asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when Her Majesty's Government intends to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Brambell Committee on the welfare of animals, Command Paper No. 2836.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to secure the agreement of countries from which animal products are imported to control production on the lines suggested for this country in the Brambell Report.

It is too soon to say what action may be necessary on any part of the Report.

Does the Minister realise that there is profound anxiety amongst animal lovers all over the country about certain forms of factory farming? Will he instruct his civil servants to prepare legislation immediately so that when his Conservative successor takes over next month it can be implemented immediately?

I am aware that there is concern among animal lovers, but there is also concern in the farming world where, if anything was done hastily and drastically, there would be serious difficulties from the point of view of the home food producer. It is for this reason that I believe the Report should be carefully considered before precipitate action is taken.

Will my right hon. Friend give careful thought to bringing in legislation on this subject of the welfare of animals, which the Tories failed to bring in when they were in power and had the chance to do so?

My hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate that there is a Report on this, and that a careful investigation was made. I gave a deadline of 31st January for the views of people who were involved to be made known. I am looking at these carefully.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the implications of what my hon. Friend has said? The reference to Her Majesty's Government is purely a generic term, and does not refer to Her Majesty's present Government. Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman inform his hon. Friend that the Brambell Committee was set up by a Conservative Government, and that it was only because it did not report until after we had left office that these matters were not dealt with? Further—

Order. The Question is getting a bit too long.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. May I come to the substance of my question, which is to ask the Minister to say in relation to the farmers—and I was glad to hear what he said about them—that he will introduce nothing which will harm the British farmer compared with imported food produced in the same way?

It is precisely for this reason—the rôle of imports—that I feel the Report should be carefully examined with a view to taking action where necessary.

Will the Minister bear in mind that a large proportion of farmers are themselves animal lovers, and let the public not get the mistaken idea that farmers do not love their stock?

I accept that farmers are animal lovers, and this was brought out in the Report itself.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will give detailed figures of the level of profitability in the pig industry; and if he will make a statement;

(2) if he will give detailed figures of the level of profitability in the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.

The profitability of producing pigs and milk is being considered, together with all other relevant factors, in the Annual Review which is now in progress. I cannot anticipate the Review determinations.

Will the Minister bear in mind that I have been keeping pigs for 24 years and that, in common with many other pig keepers, I find it virtually impossible to make a profit at the present moment? If the Minister wants pigs, will he say what he is prepared to do now, as he may not have another chance of helping the industry?

The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Review is on, and we are having discussions on this very matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, if the Chancellor could anticipate his Budget yesterday, he, as Minister of Agriculture, cannot anticipate the Price Review today?

The right hon. Gentleman knows that it would be wrong of me to anticipate it. The review is on, and for this reason there is a special procedure which is known to everyone.

With regard to the price of pigs, is it correct, as farmers claim, that only 40 per cent. goes to farmers, and 60 per cent. to dealers?

As I have said, all the factors will be considered and are now under review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the provisional figures for the deficiency payment for beef, mutton, and lamb for 1965–66, and for the increased cost of producing one hundredweight of beef and one pound of mutton and lamb for 1965–66.

For cattle, £5·54 million and for sheep, £5·88 million. As the hon. Member knows, by convention the estimates of increased costs of production for individual commodities are not disclosed.

Surely the hon. Member can say what the increased cost has been during the past year? Unless he does this the House will not be able to assess what should be given to the farmers in the Price Review. Surely he can make some estimate of this? Can he tell us when the Price Review will be announced?

That has nothing to do with the Question. It will be announced when a settlement is reached. All that I have done is to give the reply which follows convention.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total increase of cost related to Annual Price Review commodities attributable to wage increases in 1965–66.

It is estimated that in a full year wage awards would increase costs on Review commodities by £14 million.

If the hon. Gentleman is able to answer this Question why could not he have answered the previous one? Does he not agree that this is a considerable increase—much more than has occurred in past years?

There is some increase. It represents about £750,000 more than in each of the past two years.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has now taken with regard to the complaint by the south-eastern dairy farmers which was the subject of a recent court ruling concerning his actions in the matter.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the finding of the court that he had misdirected himself when he refused to refer a complaint on behalf of 4,800 south-east dairy farmers to a committee of investigation.

