asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will compute the increased costs to the horticultural industry as a result of new and increased taxes, surcharges, wage increases and general inflation since 1st January, 1965.

Estimates of the aggregate cost change for agriculture and horticulture together have been published in the Annual Review White Papers. About one-tenth of the total for all products may be attributed to horticulture.

Does the Minister fully appreciate that, unlike almost every other industry, horticulture is quite unable to recover these costs from the market? Does he appreciate that the position is reaching critical proportions for very many growers, and that something must be done? Would he make a start by persuading the Chancellor to cut out the fuel oil surcharge?

The hon. Gentleman had better direct the latter part of his supplementary question to the Chancellor. I agree that growers have been suffering increased costs, and we took this into account at the Annual Review. Obviously one has to keep one's eye on other things, too.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to deal with damage to crops by pigeons.

Advice on the control of this pest is readily available at local offices of the Ministry. Laboratory research and field experiments designed to find more effective control methods are still being vigorously pursued but there is no really simple solution to the problem.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for years he has been telling me that there is no simple solution to the problem? Has not the time come, in view of the great damage done not only to market garden products but also to corn, for him to go back and work out a proper scheme of shooting which would be both administratively viable and economically possible?

Age does not alter a fact. There is no simple solution to the problem, even after all the answers I have given the hon. Gentleman. It has been established that shooting does not reduce the overall population of pigeons. Through their societies farmers can still get subsidised cartridges to protect their crops.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if pigeon clearance societies were established on the lines of existing rabbit clearance societies and operated by skilful shots, the problem could be controlled most effectively?

I agree, and I have sympathy with the idea, not just of rabbit or pigeon clearance societies, but pest clearance societies, which would include pigeons. Shooting alone does not solve the problem. It will only protect crops, but not reduce the total population of pigeons. This has been scientifically proved. Hon. Members may be interested to know that we are carrying out a large-scale experiment against pigeons in Bedfordshire using narcotic baits. Although we do not have very high hopes of this, we are doing it to see how we get on.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the level of food price increases in each of the first four months of 1968.

There has been the normal seasonal rise in food prices, which this year has been accentuated by the effect of the foot-and-mouth epidemic on meat supplies and by devaluation.

Would my right hon. Friend say specifically how these figures compare with previous years, and can he assure the House that the Government will deal increasingly firmly with unpatriotic elements in the business community that hold the country to ransom in this respect?

We are watching food prices very carefully indeed. As to previous years, I can tell my hon. Friend that the increase in each of the last four years has been lower, on the whole, than in the preceding three years under the previous Government.

Has the right hon. Gentleman not forgotten one item in the list that he has given? Has he forgotten the effect of his right hon. Friend's Budget? Will he tell us what the effect of the Budget has been in increasing food prices, and what he anticipates it will be over the next two or three months?

I certainly cannot give any precise figures. We have already said that we expect prices to rise due to devaluation. As I said, we keep closely in touch with current prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make regulations to establish standards relating to the bacteriological content of dairy cream.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that of 106 samples of dairy cream purchases in London in the summer of 1967 only 20 per cent. were satisfactory bacteriologically according to a study made by the Bacteriology Department of Charing Cross Hospital Medical School, details of which have been sent to him; and whether he will take steps to formulate statutory standards for dairy cream.

My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health are advised that cream has a good record as a safe food. No cases of food poisoning or other illnesses have been attributed to cream contamination with any certainty during the past 10 years. Moreover, I have been glad to note that the dairy trade have recently adopted a code of hygienic practice for cream production, distribution and handling, and this will reduce what risk of infection remains. This code was drawn up by the Milk and Milk Products Technical Advisory Committee which advises my right hon. Friend on all technical matters concerning milk and milk products. In these circumstances, and in the absence of a universally accepted test, regulations laying down a statutory standard would not be justified.

While noting with satisfaction my hon. Friend's reference to the new code, may I ask whether he has considered the evidence referred to in Question No. 38? Is London worse than the rest of the country? Would it not be worth looking at again?

We keep a continual watch on all these matters. I do not think London is worse, but contamination can arise through distribution and so on. Obviously we do our best to prevent it.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent discussions with the Argentine Government concerning the animal health regulations and their enforcement as it affects exports of Argentine beef and mutton.

I am not yet in a position to make a statement about the veterinary mission to the Argentine, which also included discussions with the veterinary authorities in Brazil, Uruguay and Chile.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be widespread anxiety among the farming community whether there will be more stringent application of health regulations in the Argentine? Can he say what representations he has made to Professor Houssay during his recent visit to the United Kingdom?

