.

Have any applications been received for this purpose?

No order has yet been placed, but I understand that one application is pending for a trawler to be built abroad. That is as far as it has got.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is proposing to take to stop the artificial discolouration of meat

:I presume my hon. Friend has in mind the use of nicotinic acid on meat. As soon as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I learned of the recent cases of people being affected after eating meat treated with nicotinic acid we asked the Food Additives and Contaminants Sub-Committee of the Food Standards Committee to investigate this substance and its use in food and to report as soon as possible. I also drew the attention of the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations to these cases, and I understand that the Federation has now advised its members not to use substances of this kind pending Government inquiry.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply. Will he bear in mind the fact that this is the second case we have had in recent months of meat being tampered with either by tenderisation or by staining in some way? Will he ask the Food Standards Committee to get on with the job so that the public may know what they are buying?

The Food Standards Committee is meeting tomorrow.

:Would it not be better, when a situation like this arises, for the operation to be stopped; for it to be completely banned while an inquiry takes place? Could the right hon. Gentleman do something to speed up the inquiries made by this Committee, for it seems to take far too long in its deliberations?

:Some cases take longer than others. Some are dealt with quite quickly. As to whether there should be a complete ban at the time, this must depend largely on the degree of trouble involved and the degree of seriousness. I understand that this substance is not now being used. However, nicotinic acid is not necessarily bad, when used in small quantities. In fact, I believe that it must, by Order, be used in bread. For this reason, I do not think that this is something which we should ban prior to advice being received from the Food Standards Committee. I think that we have arrived at about the right result in this case.

How can the Minister know whether this substance can be good or bad before the inquiry has taken place? Why should he pre-judge the position before the inquiry, when it might be possible afterwards for everyone to be agreed that this substance should not be used? Surely it would be best for him to ban it before the inquiry takes place and afterwards decide upon its use?

:To ban it would equally be to prejudge the issue.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what bodies he is consulting in preparation for the forthcoming General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations

I shall shortly be consulting representative bodies concerned with the production of, and trade in, food and agricultural commodities.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade has, I believe, already consulted trade associations, so will the right hon. Gentleman do everything he can to speed up this matter?

:This is because the industrial side of the G.A.T.T. meetings is going faster than the agricultural side, but we are keeping pace with them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conversations he has had with the inshore fishing industry about an extension of British fisheries limits

:Consultations with representatives of inshore fishermen were held before the opening of the European Fisheries Conference and further consultations are taking place today.

:Can my right hon. Friend say how many societies or organisations he consults when ascertaining the views of the inshore fishermen?

A tremendous number. A Press notice was put out on 5th November, giving them. I have their names with me, but I could not relate them all to my hon. Friend now. There are between 25 and 30 of them.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the unemployment figure, expressed as a percentage of the insured population, for the Bideford and Torrington Employment Exchange area at the last count; and if he will give both the current national average and the figure for the same area for the same month in 1962

5·7 per cent. at 9th December, 1963, and 4 per cent. at 10th December, 1962. The national rate for this month is not yet available but it was 2·1 per cent. in November.

:Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a very high figure? Is he aware that it is very nearly three times the national average? Could he tell me what he is doing to encourage or establish retraining or apprenticeship schemes in the whole of the North Devon area? This would be of the greatest benefit.

I take note of what my hon. Friend says and will give him full details in writing.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has made concerning the application of Mr. Denes Gyevi to remain in this country with his six year old daughter

:Mr. Gyevi arrived here with no visa, no valid travel document, and no Ministry of Labour permit. I am having inquiries made into his national status, and I cannot take a final decision until they are completed.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the position of the European stateless is worthy of special consideration? Whilst recognising that there must be some limit on the number of immigrants into the country and that travel documents must be in correct order, may I ask whether there is not in this instance a clear understanding that this man will not become a liability on the Exchequer and that there is also the consideration that his child was born in this country and, as I understand, the Hungarian authorities are prepared to allow his wife to join him the moment he becomes settled here? Since he has shown a clear preference for this country, could not special sympathy be shown towards his application?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I have said that I cannot take a final decision until I have further notice. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we cannot accept in this country every stateless person who arrives here with no documents. I am having further inquiries made.

