asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the proportionately lower prices received for winter-yarded cattle sold in April as compared with grass-fed cattle sold in July, due to the changes in the seasonal scale of standard prices, he will take action to remedy the situation.

For several years cattle marketings in April have tended to be much heavier than in July and market prices have been lower. The changes in the seasonal scale, which were foreshadowed at the 1964 Review, were made to encourage a better spread of marketings over the year and I see no reason to alter them.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that yarded cattle are extremely expensive to produce, and that even before this alteration they left very little margin of profitability? Does he not feel that the only way to produce more beef is to give higher guaranteed prices, nearer to those being maintained on the Continent at present?

The standard price is still higher in April than in July, although the differential has been narrowed. The higher costs for winter-yarded cattle as opposed to grass-fed cattle are still reflected in the guaranteed price. I would once more remind the hon. Gentleman that full notice of the proposed changes was given a year ago.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet agreed to a system of reserve prices for fish; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now introduce a minimum pricing scheme for white fish.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for a statutory minimum prices scheme for white fish.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) on 26th May.

Does not the Parliamentary Secretary realise that there has now been considerable delay in the introduction of this scheme, and that there is a great deal of unanimity in the industry about its desirability? Will he seek to bring it in as quickly as possible?

Yes, Sir. We will bring it in as soon as possible, and negotiations are still going on.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Treasury has intervened to tell him that he cannot introduce this scheme? Could he come clean about this? The discussion has been going on for a very long time, and there is really no reason why it should not have ceased by now.

Cleanliness is not in question. As I say, the negotiations are going on. If it interests the hon. Gentleman, I will be having a further meeting next week.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we look forward to a debate on this subject, and allied subjects, and that I hope that he will represent to the Leader of the House that it must be before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

As no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman, that is a matter for the Leader of the House, but certain Orders will have to be laid, and a debate will take place.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential to reach a decision on this matter before the industry puts its case in the Restrictive Practices Court, and does not that severely limit the time he has to consider the matter? Will he guarantee to make a statement before the end of the Session?

Of course, the question of price fixing will come before the Restrictive Practices Court, but it will be for the Government to make their decision on this issue as soon as they possibly can.

Whatever decision the Minister takes, will he bear in mind the need to increase consumption of fish at home? Without a guaranteed home market, the deep sea fishing fleets of ports like Hull will not flourish.

Fish consumption is increasing and, of course, it will always be our endeavour to see that it keeps on increasing.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the price per gallon currently paid to Dorset farmers for milk; and whether he will increase it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the price now being paid for milk to farmers in Wales; and whether he will increase the price.

The price payable to Dorset milk producers for June is 27·86d. per gallon. For producers in North Wales, it is 27·65d.; in South Wales, 27·61d.; and in Monmouthshire, 27·94d. The prescription of regional monthly producers' prices is a matter for the Milk Marketing Board.

Will the hon. Gentleman use his influence to see that this price is increased? Is it not a fact that 40 per cent. of the small farmers earn less than £12 a week and that although a 1d. or 2d. on a gallon would make an immense difference to farmers, the difference in the cost of living would be only marginal?

We want to encourage farmers, and these figures show that they are getting a full 1d. extra, but these prices are fixed for areas by the Milk Marketing Board. I think that the hon. Member would be resentful if the Government attempted to interfere with that procedure.

Is the Minister aware that in Dorset, this traditional dairy county, at these prices dairies are still closing, particularly those associated with small farmers?

All I say in reply to that is that milk production continues to increase.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been here all the time and Question No. 56 is in my name.

I am very sorry, but I still find it desirable to maintain the rule I laid down until the House discusses this problem of Questions.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for visiting the farming areas of West Suffolk.

I or my Parliamentary Secretaries are hoping to have visited every county agricultural executive committee and seen something of each county including West Suffolk by the end of the autumn.

Is the Minister aware that his Answer will be greeted with satisfaction in West Suffolk and that, although he ran into a boycott in East Suffolk, we are prepared to guarantee his safe conduct if he comes to West Suffolk? Will he face the fact that many farmers in West Suffolk are planning on the assumption of his Price Review costing a net reduction in income of £2 an acre and that if he comes to West Suffolk he will have to answer a very large number of questions?

I am always anxious to meet farmers, as I have repeatedly said. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary addressed the National Farmers' Union at Ipswich on 12th January this year. I am anxious to get round the country and I have done so. No one can say that I am afraid to meet farmers. If the hon. Member will give me the support he said he would give, I will welcome it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how far the rise in the cost of pig food has affected the cost of pig production; whether he is satisfied with the present profit margins of pig keeping; and if he will make a statement.