I saw Professor Houssay very briefly before he went into the infected area. It is difficult to say more than that about Professor Houssay's visit, because the purpose was stated by my predecessor on 13th March. However, discussions were held with my Chief Veterinary Officer and other senior officials. The Mission which went out to Argentina from my Department is at the moment awaiting further information from Argentina before completing its report. I hope that it will be to hand reasonably early.

The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor stated that, though immunised, beasts not having the disease could be carriers and could spread it. Under those circumstances, what guarantee is there provided by inspection in the country of origin?

It would not be proper for me to make any technical or scientific statement at this stage. I am awaiting the report from Mr. Beynon who went to Argentina. I shall make a statement to the House as soon as possible after I have received and considered his report.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of recent new outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, he will now review the Government's policy on the importation of South American beef.

asked the Minister of Aviculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the further outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease, he will reimpose the ban on imports of Argentine meat.

The recent cases of foot-and-mouth disease are all connected with the main epidemic and there is therefore no reason to review the Government's policy in relation to imports of South American beef.

Surely the Minister will agree that if there is another serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease the consumer will suffer? Is it worth taking this risk? Will he bend on this and see what can be done to alter the decision of the previous Minister of Agriculture?

Certainly I would not under-estimate the gravity of the recent outbreaks which caused the whole House grave concern. But the House has debated the matter, and the developments of recent weeks have done nothing to justify reversing my predecessor's decision.

Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Technology has said that the reason why the ban could not be imposed was because the Government wanted to sell some Beagle aircraft to the Argentine? This is a shabby and not very convincing reason. Will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend and tell him not to say such silly things?

I think that supplementary question is very unfair. The ban on mutton has been maintained, as the hon. Gentleman knows; but, for reasons which have been fully explained in the House, the ban on beef was lifted.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of chilled and frozen beef was imported from South America into the United Kingdom during April, 1968.

I regret that this information will not be available until the Overseas Trade Accounts for April are presented to the House towards the end of this month.

Is it not extraordinary that the Government do not know how much meat was imported in April? Can the Minister say whether it was more or less than was forecast by his predecessor on 3rd April?

Information from trade sources about cargo space booked can sometimes be useful in estimating future arrivals, but cargo space booked is not always filled, so it is difficult to give precise figures.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to stop the steady dilution of the pool price paid to British dairy farmers by the increasing imports of milk products.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 28th February in this year.—[Vol. 759, c. 1394–5.]

This ever-growing flood—indeed, deluge—of imports of milk products will bring about a most serious situation in the dairy industry. Is it not time that the Minister took action to control dairy products imported into this country?

We do not under-estimate what is coming in. Nor does it do any good to exaggerate. However, we are discussing the whole matter with the National Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board.

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board has recently expressed grave concern about the matter. Has he given consideration to this matter, and has his right hon. Friend given consideration to what has been said by the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board? If not, will the Minister give personal consideration to the grave situation that is developing on this front, which calls for definite action?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not catch what I said in the concluding part of my answer. I said that we were discussing this whole matter with the National Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he is giving to the reduction of imports of agricultural produce from countries with temperate climates.

The question of the right balance between home production and imports is under continuous consideration, and the Government's determinations at successive Reviews have reflected the continuing importance which they attach to agriculture's import-saving rôle under the selective expansion programme.

Is the Minister aware that this is the answer we are given every month? Is it not time that we had some action? With the import figures running at £650 million per month, is it not time that some incentive was given to farmers to reduce this figure?

The farmers were given an incentive in the Price Review. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Government have adopted a selective expansion programme to encourage import saving. This is something which his party never did.

Is the Minister prepared to enter into further talks with the Government of New Zealand with a view to reducing our imports of lamb and mutton from that country?

These matters are constantly under consideration. I would ask my hon. Friend to give notice of that question.

Is the Minister aware that he has given a most disappointing answer to a most important question? Has he acquainted himself with the figures published today of the trade gap? Is it not absolutely clear that there is no chance of closing this gap by export efforts alone? Will he, therefore, give some positive encouragement to people to save imports by producing more food at home by giving them a really action-full policy now?

I agree that agriculture has a greater contribution to make in this sphere, but this cannot be done overnight. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should have started it when they were in power, but they failed to do so. We have a constructive policy and, by successive Reviews, we have given farmers the incentives that they need. We shall continue to do that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the White Fish Authority's proposal for a statutory minimum prices scheme.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to the Government of financing a statutory minimum prices scheme as proposed by the White Fish Authority.

We are ready to consider any scheme that may be submitted by the White Fish Authority.