Ts there not one difficulty which I hope my right hon. Friend will bear in mind? It is that this man may well be finding himself knocked around between one country and another, be- tween Hungary, Yugoslavia and this country simply because of his stateless position. Does my right hon. Friend not appreciate that this man was born in a sort of twilight zone between two countries which have changed hands on a number of occasions and that this makes it extremely difficult for him to prove his national identity? Can my right hon. Friend say how many cases like this have come before him?

I certainly cannot answer that last question without notice. My present information is that he was born and brought up in Yugoslavia, but I want further information before I can reach a decision.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would like to make a statement.

With one exception during the last war, a census of population has been taken every tenth year since 1801. The Government have decided that for the effective implementation of their policies there is a need for another census in 1966, after a period of only five years since the last one. At a time of rapid change and development, the traditional 10 years is too long to wait for the hard figures which only a census gives, and the Census Act, 1920, contains express powers to hold a census every five years, subject to the authority of Parliament.

The effective use of manpower, and the planning of land use, of housing, and of environmental, health and social services—all these must begin with the latest figures about the population both as it is now and as it will be in the future. A relatively small percentage migration into a populous area or a relatively small change in the make-up of its population may seriously affect the amount of land and the amount of money required for housing, schools, hospitals and other services.

The census will also be of value to users outside government—to those engaged in research in the social sciences, economics and medicine and to industry and trade. Account will be taken, as in the past, of these needs in deciding on the topics to be covered.

The Government have considered whether the census in 1966 need, for the purposes for which it is wanted, involve full coverage of every household in the country. They have concluded that it need not and that, with the exception of certain "special study" areas, a 10 per cent. sample census will suffice, and they have authorised the necessary preparations to be made. As a sample enumeration is novel to the United Kingdom there will be a test of the sampling procedures in the spring of next year. This will involve approaches to a few thousand householders will to co-operate.

A draft Order in Council directing that the census be taken and prescribing the particulars to be required from householders will be laid before the House in due course.

:May I welcome on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends what we think is probably a wise decision in the circumstances? Is it the view of those who advise the Minister that we shall now be likely to need an interim census every other five-year period, or is it thought that this may be a kind of once-and-for-all operation? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the value of the information derived from the census is proportional to the speed with which it can be made available? Whilst one realises that the processing of this information is necessarily a complex operation, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will do everything he can to expedite the analysis and publication of the results, which seem to have been rather sluggish on recent occasions?

Yes, Sir. I will try to answer the two points which the hon. Gentleman has raised. It is not for me to commit any future Government, but I should have thought it was likely that the experiment we are making now, which I feel confident will prove successful, will be adopted in the future. It is a remarkable fact that something like 10 per cent. of the whole population in this country moves to new addresses each year, and the basic reason why a ten-year period is too long is that information about occupations becomes hopelessly out of date and local population estimates made by Registrars-General become increasingly unreliable.

As for the second question, I hope that in this case we will be able to speed up somewhat the processing of the information. Last time was the first occasion on which we used an electronic computer for processing the data. We have now had that experience, and I hope that part of the information will be forthcoming a few months after the census is taken and that all the processing will be completed within two years.

:While agreeing with my right hon. Friend that it is an excellent thing to have a fresh census, may I ask whether he will see that the arrangements for the census this time are carried out rather more satisfactorily than they were on the last occasion? Can we be certain that householders will be given adequate notice before they are approached and that, unlike the last occasion, it is not left to the milkman to find out who is living in a house?

I will take note of the first point. On the latter point, I am informed that when the last census was taken in 1961 some people complained that they knew the enumerator and others complained that the enumerator was a stranger.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that, in the design of the census, results are so presented that it is possible to take samples quicker than once every five years in order to answer new problems which may arise for the Government with much less notice? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by taking into account and designating subject groups with large families or households containing only old people in the original design of the census it would be possible to answer problems in small groups of the community much more quickly?