The feed formula arrangements under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme provide for the guaranteed price to be adjusted automatically as feed costs change. The cost of the basic feed ration has been increasing, but under the feed formula arrangements, compensating increases in the guaranteed price have been made during the current fatstock year totalling 1s. per score.

Does the Minister realise the serious position in which small pig keepers are at the moment and that it is virtually impossible to make a profit out of pig keeping? Does he realise that this is hurting the small farmer who has been hurt in poultry keeping and now is hurt in pig keeping? Will the Minister look at this matter, particularly the questions of imports of pork meat and feed costs?

As the hon. Member knows full well, the system of flexible guarantees has been approved by the industry. He must not complain that it works. In the 1965 Price Review we raised the middle band from 11¾ million to 12·8 million. It should also be remembered that the total subsidy for pigs last year was over £30 million. The purpose of the flexible guarantee is to prevent overproduction which would be bad for the country.

Does not the Minister agree that the feed formula is out of date and needs revising? Will he agree that many pig producers are finding it extremely difficult to make a living? Will he take extraordinary steps to deal with this problem and to see what can be done to increase productivity?

As a former Minister the hon. Member will know that it was agreed that there should be a review at a certain date. We shall do that and honour the agreement; it is right that we should have a proper feed formula and a flexible system. Certainly we shall look at this and I always said that we would.

In considering all these demands for higher prices for farmers, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the interests of consumers?

Naturally I always bear those in mind; inevitably when considering an industry we have to bear in mind the production needed to meet demand, and we do this.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what official proposals were made to him by the Devon farmers during his visit to the Devon County Agricultural Show; and what action he is taking upon them.

None, Sir. I visited the National Farmers' Union tent at the Devon County Agricultural Show quite informally, and had a short and pleasant chat with the county chairman and some of the members.

While I am not allowed to disagree with the Minister, may I ask a question, as I think he was wrong on that? Did it not really reveal the genuine fears and dismay of the farming community in the South-West, and, to say the least, is not the situation explosive? Before the next Price Review, will the right hon. Gentleman think very carefully before he and the Socialist Party make such promises again to the farming community?

As the hon. Member knows, my Price Review has been regarded as a very sensible and realistic review. As to my attendance at the Devon show, I have an impartial observer, John Winter of the Daily Mail who said:

"Hostile 'Hello' Ends with a Round of Beer. Mr. Peart in the Lions' Den."

Does the Minister agree that, although Devon farmers are somewhat robust by tradition, they are politically very broad-minded? Would he not agree that perhaps one of the most serious indictments they have brought against the right hon. Gentleman is that his last Price Review appears to have inherited all the restrictionist tendencies of the previous Tory Administration?

I recognise that Devon farmers have a measure of political sophistication, but unfortunately they still return too many Conservative Members. However, I recognise that there are problems there. I hope very soon to be making a major announcement on long-term policy which I hope will benefit very much many small farmers all over the country, including Devon.

Does the Minister remember the promises made by himself and the Prime Minister when the Devonshire farmers came to London and met the Minister in a Committee Room upstairs? Does he not think that he cuts a pretty poor figure when he goes down among them?

Not at all. I remember not only the promises but my own statements. Our aim to have a long-term policy for the industry which is realistic and will make it more modern and efficient is a right one.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the number of farmers in the United Kingdom, and its various parts, respectively, according to such definition of the word farmer as he may consider appropriate.

Of the 455,000 agricultural holdings in the United Kingdom in 1964, about 210,000 are believed to provide full-time work for one man or more, and of these, approximately 160,000 are in England and Wales, 26,000 in Scotland and 23,000 in Northern Ireland. These estimates are, however, open to a substantial margin of error since on many holdings the amount of work provided cannot be assessed without inquiries on the spot. The Agricultural Departments are therefore proposing to undertake a comprehensive sample survey in the autumn of this year.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of a graph published by the National Farmers' Union which purports to show that the rise in farmers' incomes was exceeded over recent years by that of other incomes? Is he aware that the National Farmers' Union has never published the number of farmers upon which such graph is based or even said whether it is consistent over the period? Would my hon. Friend, after this survey, take steps to re-publish the graph on a consistent basis?

I should not like to comment on all the graphs which are published in connection with agriculture, but I would give my hon. Friend the assurance that, when this survey is carried out, we will certainly take into consideration the request he has made.