I am considering whether to appeal against the order recently given by the Divisional Court, and I hope shortly to announce the action I propose to take.

In view of the fact that the Minister is considering this I presume that he will say that it is sub judice, but is he aware that many farmers think that this is not the only matter on which he has misdirected himself? Will he say whether he has taken advice not only from his own legal advisers but also from the Law Officers of the Crown in this matter?

I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman make his first remark, because my predecessor, in reply to an Oral Question on 6th July, 1964, stated that when approached for advice by the south-eastern milk producers on the question of a price differential he had replied that the question of the determination of a regional price differential was properly a matter for the Milk Marketing Board. I do not want to get into an argument about the merits of the case. This is now a legal matter. I am considering whether to appeal, and when I have made that decision I shall certainly answer questions on the matter.

In the event of an appeal being unsuccessful, who would carry the cost?

We must wait in order to see whether an appeal is made. It depends on my decision.

Can the Minister say what the position will be if he goes ahead with an appeal and gets into difficulties, and is not longer a Minister?

I am so confident that I will be that I had not thought about that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he is making to get the tariff removed from British dessert apples exported to Eire.

The new Agreement, which comes into force on 1st July, 1966, provides for apples of United Kingdom origin to be imported into the Irish Republic free of duty during the months March to July inclusive. There is no immediate prospect of re-opening negotiations on the possibility of duty-free entry for other months.

I recognise the increased efficiency of this part of the fruit industry and the amount of capital involved lately, but will the hon. Gentleman watch the tariff position very carefully, especially in view of the benefits that Eire has in our home market?

We will. Part of the agreement covers that point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, for this part of the industry we have given considerable assistance, and will continue to do so.

I should like to press the Parliamentary Secretary a little further. Is he aware that the months concerned are the ones which are least attractive to the home industry, and that it should have been possible to do more for the home producer, in view of the concessions given to the Eire Republic?

I think that we have done reasonably well in all the circumstances. At present all importers except the United Kingdom are restricted by quotas. If the 2d. duty is applied to the August-February period, a duty of at least 2d. a lb. must be applied in respect of all third countries throughout the whole year. From the point of view of Northern Ireland we must not overlook the possibilities that they will have during the period that the hon. Gentleman referred to.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in his discussions with the White Fish Authority and other interested parties regarding the introduction of a minimum pricing scheme for white fish.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the proposed statutory minimum prices scheme for the fishing industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has come to a decision about the future introduction of a minimum prices scheme, following his discussions with the White Fish Authority.

The Government accept the principle of a statutory minimum price scheme for white fish. I have accordingly informed the White Fish Authority that, if it promotes a scheme in accordance with the statutory procedure, we shall be prepared to consider it on its merits and in the light of our international obligations. The Government cannot, however, promise a contribution to the cost of a scheme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a pretty unsatisfactory reply? Has it not taken an interminable time even to produce this reply? How can he be in a position to consider the scheme when he will not even be there to consider it?

I should have thought that for the Government to agree in principle to a statutory scheme was right, and I think that it will be welcomed by the industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is uncertainty about this issue and about building grants and many other matters in the industry? Will he tell the House how he expects any statutory minimum pricing scheme to be financed if the Government will not make any contribution?

The industry can do that. There is already a limited private scheme which is to be examined by the Restrictive Practices Court. There is no reason why, given good will, a statutory scheme of this kind should not be acceptable to the industry.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this scheme—the first of its kind produced by any Government—is widely welcomed by workers, fish merchants and the industry as a whole? Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the White Fish Authority is getting the full co-operation of the vessel owners, whom the aforementioned workers and merchants think are doing well enough to give the scheme full financial backing?

Order. The questions and answers are getting too long.

I would only say, "Thank you very much." That is right.

Is this the first step towards ratting on the white fish industry?

No, it is not. An agreement in principle for the White Fish Authority to consult the industry and go ahead with a statutory scheme is a step forward, which was never taken by my predecessors.