I will bear that in mind.

:While welcoming the announcement that this census will be undertaken, with the Minister's assurance that the results will be made available more quickly this time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell us anything of the steps he is taking to ensure that the processing is faster than it has been in the past? What are the criteria to be used for the selection of the areas in which a 100 per cent. census will be taken? Could the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the largest changes in population are taking place on the periphery of Greater London where the strains on resources in respect of land, school building, and the other factors which he mentioned in his statement, are greatest?

With regard to the question of speed, we will get out the information as quickly as we can, but I am afraid that we cannot be very much quicker than on the previous occasion, because the really time-consuming jobs are the manual tasks of getting the data about people's occupations and where they work into a form which is suitable for the computer. We did that to only 10 per cent. of the people in 1961, so there will be no change there.

As to the question of special study areas, I am at present considering with my right hon. Friends which areas should be selected for 100 per cent. census, and I would rather wait until a little later to discuss the type of exceptional characteristics which we have in mind.

I beg to move,

That this House do now adjourn.

The reason for this debate being taken on the Motion for the Adjournment is to give hon. Members the opportunity to debate matters affecting security as well as those matters which arise directly out of Lord Denning's Report. I think it is the wish of the House, within the discretion which we must impose upon ourselves when we talk about the security of the State, that this debate should range fairly widely. In what I say I shall confine myself to certain aspects of Lord Denning's Report and, with an eye on the future in particular, to certain problems affecting the security of the State.

This is the first appropriate occasion on which the Government have been able to convey their thanks to Lord Denning, and in that I am sure I shall be joined by hon. Members in all quarters of the House. No one could possibly envy Lord Denning the task which he undertook, and I think few would feel that they could have done it as well as he. The main part of the Report is, of course, a narrative of events. The clarity with which the story has been written has been widely acclaimed, and, by setting out what happened in the gripping style which Lord Denning has used, he has carried conviction as to its truth.

It is only right, I think, in this complicated sequence of events which has been unfolded to say that the Report of Lord Denning does not depart in any particular from the long account given on 17th June to this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan). His speech then stands up to examination after the most exhaustive inquiries which have been made by Lord Denning. I think the House will probably feel that the narrative part of Lord Denning's Report requires little comment from me. It tells the unhappy tale. It gives all the facts and, although the behaviour of some of the main characters was frequently reprehensible and sometimes sordid, I think the House will agree that no good will come of raking over all that happened. Nor do I propose to moralise, but only to express the general relief and satisfaction which I think will be shared by the whole House that at last this great mass of scandalous rumour can be put behind us once and for all and dispelled. Part IV of the Report, I think, can enable us to put the whole of this unsavoury business right behind us.

Now, when we have Lord Denning's Report after a lapse of very many months, it is difficult to re-create in our minds the excitement of the affair at the time. Again, I think there will be general consent that I should not try to do so, other than to record that many on both sides of the House felt that if we did not stand out against the scandalous spate of rumour that was all around us, there was real danger that great damage might be done to the public life and institutions of this country, and that the damage would go far beyond those directly involved and those responsible for dealing with it.

Whatever criticisms may be directed at the conduct of events by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley, all will be grateful that he insisted that justice must be done and that justice must be seen to be done. In this context I think it is necessary that I should deal with some important passages in the Denning Report, and deal with them in rather more detail.

I refer in particular—because I think this is the most convenient point to which to refer—to paragraphs 285 and 286 of the Report dealing with Ministerial responsibility. If I may, although the passages are rather long, I should like to read the relevant portions of them to the House. Lord Denning says:

"Nevertheless, there are two matters which Parliament may wish to consider further:

(a) Did the Ministers ask themselves the proper question? They concentrated their attention on the matter of immorality. And the one question they asked themselves was whether Mr. Profumo had in fact committed adultery: whereas the proper question may have been: was his conduct, proved or admitted, such as to lead ordinary people reasonably to believe that he had committed adultery? If that were the proper question the answer was clear. His conduct was such as to lead to that belief. And no further inquiries would help."