What will be the size of the sample? This sample will not be of great value unless it is fairly widespread and has regard to the particularities of various areas. I hope that the sample will be on a sufficiently wide scale.

All this we have in mind. That is why I said in my Answer that it would be a comprehensive sample survey.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assistance he is now considering to help marginal farmers.

The Government's policy towards marginal farmers was given in the White Paper on this year's Annual Review. It is to tackle the fundamental problems of low income farmers by advice and assistance in improving their farm business, by voluntary improvement of farm structure, by special measures for the hills and uplands, and by improving agricultural co-operative and group activity.

Has not the Minister said on several occasions recently that he recognises the very special problems of marginal farmers? Although hill farmers at the last Price Review came out rather better than they did on some previous occasions, the position of the marginal farmer is even more difficult than it was before the last Price Review. Will the Minister have another look at this and see what can be done to help small farmers?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman pays me the tribute of saying that my Price Review has helped hill farmers. I recognise that there is a problem here, not so much with what the hon. Gentleman terms marginal farmers. I think what the hon. Gentleman means is farmers who are on marginal land. The committees which I have set up to consider the long-term policy for agriculture affecting many of our small farmers in upland areas will take this into account.

Is the Minister aware that one of the main trends in efficient farming today is simplification and that many marginal grants—I am talking about winter keep—stipulate that a farmer may produce only a certain amount of his gross income from, say, milk or fat cattle? Will the Minister ensure that restrictions of this type, for instance, on the upland dairy farmer and on the producer of fat cattle, are considered very seriously with a view to allowing these people to streamline their production?

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we are trying to do this. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary reminds me of the announcement we have made in relation to the payment of a subsidy on a headage instead of on an acreage basis. We think that this was the right decision to make, certainly for England and Wales. The whole procedure of simplification is one that I am always studying. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if rationalisation can be achieved, so much the better. This is what my Department and the committees I have set up are examining.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the additional cost to the farming industry of the increase to 7¾ per cent. in the interest rates charged by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation.

The cost of the increase in the interest rate charged by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation depends on the amount of new loans taken up by farmers at the increased rate and cannot be forecast.

Is the Minister aware that that reply, which adds very little to the sum of existing knowledge, is not particularly helpful? Is he aware, further, that the Government's policies have added some £30 million to the costs of the farming industry? Against this background, does he recognise that the great majority of farmers will have been delighted to read of the results of the voting in the House of Commons last night and cannot wait—[Interruption.]

I am certain that the worst thing the farming community would wish for would be the return of a Government who failed to provide a long-term policy for British agriculture. Hon. Members opposite, who also defend the National Farmers' Union, must know that in the main the criticism of the Union has been the trend of incomes under successive Conservative Administrations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers will also wonder where the money for Price Review prices would come from if all the Amendments to the Finance Bill were carried?

First, will the Minister put this to the test and recommend to the Prime Minister that he should go to the country? Secondly, will he answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)? Has he no estimate of what the increased costs are? Cannot he tell the House how much the Government's policies have cost the industry this year—a figure which cannot be recouped until after the next Price Review, which will be done by a Conservative Government?

That part of the supplementary question concerned with whether the Prime Minister should go to the country was wholly out of order.

Is it not evident that the rate of interest referred to in the Question will discourage capital expenditure in the industry, at the very time when capital expenditure in the public sector is rising so fast?

I cannot agree that there is any discouragement. I hope that hon. Members will not be so pessimistic about the future of this great industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the 1965 Price Review award of between £10 million and £11 million consisted of a hill sheep subsidy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the 1965 Price Review Award includes the increased subsidy awarded to hill sheep, when this has not been common practice previously.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the 1965 Price Review included the hill ewe subsidy for the first time.

The plus items in the award included about £2 million for the hill sheep subsidy. This figure was based on the difference between the average rate of subsidy over the past five years, 9s. 6d. per ewe, and the rate of 18s. determined at the 1965 Review.

Is not the Minister aware of the many occasions on which he has compared in the same sentence the £31 million Price Review award last year and the £10 million, or the so-called £10 million, award this year? If he is to talk on a strictly like-for-like basis, is not this a completely false comparison, in that the £10 million is in fact only an £8 million award? Therefore, will he stop misleading the public into thinking that this is a slightly less miserable Price Review than it actually is?

I cannot accept that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, instead of making wild accusations like that, will recognise that the change in the basis of the subsidy was agreed with the three unions.

Is the Minister aware that on 17th March of this year, as appears from col. 1291 of HANSARD, he made a specific comparison between this Price Review and previous ones? Was not this wholly misleading the House and the farming community? Is not this something that he should withdraw and put properly on the record from now on?

