asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement of future Government policy for the preservation of the seal population and protection from extermination with special reference to the Fame Islands.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the culling of Farne Island seals and the shooting of seals in the Wash area.

I have nothing to add to the reply made to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Popplewell) on 26th November last about grey seals.

Common seals are not protected and my Department has no power to intervene in regard to those that were shot by private individuals in the Wash area. I will, however, look into the matter further and see whether there is anything that needs be done.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny the report that it has been the practice, and was intended to be the immediate practice here, to send people with humane killers, or alleged humane killers, to slaughter young female three-week-old seals up to a certain number which were being driven or moving across the shore to the sea? If that is the practice, will the Minister reconsider it? If the problem is overpopulation, will he consider the provision of a birth control pill for male Protestant seals? As an alternative, would he care to discuss the whole matter with his noble Friend the Great Seal?

I hope that my hon. Friend, who I see is wearing leather shoes, will realise the implications of his question. This has been a difficult operation. I understand how it was carried on previously, but I will carefully watch it. The Nature Conservancy, which advises on wild life population, supports this action.

While accepting the need for controlling the seal population, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider doing this as quickly and as humanely as possible? With regard to the common seal, is the Minister aware that there have been reports of wounded seals being washed up in the Wash area? Will he consider whether there is a case for prosecution for unnecessary cruelty to these animals?

Certainly, on the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, and, on the second part, I shall look into the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman try to make sure that effective research is continued into this matter, as the scientific evidence is very conflicting on the whole issue?

I am anxious to do that, and as a former member of the Nature Conservancy I appreciate what my hon. Friend said.

Is the Minister aware that this is a practice which causes concern in Scotland as well as in England? Will he ensure that the number of seals to be killed is based on better evidence than has so far been produced? The evidence that has so far been produced is largely from stake netters on salmon rivers, and is to some extent suspect. But, in so far as it has to be done, is the Minister satisfied that there is proper inspection so that the numbers killed are observed, and will he ensure, as far as possible, that when it must be done local people who can make use of the seal skins are employed on this job?

That is a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I will consult my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give an assurance that the cost to agriculture of the 15 per cent. surcharge will be fully taken into account in the next Price Review.

The purpose of the import charge is to reduce the volume of imports. Nevertheless, any increased costs will be taken fully into account at the next Price Review, along with all other relevant circumstances.

Does that mean that there will be full recoupment? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that since I tabled this Question there have been heavy additional charges for farmers in the shape of the Government's 7 per cent. Bank Rate, so that there really is something of a problem here for farm incomes?

My right hon. Friend will answer a later Question on the 7 per cent. Bank Rate, but, as I said, everything will be taken into account when the Review discussions take place.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a reply given by his right hon. Friend last week he said that raw materials, and particularly fertilisers, would not be affected by the surcharge? A lot of small fertiliser producers have to import some of their raw materials, and these are affected by the surcharge. If it is the Government's intention to keep the smaller producers of fertilisers in operation, will the Minister see whether the surcharge can be reduced on these commodities?

If they come into the question of increased costs, account will be taken of them.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the Committee on County Council Smallholdings.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on 25th November.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what month this report will be published? Is he aware that farmers' sons are experiencing increasing difficulty finding holdings of their own? What is the Government's policy to be on this matter?

I agree that there is a problem, but the Committee was set up by my predecessor and I am anxious to see that it expedites its report. As soon as the report is ready I will make an announcement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the increase in the stamp, and in the petrol duty, and the increase in what these small farmers will have to pay as a result of the Bank Rate, is placing a heavy burden on them. Will he take urgent action to help them in this respect?

The hon. Member knows that his supplementary question has nothing whatever to do with the main Question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the system of grants and subsidies to hill farmers with a view to rationalisation of the entire system.

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary announced on 10th November that such a review is to be carried out as a matter of urgency and he is already in touch with representatives of the interests concerned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he is likely to meet the representatives of the interests concerned?

Yes. As a first step, my Parliamentary Secretary will be meeting the Hill Farming Advisory Committee next week.

Will my right hon. Friend take cognisance of the fact that the real complaints which are reaching Members of Parliament are coming from the owners of hill dairy farms? Before the next Price Review, will he consider the possibility of their attaining parity with their neighbours in lowland areas?

During the review period I will always take into account any factor affecting their position.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for improving the system of cereal marketing.