He goes on in sub-paragraph (b) asking if inquiries ought to have been made, and then in paragraph 286 he says:

"Those are questions which I would not seek to answer. They are matters for Parliament and not for me. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the conduct of Mr. Profumo was such as to create, amongst an influential section of the people, a reasonable belief that he had committed adultery with such a woman in such circumstances as the case discloses. It was the responsibility of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and of them only, to deal with this situation: and they did not succeed in doing so."

For the sake of clarity I should like to make it clear that these passages which I have read do not relate to what is called the "late night meeting" of Ministers. The nature of that meeting has been widely misunderstood and I should like to correct those misunderstandings. It was not the purpose of that meeting and the Ministers at that meeting to cross-examine Mr. Profumo. That had been done on a number of occasions. Their primary task was, first of all, to find out if Mr. Profumo was prepared to make a statement and, if he was, to make sure that the statement fully answered the allegations which were known to have been made against him.

There have been suggestions that Ministers pressed him to agree to their draft. I have made inquiries and satisfied myself that this was not so. Their sole concern was to help him clear himself of those charges and see that the statement was in proper Parliamentary form. But this passage does apply to all the other meetings when Mr. Profumo was questioned by his colleagues. Naturally, therefore, I have read these extracts with the greatest care. I think that there are one or two points which I should make to the House.

Lord Denning does not here assert that the question he poses is the proper test. What he is doing is to put forward an analogy from the divorce law and to put it forward for consideration. The House will have noted from the quotation which I made that he does not judge the matter himself but says that these are proper matters for consideration by Parliament. I agree with that. In paragraph 286 Lord Denning concludes that the Prime Minister and his colleagues did not succeed in dealing with the matter. I call the attention of the House to what I think is the best commentary on paragraphs 285 and 286, which is to be found in paragraph 185. Lord Denning there says:

"I am sure that the Prime Minister and all the Ministers were satisfied of the truth of that statement. They could not conceive that any of their colleagues would have the effrontery to make a false statement to the House. The business of the country could not be carried on if a member of the Government could not accept the word of another implicitly."

My right hon. Friend, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will speak for himself; but that was the dilemma, as I understand it, which faced him and his colleagues. Lord Denning has said, in paragraph 285(b), that there seemed to be a risk in taking Mr. Profumo's word, but the House will remember what my right hon. Friend had to weigh. There was the solemn statement of Mr. Profumo to the House. There were the libel actions which he had instituted, one of which he had won. My right hon. Friend also had to weigh the appalling damage which would have been done to the public life of this country if a Minister had been publicly disgraced and had later been proved to be innocent. AH these factors must have weighed in my right hon. Friend's mind.

The analogy of a divorce court has been disputed. I do not think that I am competent to pronounce on that. But, in accepting Lord Denning's Report on behalf of the Government, as I do, I ask that paragraphs 285 and 286 be read alongside paragraph 185.

I am glad that Lord Denning gave an account of the working of the Security Service and, in particular, that he quoted in paragraph 238 what is known as the Maxwell-Fyfe directive. I think that this well repays study, and it illustrates how very easy it would be to cross the line between a free society and a police State. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of it are very wise when we are considering the shape of our security service. I shall read them to the House:

"4. It is essential that the Security Service should be kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence and nothing should be done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned with the interests of any particular section of the community, or with any other matter than the Defence of the Realm as a whole.

5. No enquiry is to be carried out on behalf of any Government Department unless you are satisfied that an important public interest bearing on the Defence of the Realm, as defined in paragraph 2, is at stake."

I think that that directive should be closely studied by everybody who is interested in the security of the nation.

I think, also, that the close co-operation which must exist between what Lord Denning called a comparatively small Security Service and the police makes it natural and right that the Minister to whom the head of the Security Service should be directly responsible should be the Home Secretary. He is the Minister who can most appropriately answer for the Security Service organisation in Parliament, although I must make clear that the Prime Minister must be ready to answer questions if he himself judges that they involve the security of the State. No Prime Minister will ever shirk that duty. Of that I am quite sure.