I understand that no Exchequer contribution is proposed.

Is it not a fact that the original scheme was turned down by the industry because there was no Exchequer contribution? Are the Government prepared to reconsider this decision and to make a financial contribution in future?

The scheme was not turned down for that reason, but because of lack of support. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he changed his opinion about the minimum prices scheme as a result of representations from the inshore fishermen.

Will the Minister accept that a viable scheme of this nature, by giving higher financial yields to those catching fish, might mean in the end less Government subsidy, for which the Opposition are now clamouring?

It may have that effect, but the Authority's proposals at present are a matter for discussion between it and the industry. It would be wrong for me to make any comment before the scheme had been submitted.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on his Department's review of the fishing industry, in view of the undertaking to make a statement in 1967.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to announce the results of his departmental review on the future of the fishing industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the review of the fishing industry made by his Department.

I shall be making a statement during the debate on the fishing industry later today.

Is the Minister aware that that reply is very acceptable? We have been waiting since the review was announced in 1965. The Minister will recognise that the industry is in a bad state, and I hope that that will serve to put it right.

I hope to go some way in that direction, but the action that we will be taking will be to correct the Act passed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that he will be in a position tonight to make a full enough statement to remove the doubts about future planning which have been bedevilling the industry for some time? Can he promise that he will not in any event curtail his statement during the debate, but that there will be a full debate in the not too distant future in Government time which will allow us fully to discuss the industry?

I hope that what I have to say will partly satisfy hon. Members. I cannot make any offer of time. That is not my job. That is a matter for the Leader of the House. Thirdly, the time when we normally discuss them is when the schemes for subsidies are submitted. That is usually in July.

Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House who represent fishing ports have waited for some months and are happy to wait for a few hours more for what we expect will be a most helpful answer by the Government?

I only hope that it will be a step in the right direction. Everybody knows that the fishing industry has gone through a difficult time as a result of the market itself, and it is still working under the old Act laid down by our predecessors.

I welcome the fact that a statement is at last to be made, but would not it have been for the convenience of the House, unless it is of inordinate length, if the statement had been made in reply to Questions today so that we could have had time to consider it before what, with the best will in the world, will be a short debate tonight?

We have to take account of all the different parts of the industry. We have to consult them all the time. We had a meeting only yesterday. We had hoped to make the statement before now, but these things are always tempered by the number of people to be consulted.

Does my hon. Friend agree that although his statement may go a long way towards helping the fishing industry, there is a good deal that the industry can do to set its own house in order?

I think that certain things might follow from what we are doing to increase the efficiency of the industry as a whole.

Is the Minister aware that inshore fishermen at Newhaven and throughout the country feel that far too little account has been taken of their point of view? Will the Minister be saying something about them during the debate, and will he give the House some reassurance about them?

I am aware of the position of the inshore fishermen. I have some in my constituency, and I hope that I shall be able to say something about inshore fisheries as well.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Meat and Livestock Commission are taking to enable meat to be clearly labelled so that housewives can be fully aware of the fact that they are buying meat emanating from countries where foot-and-mouth disease is endemic.

None, since this is not a matter for the Commission. All imported meat is already required to bear an indication of origin. Meat from non-Commonwealth countries must either specify the country of origin or be labelled "foreign".

Does the Minister realise that many housewives do not want to buy meat which is potentially dangerous for another outbreak of this dreadful disease? Does he further realise that the powers which the Livestock Commission has enables it to label meat in that way so that housewives can be certain that they are running no risks of that sort?

When we were discussing the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in Committee upstairs we discussed labelling to a considerable extent, and I remember how bitterly the hon. Gentleman opposed the labelling of meat. Under the Trade Descriptions (No. 2) Bill powers will be given to impose marketing regulations in the interests of buyers, and we shall consider what is appropriate for meat.

Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that as far as possible meat imported from these countries is sold in the big cities, and thus the inevitable risk of a recurrence of foot-and-mouth disease is reduced to a minimum?

Once the meat comes in it is very difficult to direct the wholesaler where to sell it. The difficulty is almost insuperable. As far as possible the wholesaler likes to sell that type of meat in the larger cities.

In view of the Minister's original reply, when he said that it was obligatory to mark the country of origin on imported meat, may I ask whether that is applicable to bacon and what steps are taken to see that the provision is enforced?

I cannot answer that off the cuff, but I think that it applies to bacon. I said that the country of origin ought to be stated, or at least it must be labelled "foreign".