As will be seen from the Order Paper, I have given notice of presentation for later today of the Cereals Marketing Bill. This is designed to give effect to the agreement reached with the farming and trade interests in September on a plan to set up a marketing organisation for home-grown cereals.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when these arrangements are likely to come into force?

I hope that after the relevant legislation has gone through the House the authority can be set up, ready for the next harvest, which will be in July, 1965.

Can the Minister tell us when the plans for cereal import boards, as set out in the Labour Party manifesto, are coming forward?

That has nothing to do with the Question. At this stage I am anxious to ensure that an agreed measure between the trade and the industry which will create orderly marketing for home-grown grain proceeds quickly and effectively. For this reason it is right and proper that a Bill of the kind to which I have referred should be presented during this Session.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what decisions he has now reached on the creation of a producer marketing board for cereals and a cereals commodity commission.

The responsibility for promoting a producer marketing scheme for cereals under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1958, rests with the producer interests. I have had no approach from them but, as the right hon. Member is aware, they were parties with the trade interests to the agreement reached in September on a plan to set up a marketing organisation for home-grown cereals. The Government are satisfied that this could make an effective contribution towards improved marketing arrangements and, as I have said earlier today, it will be seen from the Order Paper that I have given notice of presentation for later today of the Cereals Marketing Bill which is designed to give effect to it.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the election and before the election his party were constantly saying that they intended to set up a producer marketing board for cereals and a cereals commodity commission. Are we now to understand that he has jettisoned these doctrinaire ideas and is settling for the reasoned arrangement made by the last Government in consultation with all the interests concerned?

The right hon. Gentleman really must be his age occasionally. I hope that he will be much more responsible as shadow Minister of Agriculture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer the question. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well—Interruptionl.]—I am trying to answer the question—behave yourselves. Mr. Speaker, may I answer the question?

It is a good idea.

We are anxious to bring in this Bill which will give improved marketing, and we think that it is a right step to take. The concept of a commodity commission for imports is another matter, and we did not say specifically that we would introduce in this Parliament a producer board for cereals.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would take longer than six weeks to correct all the mistakes of his predecessor?

I think that at least six months would do very well.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a good deal of uncertainty both in industry and in the trade upon this, and that it would be most beneficial if the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to clear it up? He now says that he did not say specifically that either the commodity commission or the cereals marketing board would be introduced during this first Session, and will he now state specifically that it will not be?

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that during the election campaign I endorsed the decision to create an authority on the lines of the agreement which he concluded. I have acted with speed since I came into office, and I shall present a Bill today.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present percentage of imported fish meal on the home market; from which countries it comes; and what steps he will take to improve the market for home-produced fish meal.

In 1963, 79 per cent. of our fish meal supplies were imported. In order of importance, the main sources of imports were Peru, South West Africa, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and South Africa. 1 understand that supplies of home-produced fish meal are being readily taken up at present prices which are now higher than at any time since 1959. I see therefore no reason to intervene.

Is the hon. Member aware that I was informed, in a letter from the Scottish Office the other day, that the price paid at Norwegian ports for herring for oil and meal purposes was roughly 40s. a cran, which is higher than the price paid to our own fishermen in this country? Our fishermen are mystified by this discrimination. Can the Minister explain how the Norwegians still manage to export so much fish meal to this country?

If the hon. Member had really wanted an answer to his supplementary question he should have put down a Question on the subject. However, I can tell him a little. White fish enjoys a partial subsidy—and, as he knows, our herring industry is not dependent merely on fish meal for its income. In fact, it would prefer to sell its product to the consuming public. But fish meal plays an important part in respect of that part of the herring catch which cannot be sold for human consumption.

Does my hon. Friend realise that this imported fish meal competes adversely with home-produced fish meal in Scotland, thereby tending to create unemployment? Will he state what steps he is taking to avoid creating that unemployment?

I must tell my hon. and learned Friend that it does nothing of the kind. We sell all the fish meal that is being produced at present and, as one can see by looking at the market prices, it has no effect on the prices that our own people are getting.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will invite the British Sugar Corporation to consider the erection of a new sugar beet factory in the centre of Norfolk to cut down transport costs, which have become a cause of concern to farmers in this area.

No, Sir. There are already three factories in Norfolk, at Cantley, King's Lynn and Wissington. I am informed by the British Sugar Corporation that the capacity of these factories is adequate to deal with the beet grown in Norfolk.

Does the Minister agree that the provision of an additional factory would enable the campaign in East Anglia to finish before the worst of the weather came on, which would mean that a lot of beet which is now left on our farms in Norfolk would be able to get to the factory? In that case will the hon. Gentleman ask the Sugar Beet Corporation to investigate this matter again and report to him?

No. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that factory accommodation is quite adequate to meet all that the farmers care to supply. We cannot argue about who should lift it—that is a job for the farmer—but provided he lifts it and delivers it, factory accommodation is more than sufficient to meet requirements.

Is the Minister aware that many sugar beet growers in the south of England feel that those in East Anglia are jolly lucky to have as many factories as they have there? If there are to be more factories, should not priority be given to my part of the country?

That feeling is shared by other parts of the country.

Will the Minister say whether the existing factories have sufficient capacity to take all the sugar beet produced, including the increased acreage allowed by the previous Government?

Yes. The present factory accommodation can take what is produced, but if the situation should change we should have to reconsider it. At present, I repeat, factory accommodation is sufficient to take all that is produced.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the annual gross total of additional costs imposed on farmers as a result of wage increases and import duties; and whether he will take steps to recoup them for this loss in advance of the annual Price Review.

In a full year, the estimated additional cost on all products of increases in agricultural wages awarded in the United Kingdom since the 1964 Annual Review is about £16½ million. As regards the temporary import charge, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him by my hon. and learned Friend, the Financial Secretary, on 17th November. It is clear, however, that these cost increases are not sufficient to call for a special review under the terms of the agreement reached with the Farmers' Unions in 1956.

Is it not a fact that there used to be one Budget and one Price Review? If we are to have two Budgets, is it not reasonable that we should have two Price Reviews—or at least an interim payment to the farmers? Is it reasonable that farmers should be asked to lend money to the Government?

The hon. Member, who has been absent from the House for a long time, should be aware that in 1956 there was a White Paper on Long-term Assurances to Agriculture. I must keep intact the spirit of that White Paper and the existing legislation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no evidence as yet that many foreign countries will not reduce their prices to counteract the 15 per cent. surcharge, and that many of these questions are therefore based on a quite false assumption?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. Therefore, it is right and proper that when we come to the actual review we should consider every factor.

Would it be right, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said—namely, that the wage increase means an extra cost of £16½ million a year—that if, on top, we add the extra cost brought about first by the surcharge, secondly, by the Bank Rate and, thirdly, by the increase in the petrol tax, the increased cost to farmers in the coming year is likely to be well over £25 million?

The right hon. Gentleman is now indulging in speculation, and he knows it. He knows what the procedure is, namely, that all costs will be considered at the annual Price Review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make arrangements to reimburse farmers with the additional cost of petrol and diesel oil used on their farms.

Changes in the cost to farmers of petrol and diesel oil will be taken into account at the forthcoming Annual Review along with all other relevant circumstances.

Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary ensure when the Price Review is being considered that full note is taken of the fact that the small farmer, in particular, uses his motor car 90 per cent of the time as a piece of farm machinery and that it is vital to his interests? Will he also remember when the Price Review comes round that pennies added to prices here and there get through to the small farmer, who will have to pay much more in the months ahead because of increases in the prices of his raw materials?

I am not sure that I quite agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about the small farmer using his motor car for 90 per cent. of the time as a piece of farm machinery. However, we will take what he said into account.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring back the special young cow subsidy, to encourage the production of more calves for beef rearing.

Any question of re-introducing a special young cow subsidy would be for consideration at the Annual Review. I do not propose to anticipate the Review by commenting at this stage. The hon. Member may however be interested to know that the September 1964 census for England and Wales showed that there were 117,000 more calves under one year old than a year before. Some 60 per cent. of these were male calves which can certainly be expected to be reared for beef.

In view of that Answer, will the Minister make a statement about how he proposes to increase the number of calves to meet the undoubted shortage of beef which will occur later?

We can do a lot of things in 100 days, but producing a calf is not one of them. As I stated in my reply, this is a question for the Price Review, and any incentive would be given then. I cannot possibly anticipate the Review.

We appreciate perfectly that we cannot expect the hon. Gentleman to produce a calf in 100 days. Is he aware that, nevertheless, we do expect him to indicate whether he wishes to see calves produced at a greater rate in the future and if he does whether he is going to take action to bring that about?

Naturally, we know that we could do with more beef in the country. We have been on the job only a month and if the right hon. Gentleman will give us time, we will give him an answer to his question.

asked the Minisster of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now authorise the Northern Ireland Government to pay from the funds which they hold the deficiency payment due to farmers who have registered as potato growers in the 1960 season.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make payments to the Ulster potato growers for the 1960 crop on the lines suggested by the Ulster Farmers' Union.