But, when all that has been done, no one can be complacent. The House has been warned many times of the constant pressure on our security system. This is likely, I am afraid, to continue for some time, because it is not likely that espionage will decrease at the same rate at which we hope that the cold war will evaporate. The attack is always directed against the most sensitive parts of the Government service, and it throws up particular problems. They are problems, of course, primarily for the Government of the day, but, nevertheless, the security of the State is to some extent the responsibility of all and they are, therefore, problems for the Opposition, for Parliament, and, indeed, for society as a whole. Any breach of security at any time rightly causes anxiety about whether there may be some defect in the organisation which is a proper matter for censure or whether there may be a case for reorganisation and change in the security services themselves.

Of course, in the beginning, espionage is a matter for the criminal law, and much that concerns it is inevitably secret; but, just because that is so and just because a great deal of a case, or at least some part of a case, heard in the courts may have to be heard in camera, this tends to bring about a residual anxiety about the extent of the damage which may be caused by any particular spy or about the efficiency of operation of the security system as a whole. It has been said over and over again that the catching of spies is prima facie ground for saying that the security system is effective, but I do not think that it is right that Ministers and Parliament should always have to take that on trust.

Therefore, my right hon. Friend, before me, and now I myself, have been considering whether there are any improvements which can be made in the machinery of inquiries and any improvements which might bring increasing confidence to Parliament and to the country. As far as the precedents go, there have been ad hoc inquiries of various kinds over past years, and there have been a number of inquiries which have used the formidable procedures of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. Since Lord Denning's Report, and in the light of it, there is probably now wide agreement that, in certain circumstances, nothing short of an inquiry under the 1921 Act will do. I think that that is certainly the conclusion on the recent debate in another place, the report of which hon. Members have probably read. But there is, equally, concern—all feel and share this concern—that, whenever a tribunal is set up, there is a danger that innocent reputations may be damaged.

It was, therefore, with these considerations in mind, and with the question in our minds as to how these matters which involve civil servants involved in a security case should be handled in Parliament, that my right hon. Friend a few months ago put before the House the idea that there might be a Standing Commission on Security. I have had time to think about this and I have had some conversations with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I must not anticipate his views, though what I shall say now I think can fairly be said to represent the gist of our private talks. I shall only outline the ideas to the House today, because I want to hear the debate and hear the contributions which hon. Members may make on this subject or, indeed, on any possible amendments of the 1921 Act. If we were to set up a Standing Security Commission, I think, first, that it should have a judicial chairman. Because it is concerned with the conduct and the effectiveness of the Government services, I think that it would be well to put on it one or two retired civil servants and one or two officers of the Armed Services experienced in security matters. If such a Commission was established, the Prime Minister of the day would decide whether in any particular case it should be asked to inquire into a particular matter, but before taking that decision he would consult the Leader of the Opposition.

The question would then arise as to what kind of powers the Security Commission might have. I would expect that the Commission would normally carry out its duties on Government instructions but that, if in a particular case the Commission's inquiries were not able to be effective without powers to compel evidence, then it would be right for Parliament to confer on it for the purposes of that particular inquiry the powers under the 1921 Act, which can be done by Resolution. The Commission would submit the results of its inquiries and any proposals that it might wish to make for improved machinery consequent upon its inquiries to the Prime Minister, who again at that point would consult the Leader of the Opposition, although it must be reserved for the Government of the day to decide what action, if any, should be taken.

I think that these proposals have some merits, although I have deliberately put forward only the framework today, in view of this debate. In matters relating to breaches of security by a member of the Civil Service, there would be machinery ready at hand to deal with them. In matters relating to a breach of security threatening the State, these arrangements would at each stage be discussed between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, thereby achieving something which I believe is of immense importance—an attempt, at any rate, to avoid these matters becoming matters of dispute between the parties in this House. A judicial chairman would give confidence that the inquiry was independent. The presence of senior officers, both from the Civil Service and from the Armed Forces with a knowledge of security would, I think, ensure that knowledge of these very complicated matters was available. The Commission would be advisory to the Prime Minister, so that in that way it would in no way supplant the courts, and it would preserve the ultimate responsibility in the hands of the Government of the day.