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further steps he is taking to prevent the wheat market from being severely depressed by imports of French wheat before he is able to increase the minimum import charges.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that from time to time during the past six months the price of wheat on the home market has fallen to too low a level as a result of foreign imports landed at British ports at prices below the cost of production; and what steps he will now take to remedy this situation.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that exceptionally heavy imports of French wheat during recent months have depressed the market to a point when some holders of grain in this country cannot obtain an economic price; and what further action he now intends to improve the market.

Imports of French wheat have not been abnormally large, but the low price at which it is on offer is a major cause of the current low price for home-grown wheat. While discussions continue about an increase in the existing minimum import prices following devaluation, the return to producers is not affected since this is safeguarded by the guarantee system.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that he is prepared to tolerate a situation in which these dumped imports are wrecking our markets, and where the restitution of import subsidies paid on them is more than the selling price of the product? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that that is an intolerable situation about which he ought to be doing something?

I realise that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are a gross exaggeration of the facts. The fact is that we are having discussions. I hope that they will be concluded at an early stage, and I hope to make a statement to the House.

Is the Minister aware that his answer will cause grave concern to producers who have been alarmed at the way in which these imports have been coming in? Will he give the House an assurance that he will come to a decision about some form of control on these imports? If he does not he will not get the increased production about which he was talking glibly a few moments ago.

We shall come to a conclusion as quickly as possible, but we have to discuss the matter and negotiate, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware. There will be no unavoidable delay. I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the International Grains Agreement, which will be a help in this direction, will, if ratified, come into force on 1st July.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many thousand boxes of eggs he estimates will be imported in the April to March year 1967–68 compared with the 739,000 boxes imported in the previous year.

Eight hundred and fifty-six thousand boxes of shell eggs were imported in the year April, 1967, to March, 1968, but within that total, following the action taken by the Government with the overseas suppliers, imports during the first three months of 1968 were 13 per cent. lower than in the corresponding period of last year.

Does the hon. Gentleman expect that decrease to continue in the remaining months and in future years?

We have drawn that to the attention of those who supply them. We are often obliged to do so at certain times of the year. We want to do what we can to protect our own producers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the increasing need, what steps he now intends to take to persuade the public to buy home-grown food wherever it is comparable in price and quality with food from overseas.

Like the hon. Member, I strongly support the objective of persuading the public to buy home-grown food that is competitive with imported food. But I think that the initiative should remain with the various producer and other bodies that are already taking steps to achieve this objective.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the time has come when quite clearly only the Ministry and the Minister can take the initiative because these commodities and foods are outside the realm of marketing boards or any other organisation? It is high time that something was done about this.

We have done a considerable amount in recent times. I am thinking of the Apple and Pear Development Council, the Meat and Livestock Commission, the National Milk Publicity Council and so on. That kind of work can be done, and we are happy to cooperate, because obviously from every point of view we would rather see the people of Britain buying food and necessities which are produced within our own shores.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the additional cost to livestock producers of increasing the price of cereals by £3 per ton.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the Question by the hon. Member for Angus, North and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on 4th March.—[Vol. 760, c. 20.]

Can the Minister confirm that when the White Paper says that the level of minimum import prices is under consideration, that applies to a revision upwards as, I think, one might expect? If it does, what recompense is to be given to livestock producers following upon the Price Review which was unagreed?

"Unagreed" is a very good word. It certainly was not disagreed. There are already differences among livestock farmers in the feeding systems and cereals usage. Global estimates in the annual review are for all feeding-stuffs and estimates of cereal effect only would not be practicable.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the rise in cost of imports, due to an increase in the minimum import price for cereals and cereal products of £3 per ton.

An increase in the minimum import prices does not necessarily involve a corresponding, or any, increase in the cost of imports, since a minimum import price takes effect only if and when the commodity to which it relates is on offer at or below that price. Thus the effect of an increase in minimum import prices depends on the level of world cereals prices. A general increase of £3 per ton would not at present increase the cost of most of our imports.

Despite the hon. Gentleman's somewhat adroit evasion of this real problem, is it not absolutely clear that an increase in minimum import prices would put an extra burden on the balance of payments? It is surely clear that it would and that, if minimum import prices are to be raised, then at least import levies, which would be of advantage to the Exchequer, should come with them.

Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say on that last point, that was not in his original Question. I was not avoiding the Question, adroitly or otherwise, but stating a fact. Obviously, one must take all these things in balance. Of course we must think of the effects of the present prices on our own trade. Indeed, it is always difficult to know whether hon. Gentlemen want to put them up or bring them down. What we must do is act in the interests of both the producer and the consumer.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to eradicate the saw-toothed grain beetle; and if he will make a statement.