I certainly will not. The hon. Gentleman, who obviously has contacts because of his past experience with the farmers' unions, should consult responsible farming opinion. Farmers believe that it was a right decision to change the basis of the subsidy. Now the farmer will know what he will be paid each year. The uncertainty which existed under the previous Administration has been removed.

The Minister is still misleading the House, because he is not in any way comparing like with like. The two Reviews were not comparable. The general public, the farmers and the House had the impression that he was comparing like with like.

I can only repeat—I am sorry that I have to repeat it so that hon. Members can learn the facts of the industry—that the simple fact is that the industry agrees with my change. It will give greater security. It will enable the farmer to know what he is getting. There was no attempt to mislead anyone in assessing the global total at the Review.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from him misleading the House, the country, or the farming community, hon. Members opposite, who are demanding more and more subsidies, are bleeding the taxpayers? Can he say what would be the reduction in Income Tax if all these subsidies were abolished?

My right hon. Friend is quite right. We have to bear in mind the position of the consumer. It is rather strange that hon. Members opposite, who pretend that they are defending the farmer, are going against decisions which were agreed and approved by responsible farmers' leaders and the farmers' unions. I have already mentioned the attitude of the three unions concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whether or not the unions agreed is quite irrelevant to the question of comparing like with like? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in previous years the hill sheep subsidy has not been included in the annual Review out-turn, and that this year £2 million was included, thereby adding £2 million to the total out-turn of £10 million? The figure ought to be £8 million and not the £10 million which the Minister has in mind.

The hon. Member knows that the Review award is a net figure. These are plus items totalling £38½ million, including the milk, cattle and calf subsidies. There is no question of trying to mislead the House. Hon. Members opposite are always trying to stir up trouble when it is not there.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are taken by his Department if bacteriological examination of samples of imported meat reveals a source of infection.

When such a finding is notified to my Department it is taken up with the responsible authority in the country of origin. Any history of such findings is borne in mind when a visit is made to a supplying country in connection with the arrangements under the Public Health (Imported Food) Regulations for the official health certification of meat and meat products exported to this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that my Question is designed to focus public opinion in a responsible way upon the anxieties felt by scientists who are in close touch with this problem? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with a system by which, in effect, meat can reach shops and consumers before the results of the bacteriological tests made at the ports are made known?

I accept that one must have attention directed to this aspect and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for doing so. I am considering the position to see if we can improve the situation by introducing new regulations. Consultations are taking place. However, I agree that this is very important and we try to take every precaution. In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health I am having proposals examined by all the authorities concerned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that health officers have adequate opportunity to examine cargoes of imported meat, especially of meat intended for human consumption; and if he will make a statement.

The Imported Food Regulations empower medical officers of health and their staffs to examine meat on importation and to sample it for special examination. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I are consulting interested parties on proposals to revise the regulations to provide more specific powers for the detention of consignments while samples are examined.

In the same spirit as my previous questions, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in the course of his consultations he will bear in mind that half of the food poisoning cases in this country are due to meat and that about half of the samples of frozen boneless horsemeat imported as pet food have been shown to be contaminated with salmonella organisms and that there is a risk of meat intended for human consumption being contaminated?

I accept that. The right hon. Gentleman is interested in this subject and I agree that it is a serious matter. Imported meat can be affected. That is why I have said that with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health we are looking at the Regulations and discussing how best we can improve the situation.

Can my right hon. Friend give a definite assurance that meat imported for pet food, including kangaroo meat, is rigorously confined to pet food preparation and does not enter channels leading to the preparation of food for human consumption?

I am anxious to see that all food which is imported, whether for pets or for human beings, is not infected or of bad quality.

Is it not most difficult, particularly with canned meat, for the medical officer of health at the port concerned to make adequate inspection? Will the Minister recall the Aberdeen outbreak and the associated scare in Newcastle-upon-Tyne which might have been avoided had there been adequate inspection at the canning source by officials of his own Ministry? Does he think that his inspectorate is adequate?

I was not responsible at that period, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that since then we have strengthened our inspection overseas and more countries have been covered by our inspectorate service.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to arrange a specially reduced interest rate for farm borrowing up to a limited amount, in view of the present high interest rate of borrowing from the Mortgage Corporation and the banks.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will set up an Agricultural Credit Organisation, backed by the Treasury, which will have special responsibilities for providing medium-term credit at reasonable rates of interest for those farmers who find it difficult to raise enough capital.