Would the Prime Minister say what standard of proof would be applied by such a Security Commission? The right hon. Gentleman will remember that this question gave Lord Denning considerable anxiety, whether the ordinary standard of proof which applies in a court of law should be applied, or whether the much lower standard of proof which is applied in inquiries into civil servants' conduct where security may be involved should be applied. The two things are vastly different.

I think this is an extremely difficult question. I should have thought that it would have to be left to the judicial chairman to advise in any particular case, and he would also have to advise the Prime Minister whether or not he wished the compulsory powers in the 1921 Act to be invoked.

As I have said, I have deliberately left a number of questions unanswered which will have to be much more closely considered, but if in principle the House is in favour of setting up a Standing Security Commission, the Government in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition could proceed to the necessary action.

Lord Denning's Report deals with the past. I believe that in all parts of the House, and certainly in the country, there is a great relief that all the rumours are dead and that public life can continue to be run—this is the only way in which public life can be run—on a basis of trust between the members of a Government and, if I may put it in this way, on a basis of trust between Government and Opposition. I have tried to make proposals which will help, and I think that this is also the country's desire, to see these matters of the security of the State taken as far as possible out of party politics. I hope, therefore, that today we shall find a large measure of agreement and act as a House in these matters which, after all, concern the security of the whole nation.

I think that the House would agree that that was a somewhat strange speech from the Prime Minister. Considering that only a very short time ago such great interest was being expressed by the Government and by Ministers in the Denning Report, it is a little surprising that the right hon. Gentleman should dismiss it in so few sentences this afternoon.

I fully agree with the Prime Minister's tribute to Lord Denning, as we would all do, for his integrity, his thoroughness, his devotion to the task which was given him by the Government, and, not least—because everyone has noticed this; the Prime Minister paid tribute to it—for his superb gift of clarity in expressing his conclusions. But after the Prime Minister had paid that tribute to Lord Denning he then proceeded to try to demolish those parts of the Denning Report which were critical of the Government So we have the situation that the Prime Minister is apparently prepared to accept the Report, apart from those parts which are critical.

After that, the Prime Minister went on to his proposals for a Security Commission, which I will come to in a few minutes, though I must say right away—I am sure the Prime Minister will agree—that what he has suggested here cannot be regarded as anything other than a long stop to deal with breakdowns in the system such as have occurred from time to time, and nothing that he has proposed this afternoon in any way derogates from the responsibility of the executive Government for adequately controlling the security services of this country.

It is true—to this extent I understand the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman—that, although it is only a few weeks since the Denning Report was published, in an atmosphere of salesmanship and ballyhoo such as never previously pervaded the environs of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, this debate now seems curiously remote from the events of last summer and last autumn. I am bound to say that it recalls to me the opening words of a chapter in a book which I hope we have all read called 1066 And All That, about the early Stuarts. We were told that the first thing that James I, who, it was said, had a tidy mind, did was to have Sir Walter Raleigh executed for having been left over from the previous reign.

I think that that is the spirit in which not only the Government side but hon. Members on both sides of the House will attempt to approach large parts of this Report, but, if this is our approach—and, like the right hon. Gentleman, none of us wants to rake over some of the embers which were stirred up in the summer—it is important that we should not thereby fail as a House to do our duty in probing deep shortcomings in the top direction of our security services, in expressing widespread anxieties—and nothing that the Prime Minister said in his speech did anything to dissipate those anxieties—about Government responsibility and in examining and seeking to remedy defects and weaknesses of system which we simply cannot afford to allow to persist.