The United Kingdom Agricultural Ministers are now re-examining this long-standing question of the disposal of the 1960 potato deficiency money. A decision will be reached as soon as possible.

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to remember the importance of making a decision on this point before the farmers draw up their crop plan for next year? Is he aware that this has caused a great deal of doubt among potato growers in Northern Ireland?

As a potato grower I can tell the hon. Member that I have sympathy with the thought that there is money due to potato growers at a future date. This has been a longstanding grievance from 1960 and in considering it, notice will be taken of the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Will the hon Gentleman realise that these growers feel a strong sense of grievance about this matter? Will he consider that very carefully? Is he also aware that hon. Members who represent constituencies in Ulster have been pressing his Department for a long time about this and that they will continue to do so until there is some satisfactory result?

If I remember rightly, the hon. and learned Gentleman had very close access to the powers that be in the last Parliament. If he could not do it in four years, he cannot expect us to do it in a month. I will bear in mind what he has said.

Can the hon. Member say what would be the average benefit to each grower if this payment were obtained?

I could not do so without notice.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation to prohibit the shipment of horned cattle.

No, Sir. The Orders governing the transport of cattle by sea are adequate to secure that horned cattle shipped from Great Britain travel without damage or injury.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent prohibition on the shipment of horned cattle introduced by the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture, and is not he prepared to follow a similar enlightened course of action?

We think there are sufficient safeguards in the restrictions which we have made, such as the tying up of cattle and so on. Of course, dehorning cattle is an important thing to do and I am amazed at how few farmers take advantage of this operation. I had experience 25 years ago of dehorning a herd of Ayrshire cows which were very wild with each other, and in little more than a week's time after being dehorned they were quite mild. That is one of the greatest lessons which I have had in favour of the argument for dehorning.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for improving the marketing of meat.

I have been examining, in the light of the views expressed by the interested parties, the various proposals made by the Verdon Smith Committee and others. I have not reached any final conclusions yet and I shall not do so until I have had an opportunity for discussions with the main interests concerned.

In his progress towards a conclusion can the Minister assure us that he does not share the blind conviction of some of his colleagues of the need for a commodity commission with full trading powers? In the interval while he is awaiting agreement, could not he initiate action on some of the recommendations of the Verdon Smith Committee which are non-controversial, in particular the improvement of marketing intelligence? Cannot he institute for meat a similar series of Ministerial statements on market intelligence—bearing in mind supply, demand and prices—as was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Soames) in the case of cereals?

The hon. Member knows full well that the concept of a commodity commission which I advocated and which was advocated by my colleagues, who are enlightened, was to phase imports with home production. The Verdon Smith Committee did not make a survey of the international aspects of meat marketing. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Verdon Smith Committee's Report again, he will see that I am right and that my hon. Friends were right. Added to that, the Verdon Smith Committee concentrated on the marketing of home supplies. I would only repeat what I have said, that in the short period that I have been at the Ministry I have already initiated discussions, and I hope that I shall take a much shorter time than his right hon. Friend in coming to a conclusion.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will not find in the Report of the Verdon Smith Committee support for the setting up of a commodity commission? That is the first point. The second point is, will he tell us whether he is intending to introduce legislation during this Session for the marketing of home-produced meat in the same way, as he has said, that he intends to do in relation to marketing arrangements for cereals for which a Bill is coming forward today?

The right hon. Gentleman should know if he has read the Verdon Smith Committee's Report that the Committee did not deal with the international aspects. The commodity commission proposed by the Labour Party when in opposition, and which I myself advocated, was essentially to deal with imports. The Verdon Smith Committee's Report deals with home supplies, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well. Because this is a very difficult matter I have initiated discussions and we are at this stage examining the implications of the Verdon Smith Committee's Report and consulting all the interests concerned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in regard to controlling the price of milk; and if he will make a statement.

I have no present proposals for modifying the existing system of control.

Is the Minister aware that I have received complaints from pensioners to the effect that, according to Press reports, the price of milk could go up by 5d. a pint this year? Can he say whether existing legislation could prevent such an increase in the price of milk which would bear hardly on many sections of the community?

In my statement yesterday to farmers, very responsible farmers, I said that the price of milk would not go up this winter. I think that any report in the Press about a rise of 5d. is an exaggeration.