Agricultural credit is a very wide and complex question on which I am not yet ready to announce decisions.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a proposal by the Government that there shall be special rates for certain categories of house purchase? If and when this is announced, will he see that farmers are treated not less favourably and fight for them a little harder than he has done in the Price Review?

Hon. Members will drag in the Price Review. No other industry has its income decided in this way, and I think that the Review is a good procedure. On the question of agricultural credit, there are many problems to be settled and I am carefully looking at this matter.

Has not the Minister previously studied this problem? Otherwise, how could a specific pledge in terms of Question No. 20 have been included in the Labour Party's election statement? Surely there was some previous reconnaissance of the problem? In any event, since the election has not the farmers' need for raising extra capital and their difficulty in doing so been aggravated, among other things, by the prospective new burdens to be laid upon the industry by the Finance Bill, should it become law?

The hon. Member is quite right to draw my attention to a statement of policy which was made not long ago by my hon. Friends. I accept that. I also look back to another policy statement. I have here the Agricultural Charter of the Conservative Party of 1948. [Interruption.] The hon. Member asked me whether I had looked back. In 1948 hon. Members opposite promised that steps would be taken on these lines and they did nothing about it when they were in power.

On a point of order. When hon. Members opposite intervene in these Questions, ought they not in fairness to the House to reveal their self-interests in the Questions that they ask?

Hon. Members are not under an obligation to reveal their interests in Questions.

Could the right hon. Gentleman indicate why in 1965 the rates charged by the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation should be a full 1 per cent. more than the rates charged by building societies to urban owner-occupiers?

I accept that. As I have said, and I repeat, this is a very difficult question—whether a special industry should be singled out. There are problems here. I recognise this, and I am carefully examining them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that agriculture is now probably the most capital-intensive industry in the country? Are these problems political and economic or are they technical problems?

There are technical problems and there is the wider political problem whether a special industry should be singled out. In my Price Review and in the White Paper I have announced some new arrangements which will help in providing medium-term credit for those farmers who find it difficult to raise enough capital, and there is now Treasury backing. We are actually providing up to £200,000 a year by way of guarantees against bad debts. This should support many million pounds of new lending.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now estimates he will receive the report of the Wise Committee.

As the hon. Member knows, I am looking forward to receiving an interim report before the end of the year.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman publish even an interim report on this interim report so that he can deal with such vital problems as loans and amalgamations of county council smallholdings? Does not the Minister realise how hard the county council smallholdings have been hit by this Government since October?

I am anxious that this shall be a full report. The rôle of smallholdings is very important. There are many arguments here, and I should like to see a full report and study it carefully. That is why I do not wish to rush the Committee.

Will the Minister think again about this matter? We have waited a long time for this report. Its findings are urgently required so that smallholding committees can formulate their policy afresh. It is not good enough to have to wait till the end of the year before we even get an interim report.

I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that this is the first major review of smallholding policy since 1947 and it will benefit no one to hurry the Committee into reporting before it has given the subject all the consideration it deserves. I hope that hon. Members will be sensible and realistic.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his advisers on population genetics have given him with regard to the continuance of the bull licensing scheme.

From the advice he has received, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it would be unwise to discontinue bull licensing until the selection of breeding stock by reference to records of performance is generally adopted in the livestock industry. Powers were taken in 1963 to refuse licences to bulls—and boars—which fail to conform to prescribed standards of suitability for breeding, and from 1st January, 1966, no bulls of the pure dairy breeds will be licensed in England and Wales without adequate ancestor performance records for lactation and butterfat.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that population genetics should be the most important consideration of all when dealing with animal breeding? Is he aware that of the two organisations which he says give him most advice on population genetics the senior member of one has been highly critical of the bull licensing scheme? Secondly, is he aware that a member of the other, the director of the Animal Breeding Research Association, says that all bull licensing is make-believe and that its contribution to genetics is negligible? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Will the hon. Gentleman stop taking out-dated advice?

I hope that in my original Answer I made clear that these recommendations deal with both bulls and boars, and that the population geneticists advise the Ministry. The Minister has to take all their advice into consideration. I cannot be asked to comment on the opinions of other people expressed in magazines and elsewhere.

In view of the fact that the two organisations from which the Minister takes advice in these matters are both situated north of the Border, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will take account of the opinion of progressive Scottish farmers that both the bull and boar licensing systems need urgent review?

That may well be so, and the fact that these opinions come from north of the Border perhaps carries a little more weight with me.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why race horses entering Great Britain are treated for quarantine purposes differently from dogs and other animals.