In one sense, this debate is a continuation of the very serious and searching debate of 17th June, now six months ago, in that the Report throws a clear light on events which at that time were shaded from us by obscurity. However, before coming to the events, I should like to spend a little time on the question about which we were not in agreement in June, namely, the appropriateness of this kind of inquiry.

It is no reflection on Lord Denning, to whom both the right hon. Gentleman and myself have paid tribute, to say that an impossible and invidious task was placed on him and that never again must this House or any Government shuffle off their responsibilities by referring to a member of the judiciary a task which manifestly should have been performed by the Executive, or, in default of the Executive, by this House.

We recognise that the then Prime Minister, whom we are delighted to welcome back with us this afternoon, was in a desperate situation at the time that he set up the Denning Inquiry, with his authority almost fatally weakened on the eve of vital international talks with President Kennedy and at a time when not a single Parliamentary observer or, I suspect, Ministerial colleague was prepared to ensure his ten- ure of the Premiership for long enough even to take him into the calmer waters of the Parliamentary Recess. The need for the Prime Minister to lower the political temperature and win time was paramount, and the Denning Inquiry supplied the means.

When the then Prime Minister announced the inquiry, we argued that, where the Executive had failed to discharge its responsibilities to the nation by dealing firmly and crisply with a continuing security risk, the responsibility lay on this House, through the medium of a Select Committee composed of trusted members from both sides of the House, whether Privy Councillors or not, to get to the truth. We believed then, and we believe now, that a Select Committee would have had power to compel the truth, which it has, and to cross-examine. It would have had the advantage which Lord Denning had but which a 1921 Act tribunal would not have had, of doing its work privately without involving, perhaps, permanent damage on innocent individuals, and, indeed, on our public life.

The report of a Select Committee, I believe, would have been honest and full following an inquiry which would have been private and far removed from sensationalism. I think that such a report would have been unanimous, because I do not accept the view that a Select Committee would have failed in its duty to this House by sacrificing the search for truth to party considerations. To suggest that this would have been the case is, I think, a libel on hon. Members. I had the honour for more than three years to preside over one of our more honoured Select Committees which regularly had, and still has, to deal with matters of highly explosive political content but every member of which, without exception and on every occasion, has put his duty to the House above supposed party advantage. If that is true of one Select Committee, I am sure that it would have been just as true of any Select Committee.

There was, of course, the additional consideration that one of the central matters requiring examination was the circumstances in which five Members of this House, all of them Ministers, were concerned in the preparation or a personal statement to be made to this House, a statement which was, in the event, shown to be wrong and wholly misleading. In the exchanges on 21st June, when the then Prime Minister announced the setting up of the Denning Inquiry, I referred to this question, which is of direct relevance to the interests of this House. I said:

"This"—

that is, the personal statement—

"can only be settled by the House of Commons and not by a judge, however distinguished and however learned".—[Official Report, 21st June, 1963; Vol. 679, c. 802.]

In the event, three months later, Lord Denning, after the most searching inquiry and in one of his most critical passages which has been quoted by the Prime Minister, threw the whole responsibility right back to Parliament. He said:

"These are questions which I would not seek to answer. They are matters for Parliament and not for me."

As the Prime Minister said, Parliament is once again seized of these issues. But Parliament should never have been dis-seized of them by the establishment of this inquiry.

This recent practice of turning to the judiciary to probe matters which are properly the sphere of the Executive and, on a failure, or alleged failure, of the Executive, the responsibility of this House, is a relatively new development which is fraught with danger both in devaluing the rôle and standing of Parliament and in blurring the edge which marks the sharp definition of the functions of the judiciary, on the one hand, and the Executive and Legislature, on the other. Earlier administrations did not take this way out.