Does not the Minister think that an industrial worker, who earns about £16 a week, ought to pay the proper price for his milk, so that the agricultural worker, who is paid less, can get a better wage for producing it? Why should the industrial worker expect the farm worker to subsidise his food?

I think it would be very wrong to try to divide the rural worker against the industrial worker. I have always found that the industrial worker would like to see the rural worker get an adequate return for what he gives. All factors concerning the price of milk will, as I have repeated so often, be considered at the Annual Price Review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the rate at which farmers are going out of milk production, what proposals he has for improving profit margins to farmers in the industry.

The net income of milk producers will be taken into account at the coming Annual Review. I cannot, of course, anticipate the outcome.

Is the Minister aware that in the first three months of this year almost 1,700 milk producers went out of production and that unless the right hon. Gentleman takes steps to reverse this trend there will, in due course, be a serious shortage of milk?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that even from 1954 to 1964 the number of milk producers who went out of production totalled 28 per cent. I was not responsible for that.

Whence comes all this new-found sympathy for the small farmer and small milk producer?

Order. It is not necessary for the Minister to answer a question of that description. I do not think that the Minister has responsibility for it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many head of beef cattle were exported from East Anglian ports and airports during the period January to September, 1964; what was the total value; and what were the comparative figures for the first nine months of 1963.

In the period January-September, 1963, nearly 13,000 head of cattle for slaughter worth £880,000 were exported from Boston, Great Yarmouth and Harwich. About 75,000 head worth nearly £5·3 million were exported in the first nine months of this year. Separate figures for East Anglian airports are not available but exports of cattle from all airports have been insignificant.

Is my hon. Friend aware, in view of the great importance of home beef production for home consumption, that the position in regard to the export of beef cattle should be carefully watched?

I agree, but I should point out to my hon. Friend that these exports have fallen by about half since the high peak period of May and June this year.

Since the Joint Parliamentary Secretary pressed me earlier in the year to take some action to inhibit the export of beef cattle from this country, will he give an assurance that he does not intend to do so now that he is in power?

No, Sir. I will not give such an assurance. If this will make any great difference to our meat supplies we will certainly take some action.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report from the committee appointed on 20th June last to examine the conditions in which livestock are kept under systems of intensive husbandry and to advise on standards in the interests of their welfare.

There is nothing I can add to the replies I gave on 25th November. I am hopeful that this report will be completed by next summer.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect—as I am sure he must —that earlier today the House manifested its concern over the methods of slaughtering seals? Does he realise that there is equally widespread concern about the methods by which domestic animals are reared and slaughtered on intensive farms, to which this Question refers? Does my right hon. Friend also realise that the committee mentioned in the Question was appointed on 20th June last, so could he not encourage its members, in view of the urgency of this problem, to try to report a little earlier than next summer?

As I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, this committee is a very important one and has a big job to do. I am anxious that its report should be full. We must, therefore, give the committee an opportunity to make a proper investigation.

Will its report be published?

I would think so, but obviously I must make that decision when I receive it.

Will the Minister bear in mind—and I think that he has given an undertaking to this effect—that there are many sides to this problem and many new methods of farming which are not necessarily against the interests of animals? Of course we are all animal lovers—[Interruption.] Of course we are.

Animal lovers?

Yes. Most hon. Members are animal lovers. Nevertheless, this committee must study new methods which are entering all forms of production.

That is precisely what the committee will do.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring in legislation prohibiting the use of tractors on slopes steeper than a determined safety gradient.

No, Sir. There are a number of other factors besides gradient, such as soil and weather conditions, which influence the liability of tractors to accidents in hilly country. The best way of preventing such accidents is careful driving with knowledge of the hazards involved, and this is something which my Department does its best to drive home by advisory action including films, posters and leaflets.

Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary take into account the fact that the number of deaths and serious accidents involving tractors is increasing, particularly in the South-West? Might it not be possible for legislation to be introduced, possibly to ensure the fitting of safety cabins or roll-over bars to tractors? Since this is a very real problem, will the hon. Gentleman consider it seriously?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we appreciate the seriousness of the position. We do not think that legislation along the line suggested in the Question would be effective. However, considerable thought is being given to the question of safety cabins and I think that we have power to take by Order the sort of action the hon. Gentleman describes in his supplementary question if such a recommendation were considered to be the correct one.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that many of the deaths and accidents involving tractors on slopes have occurred to employees under the age of 18? Could the problem be looked at in the light of some possible prohibition on teen-age farm employees driving tractors instead of qualified men?