Will my right hon. Friend state who were the interested parties referred to in the Question? Does he realise that the White Fish industry in north-east Scotland is confronted with new problems arising from drilling in the North Sea? Will he take that fact into account?

On a point of order—

On a point of order. I asked an important question. Surely I should receive a reply?

The Minister is not bound to reply.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how he proposes to meet the need in Great Britain now for an increasing supply of home-produced beef.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on 23rd February.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I do not have that reply with me, but that it seems basically more sensible to produce the additional beef that we must have from our beef herds rather than from our dairy herds, and that this will require more encouragement both for hill producers and lowland producers than is being given at the moment?

This is what we hope to do. This matter will be settled in the Price Review. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that the beef breeding herd is expanding and that there has been a large increase in calf retentions over the last two years.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what yardstick he intends to employ to calculate the element of increased efficiency in the forthcoming Price Review discussions.

There can be no precise calculation of the amount which the industry gains through increasing efficiency. The method used is a broad assessment, taking one year with another and having regard to increases in the physical productivity of farming and in the scale of operations. As foreshadowed in last year's Annual Review White Paper, the assessment is being reconsidered with the farmers' unions at the Annual Review now in progress.

I am grateful to the right. hon. Gentleman for that reply, but cannot he tell us a little more about it? The change to this procedure was foreshadowed in the last White Paper. It means a great deal to all farmers that a more realistic approach is made to the question of increased efficiency.

I accept what the hon. Member says, but he will appreciate that in view of the fact that this matter is being considered with the farmers' unions at the Annual Review now in progress, I cannot add more to my reply.

Is the Minister aware that farmers who show increased efficiency are rewarded by having increases in their rents, that rents have gone up by 27s. an acre, amounting to 1½d. in the gallon on milk? Is this the way to encourage efficiency?

I accept that this was a very important factor, but this matter is now being considered.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figure of £25 million which has been the figure taken into account in previous Price Reviews will also be used in the coming one?

I cannot give the hon. Member a specific reply on that. He knows—he ought to know, as a former Minister in the Department—that this matter is now being considered.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the date upon which the Essex River Authority submitted its scheme for the prevention of flooding in the Rochford area, the date upon which his Department agreed on the technical soundness of the scheme, and the date on which the actual work began; and if he will make a statement on the progress of this project, which is essential for the protection of life and property.

The Essex River Board made a preliminary approach in August, 1963, about a grant towards the cost of the Rochford drainage works; but the full information needed to consider the merits of the scheme was not received until March, 1965; and the technical soundness of the scheme was established by the end of May, 1965. The outline scheme was approved in principle on 15th December, 1965. As soon as the Authority has obtained our agreement to its detailed estimates and drawings it will be in order to start work.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that, owing to the Government's refusal to make an adequate grant, this scheme, which is regarded by everybody as technically feasible and most urgent, will be either delayed or cut, unless the burden is put on the ratepayers? Is not this in conflict with the Government's declared policy on rates, and will he look into the matter?

The hon. Member raised this matter on the Adjournment some weeks ago. We discussed it fully then, but I am glad to return to the subject as that is his wish. We have a worth-whileness test, of course, which reduced the grant to a certain figure and that test is being looked into. As soon as we come back, we will look into it again.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the fact that the delay in dealing with the Essex River Authority's Rochford flood prevention scheme and with many other such river authority schemes is due to the operation of the worth-whileness test, when he will resume discussions with the Association of River Authorities on a change to a new system without this test.

While not necessarily agreeing that the delay has been caused by the worth-whileness test to the extent that the right hon. Member suggests, we hope to resume discussions with the Association shortly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the delay of two years, which has doubled the cost in the Rochford case, is typical of the delay caused by this system? As the hon. Gentleman has already cancelled his intention to start a new scheme this year, will he say when he will be ready to start talks with the Association of River Authorities?

As regards the Rochford scheme, if the right hon. Gentleman will carefuly read the Adjournment debate, he will see that the worth-whileness test was not all the cause of the delay. With the worth-whileness test, generally speaking, the cases are dealt with inside of three months on average and, as I have said, we are starting discussions again with the association as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what authority he is prevented from giving a grant of more than 45 per cent. to the Essex River Authority for their flood prevention scheme in the Rochford area.