Hon. Members may have read the book Men and Power,1917–18 by the noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, referring to the Maurice debate of May, 1918, which followed allegations made in the Press by General Maurice that both Lloyd George and Bonar Law had made misleading statements about the Army in Parliament. Mr. Asquith demanded a Select Committee, and this matter went to the Cabinet. If the House will bear with me, I should like to quote from this book:

"The proposal"—

that was Asquith's proposal—

"to set up a Committee of the House of Commons had to be rejected. It was decided that the Government should invite two judges to act as a Court of Honour to enquire into the charge that mis-statements had been made. Later that day Bonar Law communicated the Government's intention to the House of Commons. The decision failed to satisfy Asquith. He intended to have the matter opened to discussion on the Floor of the House; he invited the Government to name a day for a debate. Churchill was sitting beside Bonar Law on the front bench. He heard the proposal for a Judicial Committee for the first time. He urged Bonar Law to withdraw the offer. Bonar Law made no answer. Later Churchill joined Lloyd George and Bonar Law in conference. He convinced them that a Minister should never ask a Judicial Committee to enquire into his own integrity. Churchill's intervention was decisive. The offer of a Judicial Committee was never renewed."

The book goes on to say that eight years later the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) wrote a letter to Lord Beaverbrook which is quoted in the Appendix. I will quote what the right hon. Gentleman said:

"All I recollect is being horrified to hear Bonar offer Asquith a judicial enquiry. I was with him on the bench and implored that this offer should be withdrawn. I think that I was the one who convinced both him and L.J. that same afternoon. It would have been a frightful trap, and no Government ought to put up a set of judges to say whether they are liars or not."

I believe that the right hon. Member for Woodford, in expressing that view nearly 40 years ago, was right. He stated the right constitutional doctrine, and it is this Government which devalued our standards of Ministerial responsibility to Parliament by departing from that doctrine. I say "this Government" and not just the former Prime Minister, because this was a Cabinet decision. Indeed, it was taken by the Cabinet. It was later reconfirmed by the Cabinet because, after we objected to the form of the inquiry proposed, the matter went back to the Cabinet and was reconfirmed by it.

I turn to the main theme of the debate and first to the form of it. After the reliance placed on the Denning Inquiry; after the uninhibited public interest stirred up at every stage; after the television ballyhoo—Lord Denning could not move an inch without being followed by the television cameras; after the Government's extraordinary decision to open Her Majesty's Stationery Office at 12,30 in the morning; in view of the fact that during all this period Parliament's right of intervention or debate was set aside because of the inquiry, after the clear recognition, which I think the House will accept, that the Government were saved from defeat and disintegration only by the decision to hold the inquiry—after all this, it is a remark able fact that the Government could not bring themselves to say that they accept the Report by a simple Motion asking the House so to resolve. The Government did not even put down a Motion to take note of the Report, because they feared that we should table an Amendment calling on the House to accept it and because the right hon. Gentleman felt that he could not lead his supporters into the Division Lobby either for or against that Motion.

The argument used both by the Prime Minister this afternoon and by the Leader of the House that an Adjournment debate was needed so that we could discuss the issues which we have had in the Prime Minister's speech will not bear the somewhat considerable weight that has been put upon it. If the idea of having an Adjournment debate was to permit the Prime Minister to adumbrate his ideas about the Security Commission, he could have done this on a Motion either to accept or to take note of the Denning Report, because it was on such a Motion in relation to the Radcliffe Report that the former Prime Minister first outlined the idea of a Security Commission.

The truth is that the Government dare not accept the Report, because it criticises the Government and, in particular, it criticises the five Ministers who met privily downstairs to concoct the statement that was made in the House—and three of those Ministers are still in the Administration.

I said quite clearly that we accepted the Report. My only reservation—which was not a reservation—was that those two paragraphs should be read together. We accept the Report.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he accepted the Report and then proceeded to try to demolish the only part of it that was critical of the Government—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister did not say that he accepted the two paragraphs that he read out. He spent a long time trying to show that they were nonsense. [An Hon. Member: "That is not what he said."] If the Prime Minister was prepared to accept the Report, why not give the House the chance to accept it?

I say this frankly to the Government. To employ a distinguished judge, to invoke his great distinction and learning as a means of postponing and evading Parliamentary criticism—this was done—and then, at the end of the day, to reject those parts of the Report which are inconvenient and embarrassing to the Government—