I do not have the accident figures for the different age groups, but since my hon. Friend has raised that point I will certainly look into it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount of eggs imported into this country on the latest convenient date; and what percentage this is of the total United Kingdom requirements.

In the first 10 months of this year, 233 million shell eggs were imported, representing 1·8 per cent. of total supplies for the period.

Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say what percentage of these went to the shell egg market and what percentage to the liquid egg market?

About 9,100 tons of egg products were imported in the first 10 months of this year, 13,800 tons in the same 10 months of 1963 and 15,600 tons in the same months of 1962. I do not have the exact figures of how much of the shell imports went into the shell market and how much went to the liquid market, but I will find out and let the hon. Gentleman know.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the large amount of shell eggs produced in this country, there is now a case to prohibit the importation of shell eggs?

No. I do not think so. I suggest that the figures I gave in my original Answer prove that there is no need for that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Poultry and Egg Producers' Association on the low prices for eggs.

None, Sir.

Is not that reply rather surprising, as the right hon. Gentleman was president of the Association until six weeks ago? Is it not the fact that the subsidy for eggs is now at a rate of about £30 million, and that egg prices are lower than they have been for many years? What does the Minister intend to do about it?

The reply may well be surprising, but it is correct. The job previously filled by my right hon. Friend is not likely to be rushed for by ex-Ministers, as there is no salary attached to it.

Will the Minister, sooner or later, give us some policy on eggs? Will he say whether there are too many eggs, or too few? I think there are too many, but a great many of my constituents are continuing to produce more eggs. I think that they should be advised whether or not to go on with this expansion.

It does cause some concern, and conversations will take place between the Association and my Department. Of course, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, such conversations will take place, in any case, before the Annual Price Review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what undertakings have been given by the Government of the Republic of Eire with regard to the non-re-exportation of live animals, imported from the United Kingdom, to those foreign countries to which the exportation of live animals from the United Kingdom is forbidden.

None. The export of live animals for slaughter from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic is not subject to control except that, when it is known that such animals are destined for shipment to another country the same control is applied as if they were to be shipped direct to that country. The export of live animals for slaughter from Great Britain to the Republic is not at present permitted.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is satisfied with the undertaking he has received about transfer to other countries? May not this be used as a backdoor method of getting live exports from the United Kingdom to countries which do not comply with the satisfactory conditions of slaughtering?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has been dealing with questions concerning the Republic of Ireland which affect Northern Ireland. I am prepared to consult the Home Secretary with a view to discussing the matter with the Government of Northern Ireland. On the wider issue of the Balfour assurances, it may be that this is the sort of matter about which we could have action in the Council of Europe.

asked the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food why the routine visits of milk officers to registered dairy farmers are to be made in future without prior appointment with the farmer concerned.

Unannounced routine visits by milk officers are not new and are often unavoidable owing to the need for economy and efficiency. The officer normally calls on the farmer or his representative before making an inspection. The hon. Member may have in mind instructions given locally requiring follow-up visits to be made without notice only after the milk producer has been advised at an earlier visit that this may be done. These instructions are intended to save time and transport without discourtesy.

Is not the Minister aware that many farmers regard this as an unnecessary duplication, as their milk is inspected and their premises are inspected—often, in the case of the producer retailer, by two authorities independently?

I do not think so. My own experience, and that of other farmers, is that there is a considerable amount of good will between the milk officers and the farming community, because the farming community know what those officers are there to do. So far, we have not found anything of the kind to which the hon. Member refers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the future of Channel Islands milk.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations have been made to him about the shortage of Channel Islands milk; and what action he is taking to encourage the increased production of this quality milk.

The industry have represented that the maximum retail price of Channel Islands milk should be increased so as to improve their remuneration and thus encourage further production. I am considering the application as a matter of urgency and shall make a further statement as soon as possible.

Would not the Minister agree that a case has been made out for the Channel Islands milk producers to have an increase, and would he not support the recommendation of the Thorold Committee that Channel Islands milk should be freed from control?

The hon. Member knows that we are to have full discussions. Until I have had those discussions I cannot come to any conclusion. When I have come to a conclusion, I shall make an announcement.

Was there not a leak into the newspapers last week, emanating from the right hon. Gentleman's Department, to the effect that he would turn down a recommendation to free Channel Islands milk from control? If the Minister has changed his mind, why did it take him six weeks to make up his mind in the first place?

The hon. Member has no right to make an accusation against my Department or officials—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I would ask the hon. Member to substantiate his statement, when I will be delighted to hear his evidence, but he has no right to impugn the Civil Service.