We are only able to offer grants towards expenditure incurred by river authorities in accordance with the arrangements sanctioned under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act, 1930. These arrangements at present include a worth-whileness test, the application of which prevented us from offering grant on the full estimated cost of the scheme which the right hon. Member has in mind.

Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that in the Adjournment debate referred to he told the House that he was prevented by law from increasing the rate of grant of 45 per cent.; and that the House will be glad to know that it now lies within his power to make the schemes whatever he wishes? Will he therefore see that he comes forward with a more generous scheme?

We are always prepared to be as generous as possible.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is being done to implement a plan with a view to eradicating brucellosis.

I am unable to add to the first part of the reply given to the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) on 22nd December last.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply gives no encouragement whatsoever to the farmers? Why does he not tackle this problem on the lines on which previous Conservative Governments got rid of T.B.? Does he not realise the enormous loss to the industry and to the national economy? Instead of window-dressing and false promises, could not this industry have something?

The hon. Member refers to the previous Administration. They did nothing, it is true—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—they did nothing about brucellosis. I appreciate the seriousness of this problem and I am anxious to do something. There are problems here—whether to go in for an immediate eradication scheme, the cost of which I remember giving on a previous occasion, or to work out a gradual scheme, over which there are various difficulties. I make no apology for any delay.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the fact that exposure to daylight greatly reduces the vitamin content of milk, if he will take steps to promote the use of opaque milk containers.

The Cook Committee on Milk Composition in the United Kingdom considered this question in 1960 and concluded that the available evidence on the loss of vitamins from milk as a result of exposure to daylight did not suggest a need for special containers.

Ultra heat treated milk which has since appeared on the market is retailed in opaque packs in the interests of long-keeping quality.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that publicity has recently been given to this subject and that an assertion has been made in print that, within a period of one hour, about 80 per cent. of the vitamin content of milk disappears under the influence of daylight? Is he also aware that it is absolutely vital, if this sort of publicity continues, in order to preserve the consumption of liquid milk, that he should keep an eye on it?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am certain that he, along with me and, I am sure, the rest of the House, would deprecate these gross abuses of opinion about these foodstuffs.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement giving details of the new investment incentives for agriculture.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce details of the new incentives to encourage investment in agriculture; what consultations he is having with the industry; and what advice he is giving to farmers who are reluctant to invest further capital before new arrangements have been announced and passed into law.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave on 21st February to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell).

Why is the grant being restricted to licensed tractors? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the delay, obscurity and confusion which there has been over this whole matter is thoroughly regrettable and entirely unjustified.

There was no delay on this. When the main scheme was announced, it was stated that agriculture would have to be specially considered. I immediately had talks with the National Farmers' Union and other interests concerned. The scheme itself has been welcomed by the National Farmers' Union and the C.L.A. as well.

Is it not a fact that, rather than have this delay and uncertainty, the industry as a whole would have preferred that the old system was left as it was? Alternatively, if the Minister says that he wants to make these changes to help the smaller farmers and the farms which do not make a profit, should he not have introduced some scheme for second-hand machinery, of which that type of farm is a considerable user?

I cannot accept that. We carefully consulted the interests concerned. I think that, in the circumstances, this is a very good scheme and I am glad that it has been welcomed.

Why is my right hon. Friend so hard hearted? Will he not listen to these pleas for National Assistance from the hard-up farmers?

I do not regard this as National Assistance in any sense. I believe that the injection of capital from the point of view of farming is a good thing.

Can the Minister give us some total figure involved in the benefits of this and compare it with the previous arrangements? If not, would he acknowledge that, like that for the rest of industry, the benefit will be less than it was under the previous arrangements?

I said that it was approximately the same, but it means that there is a greater emphasis within the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take about infringements of the Horses (Landing from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland) Order, 1954, on 2nd December, reported to him on 10th January by the hon. Member for Gainsborough with certificates of veterinary examination supplied by the Horses and Ponies Protection Association, showing that they were unfit to travel.