Dogs and cats are quarantined because of the danger of introducing rabies, and ruminants because of foot-and-mouth disease. Race horses are extremely unlikely to introduce either of these diseases.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will initiate an inquiry into the reasons for the rising rents which are being demanded of tenant farmers.

I see no reason for special inquiry in view of the arbitration machinery available for disputes between agricultural landlord and tenant.

Does my hon. Friend realise that there have been quite outrageous increases in rents for tenant farmers whom we on this side of the House are very anxious to protect from the rapacious landowners? Can he produce any figures comparable to those produced in Scotland which show, for instance, that rents in the last three years have been quadrupled in some cases? If he can, will he advise my right hon. Friend the First Secretary to refer this matter to the National Board for Prices and Incomes? Unless and until tenant farmers get help in this respect from the landlords the taxpayer should not be asked to subsidise the landowner.

I accept that my hon. Friend is anxious to protect tenant farmers against abuses. Figures affecting Scotland, in particular, are obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. As to the future in relation to arbitration machinery, I shall be considering the rent provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1958, and the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, as part of my general review of agricultural landlord-tenant legislation. I know that the previous Administration did things in the 1958 Act which we quite rightly condemned.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is another side to this coin? Is he aware that four or five years ago, particularly in the South-West, rents were so low that landlords could not carry out the improvements which the tenants demanded?

Answer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to control the export of subsidised British beef cattle.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many clean cattle were exported to the European mainland between 1st January and 31st March this year, and from 1st April to the latest available date; and what were the figures for the corresponding periods last year.

In the first quarter of this year just over 8,100 head of clean cattle were exported to the Continent compared with about 7,000 head over the same period last year. In April and May this year, the last month for which firm figures are available, a total of 26,500 head were exported compared with 12,500 head in the same two months of 1964.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his figures contrast sharply with those issued recently by the National Federation of Meat Traders, which pointed out that last year 300,000 live cattle were exported to the Continent and estimated that this rate would be doubled this year? Is he aware that these are cattle produced with the assistance of subsidies paid by the British taxpayer and that there is great and growing concern about the increasing shortage of meat turning into a famine, as forecast by the National Federation of Meat Traders? Is he aware that in the first five months of this year there has been a 13 per cent. decline in home consumption of beef and veal? Will he give careful consideration to giving the British taxpayer a due return on his money?

My hon. Friend is right to stress this. It is an important matter. I have always said that I would carefully look at this and that if action was necessary I would act. I am not responsible for the figures mentioned by other people outside the House. As I have said, the figures which I have given were carefully checked. As for the future, I believe that there will be a decline. There is also another factor which should be borne in mind. Only clean cattle—normally the minority of exports—are eligible for the price guarantee and the majority of these cattle which are now being sent abroad have no guarantee attached to them. This is a difficult matter which we are carefully studying. It has to be borne in mind that if one interferes at one point one may disturb international trade.

Can the right hon. Gentleman put the matter in perspective and tell us what percentage of all the clean cattle certified in the last few months had been exported? Is he aware that it would reassure the House to know whether any subsidy has been paid on those clean cattle?

As I have said, I do not now have all the figures but I will send them to the hon. Member. I have the month-by-month figures for clean and other cattle, but I do not have the percentage figures. I will send those to the hon. Gentleman. The figures I have confirm what I have said.

How much of this increase can be attributed to export rebate and what effect, if any, has this had on the Northern Ireland meat trade?

None at all. The hon. Member must well know that there is a strong world demand for beef because of world factors which are known to everybody in the trade.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the export of quality cattle and sheep at high prices to the Continent should be of great value not only to the agricultural industry in Scotland but also to the taxpayer?

I accept that. This is one of the factors which we have to consider and I said this at the Royal Agricultural Show the other day. The emphasis there is on exports. We should like to export quality products to all parts of the world but we must balance home demand with demand elsewhere.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the number of outbreaks of swine fever and the cost of compensation in each of the financial years since the beginning of the eradication policy; and whether he will make a statement on the latest progress in this campaign.

The answer to the first part of the Question involves a considerable number of figures, and I will, therefore, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the details. This will show a marked decline in the incidence of swine fever since the introduction of the eradication policy in March, 1963. The success achieved to date is very encouraging, and I am confident that, with the continued co-operation of farmers and traders, the aim of eradication can be achieved. But I cannot emphasise too strongly that everyone owning or attending pigs should report at once any suspicion of swine fever, and that they should not send any ailing or unthrifty pigs to market.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many farm premises there has been more than one outbreak of swine fever involving slaughter and the payment of compensation; and what is the shortest interval between two outbreaks on the same premises, where slaughter and compensation has been or may be authorised.