Order. We cannot do this at Question Time.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, will he not, that all these representations had been listened to, and that a decision had been taken by the previous Government to free the price of Channel Islands milk, subject to the approval of Parliament? If the right hon. Gentleman has not accepted that view, will he say why he has not accepted it? We would like him to know that we are glad that at last this Government are starting to enter into discussions before taking decisions, so some progress is being made there.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that in reply to a Parliamentary Question last week I gave an assurance that I would consult. I have often stated that I would consult. I will honour that assurance, and I will wait until I have had my discussions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that the quality of British meat could be improved by better methods of handling; and what steps he is taking to achieve this improvement.

We are aware that the quality of meat reaching the consumer can be affected by the handling it has received at all stages, from the pre-slaughter treatment of the animal until the meat is cooked. Steps to improve methods of handling are primarily a matter for the trade itself, but my right hon. Friend is considering, as part of his general examination of fatstock and meat marketing, whether there is anything the Government could do to improve handling methods.

The problems of handling meat are among the subjects on which research will be undertaken by the Meat Research Intitute, which is to be established by the Agricultural Research Council. In the meantime, research on these problems is being undertaken by the Low Temperature Research Station at Cambridge.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Verdon Smith Report called attention to the fact that much carcase meat is hung for only about five days, and that the optimum period, in hygienic conditions, is about twenty-one days in order to get the maximum benefit of cleanliness and flavour? Will he take that point into account in the review; and see what steps can be taken to encourage the distributors and the butchering trade to hang the meat longer, in the interests of taste and tenderness for the consumer?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point very well. Well-hung meat is half the battle in regard to quality, but he will realise that many small butchers find difficulty in keeping the meat for so long. But we will certainly keep that point in mind.

Is the Minister aware that the delay in regard to this part of the Verdon Smith Report is causing uncertainty in the industry? Would he give an undertaking that the Government will decide on a course of action before the next Price Review?

I think that my right hon. Friend replied to that question before the hon. Member came into the Chamber.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is to be the home producers' share of the bacon market under the market sharing agreement for the coming year; what this represents in tonnage of bacon; and how this compares with the figure for the current year.

There will be no change for 1965–66 in the basis on which shares under the Bacon Understanding are formally allocated. We have taken the view, as have other parties to the Understanding, that there has been insufficient experience of its operation to justify a change at this time. What this will represent for the home producer in terms of minimum tonnage cannot yet be stated, because the minimum total quantity has yet to be decided. Moreover, the opportunity to meet demand in excess of the minimum quantity may arise next year, as it has been doing so far this year, through allocations from the reserve.

Is the Minister aware that his reply will cause great disappointment amongst home bacon producers? Is he further aware that when he spoke from this side of the Chamber he gave the impression that he would do everything he could to expand home production, and is not this answer in direct contradiction to what he then said?

The hon. Gentleman knows that what he says does not meet the facts. As I have stated, the minimum total quantity has yet to be decided,

Is not the Minister aware that there was specifically provided in the agreement a provision that at the Review we would be able to alter the home producer's share of the market upwards? Is he not further aware that as our pig production is rising it would be highly satisfactory if we could get a greater share of the marker? Is it not the fact that the imposition of the 15 per cent. Surcharge made relationships between Her Majesty's Government and the Danish Government so difficult that it has inhibited him from altering the rate?

I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The imposition of the surcharge has nothing to do with this at all. I felt, and I think that he, too, would feel, that in regard to the agreement we concluded, as it had been running only for a period of seven months, the evidence showed conclusively that the percentage he negotiated was, perhaps, satisfactory in the circumstances. We can look at it again later, but I am anxious to make a decision on the minimum total quantity.

Is the Minister aware that there have been wide reports that about 8 per cent. of the total home market in bacon is supplied by Poland; and that this has caused considerable dissatisfaction to home producers, particularly as Poland is not one of the E.F.T.A. countries, or a Commonwealth country?

We are here dealing with a bacon-sharing agreement that was negotiated by my predecessor, and which I supported in principle. I think that it is a right agreement, but we will always consider any factor that may affect home production.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the extra cost to the agricultural and horticultural industries of the recent rise in the Bank Rate.

About £5¼ million on credit supplied by the banks and hire purchase companies for current farming purposes. No estimate is yet possible for the cost of any increases in the charges for credit supplied by agricultural merchants since it is not yet clear to what extent the merchants will raise their charges.