I have made inquiries. As required by the Order, the donkeys were examined in daylight by our inspector, and certified fit to continue their journey.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the disturbing thing about this case is that an independent veterinary surgeon gave it as his categoric opinion that these four donkeys were not fit to travel? In view of the general concern about this trade of donkeys from Ireland into this country, will the hon. Gentleman instruct his officers at the ports to examine all donkeys most carefully, to be certain that those with foot sores are not allowed into the country?

I think that I would agree with the hon. Member, but this was a borderline case. The certificate which the other veterinary surgeon gave was nearly four days after our inspector saw them because the donkeys were moved again. We will look into this. We have, since this case arose, been much more careful.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for how much longer he plans to withhold from disposal stocks of corned beef withheld from the market since June, 1964.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave on 22nd December, 1965, to him and on 26th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas).

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I did not like the Answer of 2nd December? Will he indicate what his intentions are regarding this ageing and suspect meat which was withdrawn after the Aberdeen typhoid epidemic? Does he realise that, so long as he does not make up his mind, the public will be perturbed and they will heave a sigh of relief if he heaves the lot into the sea?

I made up my mind and I made a public statement on this—that no stocks will be released on the British market.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements are made about dumping atomic waste at sea; what degree of pollution results; and whether this is increasing.

Dumpings are made by the Atomic Energy Authority subject to detailed conditions prescribed by authorisations issued by my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

The radioactivity of the wastes is so small in relation to the natural radioactivity of sea water that no measurable degree of contamination results.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that there is growing concern at the pollution of the sea by oil, industrial waste and atomic waste? In view of the increasing dumping by European Powers, will he see that the regulations are adequate in an international as well as a national sense?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that widens the Question a little. The question of the safety of sea disposal has been considered by a panel of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the conditions which we enforce comply with its recommendations.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any of this waste is dumped in containers? What is the life of those containers? Are we not laying up for ourselves a good deal of trouble in the future?

I hope not, because the dumpings have been made in selected areas. They are made away from the fishing grounds and, indeed, beyond the Continental Shelf. They have to be at a depth of not less than 1,500 fathoms and we take tremendous care to see that no contamination results from them.

Would my hon. Friend have another look at this matter in view of the fact that atomic earth, which the United States created in Spain, is not being dumped in Spanish sea waters but is being taken back to America to be buried in the atomic cemetery there?

I have a sufficient task looking after my own Department, let alone looking after the United States. As I pointed out, we have this international agency to safeguard this matter. It is a serious and important problem and I assure my hon. Friend that we take every precaution to see that no damage arises from the dumpings that take place.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy as to the amount of early potatoes to be grown in Great Britain.

Within the protection afforded by the tariff, it is for growers themselves to decide what acreage of early potatoes they will plant. Production in any season is, of course, greatly influenced by weather conditions. Having regard to experience in previous years, the Potato Marketing Board indicated in its Report for 1965 that there might be room for a reduction in the acreage of early varieties not ready for lifting until July or early August.

Would the hon. Gentleman say why the Government exempted early potatoes from the quantity restrictions when they made the Anglo-Irish Treaty recently? Is this not certain to have a most undesirable effect on growers in the remote areas of Cornwall, Pembroke, Penrith and the like?

I do not think it will have an undesirable effect. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they come, in the main, from two members of the Commonwealth. Where other potatoes are sought to be imported into this country, there is a considerable tariff to protect our industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of the facts that about two-thirds of British beef comes from the dairy herd, and that substantial expansion of beef is called for by the National Plan, which would be accompanied by expansion in milk production with consequent erosion of the guaranteed milk price, what inducements he will offer to dairy farmers to undertake the required expansion.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on 23rd February.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree with the opinion expressed by experts at the farming conference at Oxford this year that the erosion in the guaranteed price of milk, as a consequence of increased beef production, might amount to as much as 2½d. a gallon?