There have been 78 instances of disease occurring more than once on the same premises out of 1,648 cases of swine fever involving slaughter and compensation.

Seventy-eight out of well over 1,000 seems a fairly reassuring figure, but is the Minister satisfied that the somewhat disturbing stories one hears from time to time about dishonest practices which might arise out of this compensation scheme are not well founded and that the matter is adequately watched?

Our veterinary people watch this carefully. Restocking is not permitted until 14 days after completion of disinfection. In addition, our own experimental work has shown that, even without disinfection, the swine fever virus does not usually survive for more than about 10 days.

I appreciate the need to press on with this policy and take full precautions, but does the Minister realise that the closing of markets for even one case in the locality inflicts great hardship on the market operators, because their business is cut right off, and on those farmers who rely on getting rid of weaners and so on? If this policy is to go on a long time, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of giving help and, perhaps, compensation to those who suffer directly from the campaign?

Hon. Members must be very careful here. I am continually pressed to do something about swine fever and the need to take precautions is urged upon me. Although hardship may be created, it would be very foolish to allow a policy to operate which would mean relaxation. It is a serious disease which causes great losses to the farming community. If some hardship is caused by the closing down of market activities for a short period, hon. Members must, I think, accept that this is right.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now considered the representations submitted by the various interests concerned in respect of the 72 recommendations made in the Report of the Food Standards Committee, published in September, 1964, reviewing the provisions of the Labelling of Food Order, 1953; and if he will make a statement.

We are still dealing with the very large number of representations made on the Committee's Report and having discussions with the interested organisations as a preliminary to formulating proposals for new labelling regulations.

Cannot the Government expedite this matter? We have been waiting an inordinate time. The Committee was originally set up in 1947, and the consumer is still waiting for the protection which descriptive labelling could give him. Cannot the matter be expedited?

I cannot accept responsibility for all the intervening years. The Report was not published until the end of September, 1964. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have then to give the parties concerned six months to consider what is to happen. When we receive representations, we have then to consider them, and, even after proposals are made, we have to issue these to the parties concerned before legislation can be introduced.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to introduce a scheme to eradicate brucellosis; and if he will make a statement.

I regret that I cannot yet add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 19th May.

It was 12 months ago last week when the right hon. Gentleman called upon the then Government to introduce a brucellosis eradication scheme. Does he realise that, as every year passes, there are several people who suffer from undulant fever and never recover from it? Will he explain to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is not right to economise in this way and delay the introduction of an eradication scheme? Will he please get on with it?

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter, and I accept that I urged previous Administrations to take action. I regard it as important. I made a statement about it in reply to one of his hon. Friends in the Welsh Grand Committee a week or two ago. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are difficulties here. For instance, if we have an eradication scheme for brucellosis, it will involve a slaughter policy which would cost between £40 million and £50 million. I have to make a final decision on whether to do that immediately or whether to have a gradual approach. I am watching this very carefully. It involves questions of policy affecting the supply of staff and also the amount of money which would have to be used. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be sensible.

The statement which the right hon. Gentleman made to me in the Welsh Grand Committee the other week was entirely empty and negative and he did not go any further from his previous position. Will he accept that this is an important problem and ask his officials and veterinary officers to consider whether a start could be made with a new eradication scheme, starting it in Wales as was done with tuberculosis?

I am considering whether we should make a start in a small area with a pilot scheme of the kind mentioned, but before making that final decision one has to be quite sure about the estimates of how much it will cost the community. My reply to the hon. Gentleman in the Welsh Grand Committee was not an empty one indicating a negative approach. I gave him—courteously, I thought—the figure of £40 million which would be the cost of a slaughter policy.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the price of Irish strawberries offered for export to Britain; and what volume of imports he expects from Ireland.

Fresh strawberries imported from the Irish Republic are normally sold on commission. I have no reason to think that the volume of such imports this season will greatly exceed last year's figure, which was nine tons.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures he has given would not give any reason for the depression of British prices, but, on the other hand, will he bear in mind that we are well capable of growing all we need?

Indeed we are, but my hon. Friend will remember that in none of the last four years have imports of fresh strawberries been more than about 20 tons. About 640 tons of pulp, on average, are imported annually. Our own production is roughly 30,000 tons, half going for fresh consumption and the remainder for jam. We are well able to deal with this, and it does not provide a reason for prohibiting this import from another source.