In view of the fact that one of the first actions of this Government was to increase the price of money to this extent to the farmers, is he aware that during the General Election he wrote an article in one of the farming papers where he told the agricultural industry that he would create a new agricultural credit organisation, backed by the Treasury, to provide farmers with credit at reasonable rates of interest? Does this mean that he intends to ensure that the agricultural industry does not have to pay the full 7 per cent. Bank Rate?

No, not at all. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has read my excellent article. Indeed, it may well be that at a later date we shall certainly complete our election programme. [Interruption.] Why not?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the estimated effect of the 7 per cent. Bank Rate on the fishing industry in general and on the White Fish Authority loans in particular.

The fishing industry will already be paying higher interest rates on bank loans and overdrafts. It is too early to say yet what the effect will be on the rate charged on their longer term commercial loans or on further loan monies from the White Fish Authority. There will be no increase in the interest rates on monies already on loan from the White Fish Authority.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that this will be a considerable increased burden on the industry and bear in mind that there is no annual price review for the fishing industry? Would he also bear this in mind when renegotiating grants and loans schemes next year?

The hon. Gentleman was party to his Government's legislation which meant a diminishing subsidy each year under the Act made by his own Government.

While being grateful to the White Fish Authority for the generous treatment it has given to the small trawler owners in the past, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to give an undertaking that the stringency of money will not cause the Authority to make more stringent repayment of the loans that already exist?

So far as these applications are concerned, the White Fish Authority will deal with them very sympathetically as it has done in the past.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to introduce a scheme to eradicate brucellosis; how long he anticipates it will take to complete; and what would be the cost of the scheme.

My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to make a statement on this matter after considering the results of the recent brucellosis survey due to be published shortly and of further studies which are being undertaken by the Department.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that his right hon. Friend said in June this year that we cannot delay this any longer? We are now far behind any other country in Western Europe in dealing with this matter. We cannot go on waiting for further reports; we must get on with this.

I think that the House knows of the interest which the hon. Member has taken in this and the excellent debate which he initiated in June this year, but I think that it would be invidious of us not to take careful note of the study group which his right hon. Friend appointed at the end of June, and discourteous not to await its report before we take action.

Would the hon. Gentleman consider starting a pilot scheme for the eradication of brucellosis in Wales as was so successfully done in the case of the eradication of tuberculosis?

I will certainly put that to my right hon. Friend to consider.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made with a minimum price scheme for fish.

I expect to have a progress report from the White Fish Authority in the very near future and I can say nothing until I have received this.

While we all hope that this scheme will come about and bring greater stability to the fishing industry, can the hon. Gentleman say, on the negotiations so far achieved, whether, so far as the consumer is concerned, the prices of fish on average will go up or be lower?

I am not carrying out these negotiations. This is a matter that must be left to the White Fish Authority and the people concerned. When I receive its Report, I can reach a conclusion on it.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary make representations to the White Fish Authority that there is concern among many consumers as to whether the scheme will in fact mean higher prices for fish, and that it is most important to safeguard against this, as the Government have done so much already to increase the cost of living?

I think that the hon. Lady had better make up her mind which way she wants to deal with it, whether to maintain the industry, or the merchant or the consumer. My responsibilities cover all three, and the interests of the consumer will be no less safeguarded than other parts of the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent mechanical potato harvesters are now used to harvest the potato crop; and what steps he will take to encourage their use.

The agricultural machinery censuses in England and Wales in December, 1963, and in Scotland in February, 1964, showed 4,054 complete harvesters as compared with 2,607 three years previously. The advisory services will continue to inform farmers on the range of machines available and their potentialities, and to co-operate with the Potato Marketing Board in its annual demonstrations. Research on various aspects of mechanised potato harvesting is continuing at the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering and its Scottish Station.

Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that it is just as necessary to have mechanical potato harvesters as it is to have supersonic aircraft? Will he do his best to convince the new Minister of Technology that machines of this kind are likely to ease the back-aching work undertaken by children who are employed in harvesting in many parts of the country?

The part about supersonic aircraft is out of order.

I have to admit that I am in favour of potato harvesters. I agree with my hon. Friend about the hack-aching business of gathering potatoes, as I have done a lot of it myself.

Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that the Perthshire education authority still releases many children from school to lift potatoes? Will my hon. Friend take this matter up with the Leader of the Opposition and ask him to exert some influence with his county council in the installation of potato harvesters so that children are not denied education in order to pick potatoes?

I think that is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.