There were a lot of experts at that conference. Sometimes the experts disagreed with each other. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this matter is now being discussed in connection with the Price Review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek to extend to marginal farms, which, owing to their nature and locality, do not qualify for hill cow subsidy and cannot grow crops for sale, an extended type of farm improvement scheme, coupled with a subsidy for suckling herds, in order to help them play their part in the required expansion of Great Britain's national beef production.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the increasing economic hardship to farmers on farms which are close to hill areas, as they do not qualify for hill subsidies; and if he will take steps to improve these conditions.

We are examining with the National Farmers' Unions various suggestions for helping livestock farmers on difficult land outside the hills. The hon. Members will understand that I cannot say anything more while the Annual Review discussions are in progress.

Does not the Minister agree that there would be considerable advantage in such a policy as I have suggested in that the erosion of the guaranteed milk price would be reduced?

As I have said, there is a problem here, but it is one that we are discussing with the farmers' unions.

While understanding that the Minister cannot go far on this matter, may I ask whether he would agree that this group of farmers, who are just below the level of the hill subsidy, are finding things most difficult in the economic circumstances of the industry at the moment?

I accept that, and that is why I said that I wished to discuss this matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is being examined now.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these are among the hardest hit farming areas in the country and that it is from these areas that he could obtain the necessary beef stores he wants?

I have said that this matter is being examined very carefully indeed. I cannot go beyond that now.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why there has been a decline in the growing of sugar beet in the south of England over the last few years.

Since county quotas were abolished in 1960, the growing of sugar beet has shifted more to the eastern counties most suitable for it in respect of type of land and the location of factory capacity.

Since this has nothing to do with the Price Review, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he considers that growers in the south of England who are a long way from the factories should have a reasonable share of the sugar beet acreage? If so, will he encourage this by making provision for special transport allowances, similar to those which have been obtained by the canny Scots growers with similar problems for beet processing in the Cupar factory?

I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the canny Scots growers. I must leave them to look after themselves. There is already sufficient processing capacity in those parts of the country where farmers are still keen to grow all the sugar beet that is required. We certainly have the factory accommodation to meet the needs of these farmers.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this year much of the sugar beet is not being harvested and that a lot of the crop that has been harvested has been harvested at no profit but because there is a debt of honour in the contract with the industry? Will he bear this in mind during the present negotiations?

It is not for me to comment at this stage on what will happen. I am certain that the comments of the hon. Gentleman and other remarks will be drawn to the attention of those who are considering this matter in connection with the Price Review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for approving applications for grants made at the present time under the Farm Improvement Scheme.

As the money provided by existing legislation is virtually all committed, formal applications under the present Farm Improvement Scheme cannot be accepted. However, we are continuing to examine farmers' proposals in the light of the Government's policy for continuing and extending the Farm Improvement Scheme. Clearly no commitment to grant can be made in advance of legislation by the new Parliament. I intend, however, when new legislation is passed, to deal with applications for grant in accordance with the terms of the Act in all cases where farmers have started work with the written agreement of my Department.

Would the Minister confirm that the legal basis on which these grants are made has fallen by the wayside in the Agriculture Bill? Is he acting properly in anticipating legislation? How does he expect farmers to make intelligent applications under this scheme?

I think that the farmers will be pleased with my statement. I should have thought that they would welcome what is a sympathetic statement. I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comments.

I am amazed that the Minister thinks that the farmers will accept this with enthusiasm. Does he not recognise that a serious situation has arisen here, which he created in the first place by putting this matter in a long and complicated Bill, a situation which the Prime Minister aggravated by delaying the process of that Bill? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the unlikely event of him being Minister after the election, take special action to see that early payment can be made by introducing a small enabling Bill?

I have made my statement and I think that it will be accepted. The Bill was a very good one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was an excellent Measure and had some very good proposals. When we come back after the election we will complete it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the recent monthly trend in applications for farm improvement schemes; and by what proportion this differs from the average for the last five years.

Since 17th November, 1965, when we stopped accepting formal applications under the Farm Improvement Scheme, 4,032 people in England and Wales have put to us proposals for consideration under the Agriculture Bill. Over 2,100 were received in January against 1,900 for January, 1965. The January, 1966, figure is very slightly above 100 per cent. of the five-year average for that month.