The Minister says that we can grow all the strawberries we want. Will he bear in mind that imports of pulp from the Iron Curtain countries have a severe effect on the market?

All I was saying was that total imports are not all that great in comparison with our own production, and they have not had the effect that the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. I have not received any representations from the interests concerned.

Will my hon. Friend assure us that we are able to grow all the strawberries we can pay for?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some very excellent strawberries are grown in my constituency of South Antrim, but they are so good that, generally, they are all consumed in Ulster?

It is a matter for regret that they are retained there. I should be happy to sample them personally.

I shall send some over to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that imported United States carrots in packages retail at about 1s. 4d. per lb., and that the British carrot producer receives about 1d. per lb.; and why imparts of United States carrots into this country are permitted.

The very small quantities of carrots imported from the United States command relatively high prices because they are generally of a type not available from home-grown sources at the time they arrive. I know of no grounds on which such imports should be prohibited.

Does the Minister agree that the only distinction between United States carrots and those grown here is basically one of size? Would he further bear in mind that many producers of carrots in this country find great difficulty in disposing of their crop even at ruling prices? Would he, therefore, look at all imports of carrots with the greatest strictness?

Yes, indeed. May I remind my hon. Friend and the House that these carrots imported from America sell at a much higher price than do our home-produced carrots. The total imports for 1964 from America were about 3,400 tons and from all sources they amounted to about 26,500 tons, whereas our own home production reached between 300,000 and half-a-million tons per annum.

Is it not a fact that during the period when British carrots are coming on to the market there is considerable protection against imported carrots whether from America or anywhere else? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, unfortunately, one of the reasons why British carrots fail to compete is that they are not always as well packed as those which are imported from California?

Packaging has a considerable amount to do with sales. It is true that there is an import duty of £1 per cwt. in May and June, and throughout the rest of the year there is a 10 per cent. ad valorem duty.

I beg to move Amendment No. 1 in page 4, line 19, at the end to add:

I want to deal with the Government Amendment before I refer to the Opposition Amendment to it. It would be very ungenerous of me not to thank the Financial Secretary for the concessions which have been wrung out of him following exchanges which took place in Committee, especially in reference to farmers' goods vehicles and showmen's vehicles.

In all fairness, I must thank the Financial Secretary for his concessions to the farmers. I made a speech in somewhat violent terms in Committee about this matter. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), I find the explanation of the administrative difficulty most unconvincing. If this were true, we should never change the old-age pensions, because that means an operation one hundred times more difficult than this and, I understand, involves 60 or 70 different rates and takes seven weeks to carry out. A Government which can do that and a State which can implement the various complicated Income Tax, Surtax, Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax provisions should find this kind of thing child's play.

I had the privilege in Committee of moving an Amendment on behalf of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain. Naturally, I want to thank the Financial Secretary for the new Schedules which he has put down to meet the special case of showmen's vehicles. Would he convey to the Chancellor a personal message from me, to assure his right hon. Friend that I am not a showman, that I am not in show business and that I have no intention whatsoever of entering show business?

Is it not obvious that hon. Members on the other side of the House take more interest in the showmen's banquets than they do in the Finance Bill?

That may be true.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) welcomed the concessions which the Government make by this Amendment. I welcome them, too, but with no sense of satisfaction, though possibly with a certain amount of minor relief. In respect of the small farmer and the concessions which the Minister mentioned, I would ask him to put his mind to the case of a farm of 30 or 40 acres with a very small income and one Morris truck.

From this side of the House there have been many congratulations to right hon. Gentlemen opposite on the concessions which they have made. That shows how quickly one can get used to punishment, because, even with these concessions, we have a 25 per cent. increase. Even with the concessions which we have obtained from our bitter battles in Committee, I am not certain that the showmen and farmers will be as pleased as has been suggested, because they will still have to pay a 25 per cent. increase, which is a very heavy addition to their costs and adds to the rising spiral of prices.

With your leave, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, may I reply to the debate? Hon. Members are being wise after the event and are complaining that we have not shown greater understanding of these problems before, have not entered into more consultation with the interested parties and did not originally put down the proposals in their present form.

But the Government have changed the categories of farmers' vehicles, too.

Yes, but except in certain minor ways the effect is not to the disadvantage of the farmers.

I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman may not have the figures with him, but could he tell us how many vehicles are involved in this matter? Secondly, what would happen to anybody taking out a licence between now and the date when the Bill becomes law?