Nevertheless, has not the uncertainty about the future of the scheme particularly the rate of grant, stopped the rising trend that was apparent, and is not this acknowledged by the Minister in that, even before his cut has been made effective, he has announced his intention to ask Parliament to provide him with power to replace 5 per cent. of the cut grant by a supplement, and—

Order. There are a lot of good farming Questions to come. I must protect other hon. Members.

I think that the figures are reasonable and satisfactory. At the beginning of the new scheme there was a certain amount of natural uncertainty, but now that its details are becoming better known there is tremendous interest in it.

In view of the Minister's very unsatisfactory reply on timing—it is now acknowledged that these 4,000-odd people to whom he refers will have to wait a very long time indeed for their money unless separate provision is made—does he not think that he should look at this matter again?

Not necessarily. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look carefully at my reply.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when he will be able to pay this grant to this admittedly increased number of farmers, in view of what is admitted all over as a shortage of capital in the industry today?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the estimated annual cost of the 5 per cent. supplement to grants under the Farm Improvement Scheme; what is the estimated help from public funds that a farmer paying tax at the standard rate will receive now on a £1,000 building qualifying for grant; and what he would have received both in grant and allowances on an application approved before 17th November, 1965.

The cost arising from the supplement is estimated to be about £4 million in the first full year.

Under the old scheme which ended on 17th November, 1965, the farmer qualifying for investment allowance would have received a grant of £333 and an investment allowance worth about £32 at the standard rate of tax as abated by the earned income allowance. Under the 25 per cent. rate of grant for the extended scheme proposed he will, with the 5 per cent. supplement, receive £300. In addition, of course, he would be able to get grants under the extended scheme on a wide range of equipment which has not been grant-aided hitherto. Had the investment allowance continued he would instead have received a grant of £250 plus an investment allowance worth £36 on the standard rate making £286.

Does not this show that not only is the farmer who pays no tax worse off but that those paying the standard rate of Income Tax will be worse off than under the present proposals—those prior to 17th November?

It does not show that. The example I gave was a fair reply. The scheme itself will be of greater benefit to many farmers paying no tax or less than the standard rate.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why tests for leptospirosis were not carried out on the Charollais cattle recently imported whilst these cattle were in quarantine in France.

It has been common international practice, which in the past we have found sufficient, to rely on tests for diseases like leptospirosis before entry into quarantine. In view of our recent experience, however, we are re-examining our conditions.

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be more logical to test these animals while they are in quarantine? Would he agree that it would save expense and trouble if the tests were carried out before these animals were brought into the country? Would not this remove the cause for concern to breeders in this country?

I accept that the position is not fully covered, but it is a question of what should be done. We are looking in our discussions for further safeguards, and this is the right approach. I could give the hon. Gentleman details, but my reply would be too long. I will merely say at this point that I should like the animals to be selected only from farms which have good health records, then to be tested on the farm during the weeks of pre-quarantine and then, during the quarantine period to be tested again. Such a series of stages might be the answer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officers administer the requirements of the Foul-Brood Disease of Bees Order 1957; how many of them are engaged part-time; and whether, in view of the limited number of experts who are conversant with the methods of controlling bee diseases including foul brood and of stimulating honey production, he will seek to offer full-time employment to those who are prepared to serve as such officers.

During 1965, 212 officers were employed for the six months from April to September to carry out the requirements of the Foul-Brood Disease of Bees Order; of these, 55 worked full time, and 157 worked part time on an hourly basis. There is no winter work for these people connected with beekeeping; educational work is the responsibility of local education authorities.

Does my hon. Friend realise that some of the best honey in the world is produced in this country, particularly in Leicester? It is very sad indeed that only 900 tons out of the 13,600 tons consumed in this country in 1965 was produced in this country. Will he not give some encouragement to these people who are prepared to become experts in this work and teach others, so that we can have the necessary number of experts to deal with the diseases which are killing off the bees?

I would not dissent from what my hon. Friend has to say about the quality of our own honey, but I would point out, if I may, that 23 county councils in England and one in Wales have beekeeping instructors, and that three county beekeeping instructors also work for the Ministry during the summer as appointed officers for the purposes of the Foul-Brood Disease of Bees Order.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average return per score deadweight for bacon pigs in each quarter of 1965; and what is the estimated return for the present quarter.

Comparable figures for the four quarters of 1965 are 41s. 6¾d., 42s. 7¾d., 43s. 6d. and 42s. 8¼d. The corresponding figure for 1966 up to 20th February was 41s. 6d.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Government took office, returns to pig producers have been virtually static in face of costs which have risen considerably? Can he give pig producers an assurance that they will get a greater share of the bacon sharing agreement whilst Government policy appears to be to squeeze the producers in their returns?

Our policy is not to squeeze any returns from any section of the industry. The question of what is to be done is for the Annual Review and cannot be discussed here now. The whole point is that the returns have gone down because of increased production of pigs. The middle band has gone way up and that is the reason for the reduction.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest expert advice he has received from the Food Standards Sub-Committee about the practice of adding chalk to flour; and if he will make a statement.

The latest advice from the Food Standards Committee was contained in the Report on Bread and Flour which was published in 1960.

Since millers and bakers see no need, at the present extraction rate, for adding chalk, and since it is extremely difficult to get even distribution and consumers would welcome removal of the additive, is there not a case for a fresh look at the Regulations to see whether they can be changed?

The Regulation concerned is contained in the Bread and Flour Regulations, 1963. The object is mainly to ensure that children and the elderly get enough calcium. Expert advice is to keep on this requirement pending further inquiries.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much, basing his estimate on 1964 figures, Dorset farmers will receive in respect of his recent announcement in respect of agricultural grants.

I regret that the information is not available.

When the information is available, will not the figures confirm, when taken in conjunction with all the other figures that we have had today, that the Dorset farmer is far worse off than he was when the Government took office?

The hon. Gentleman is putting rather a strange argument since he has not yet been given the information on which to make his conclusions.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much it is intended to reduce the import of temperate foodstuffs as a percentage of the total United Kingdom consumption of these foodstuffs in the years, 1965, 1966 and 1967.

Under the National Plan home agriculture is expected to be able to meet a major part of the increasing demand for temperate foodstuffs. It will therefore save imports which would otherwise be required but it is not expected to reduce total food imports below their present level.

Is it or is it not the policy of the Government that we should produce at home an increasing percentage for a growing market?

If the hon. Gentleman had studied the National Plan, particularly the Chapter in Part II which was put in by the industry, he would have realised, on proper calculations, that the technical possibilities of the industry are just about what we are asking for between now and 1970.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement, giving figures up to the latest convenient date, on the extent to which the grants made available to horticultural growers under the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964, are being taken up.

The response to these grants continues to be encouraging. During the 18 months between 1st July, 1964, when the current Horticulture Improvement Scheme came into force, and 31st December, 1965, growers made almost as many applications as they made during the whole of the four years' life of the 1960 scheme. As the statistics of the various grants are complex I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While the Minister's reply confirms that the growers welcome the aid provided under Conservative legislation,

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the lettuce, cucumbers and tomatoes, respectively, consumed in the United Kingdom in the years 1963–64 and 1964–65, respectively, was imported; and whether he is satisfied with the position of the home producer.

As the answer to the first part of the Question contains a number is he aware that many of them still experience great difficulties? What proposals has he for dealing with these?

The hon. Gentleman does not specify the difficulties. In fact, applications are so numerous that they show that the growers obviously appreciate what is being done for them.

Is not one of the problems the fact that speculative shipments from such places as the Canaries are sent here for sale on commission at whatever price they will fetch? Is not there some means by which such shipments could be controlled?

I have no knowledge of that. There are protective tariffs on cucumbers and tomatoes during the home season, and on lettuces during the whole year. It is in this way that we seek to protect the home industry.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there has been a serious decline in the home trade, particularly in cucumbers owing to imports from the Canary Islands and elsewhere? Will he look seriously at the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)?

I say again that there is a considerable competition from imported cucumbers, particularly Dutch, during the home season. Canary Islands cucumbers are imported in significant quantities at the beginning and end of the home season. This is what we are all trying to correct.