This pest is widespread in imported foods and homegrown grains. Its eradication is not commercially practicable, but every effort is being made by publicity, inspection and free advice to ensure that those concerned with storage, transport and processing of food and feedingstuffs know how to prevent and control the pest.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the saw-toothed grain beetle was not in this country five years ago—

Resign!

Does he know where it came from? Would he not agree that this has created a serious problem for the malting industry over germination?

Her Majesty's Government have been blamed for many things in the past three or four years, but this is a new one. I appreciate the difficulty and the danger of this pest, and considerable assistance can be given for fumigation and so on. Advice is available from the advisory services to those concerned to prevent and control the pest, although eradication is very difficult to carry out commercially.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated annual cost to producers and public funds, respectively, of the Egg Marketing Board.

Excluding payments to producers, total expenditure by the Board in 1966–67 was £22·7 million primarily in respect of marketing expenses which are defrayed out of trading receipts. The only cost falling directly on producers was the Board's levy on sales amounting to £1·37 million which was used to meet in part the cost of the Board's research and publicity programme. The cost of the Board to public funds is nil.

Even on those figures, does the hon. Gentleman accept that on any cost the Egg Marketing Board is very bad value? Would he comment on the sharp criticisms of it by the Government-appointed Consumers Committee?

No, Sir, I would not care to comment at the moment. A Committee is investigating the Board at present and the time for comment will be when its report has been received.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will make the levy order for the Meat and Livestock Commission.

The Commission have today published their proposals for a levy scheme which have been formally submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and me. We are now ready to consider these proposals and to receive representations from the interests concerned before deciding on the submission of a draft Order for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. My right hon. Friend and I hope it may be possible to lay a draft immediately after the Whitsun Recess.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if the full levy asked for is authorised it will cost the livestock industry £3 million in a full year? Is he satisfied that producers will get a good return for their money?

I am anxious that producers should get a good return and also that the economy should benefit, but it would not be proper for me at this stage to be drawn into discussion on this, because the Act requires the Commission to submit proposals and requires me to examine them and to be satisfied before any levy scheme is brought into force.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the delay in the preparation of contracts for producers of bacon pigs; if he will investigate the reasons for this delay; and if he will make a statement.

Any contract for the supply of pigs is a commercial matter between the parties and is of course not a Government responsibility.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the average weighted contract price offered at the end of last week was sixpence below the standard price for pigs? Is he satisfied that this will lead to a recovery in the pig herd, which was called for in the Price Review White Paper?

The signs are that there will be a recovery in the pig herd, but the hon. Gentleman is now asking the Government to interfere between the producer and the bacon curer, which I am certain would not meet the commendation of the whole House.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the Brucellosis Eradication Scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Up to the end of April, 9,150 applications for membership of the Brucellosis (Accredited Herds) Scheme had been received. Some 5,000 herds are in varying stages of their qualifying tests, and 235 herds have been registered as Accredited.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try to speed this up. Those are respectable figures, but this is not good enough. There is a serious health risk. Could not something be done to speed up the eradication scheme?

We are satisfied with the rate of applications, which is about 90 a week, compared with 100 immediately before the foot-and-mouth epidemic, which is just about the same. In due course, we feel that the numbers will reach, I think, at the end of this year, about 3,250 herds, but, of course, we need far more than that before we can think of compulsory eradication.

Would my hon. Friend consult his colleagues in the Ministry of Health to try to discover the true incidence of this disease, particularly among farmers, farm workers and veterinary surgeons, since many of us believe that it is far more common than is generally realised?

I would agree on this, but it is not a notifiable disease and figures are difficult to get. The numbers of cases reported each year between 1963 and 1966 varied between 123 and 169. The provisional figure for 1967 quoted on 2nd February was 242.

But will the hon. Gentleman please make some further effort in this matter? We all recognise the great problem in that the scheme had only just been started when the epidemic broke, which meant that a good deal of work was diverted, but we all want much speedier action. Would he ensure that the maximum attention of farmers is drawn to what can be done and that special steps are taken to get moving on this, since we in this country are lagging behind in this regard?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is being done. He must appreciate that, apart from the testing, there is no pool of accredited herds at present from which to draw. I would not like to say that veterinary surgeons are working to full capacity on it, but the tests are complicated and this is going on. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will see that publicity is given to this matter. The N.A.A.S. and the veterinary officers are aware of the feeling in the country about it.

But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present scheme will take many years to achieve anything like eradication? Has further consideration been given to a compensation scheme, even if it has to be introduced regionally, and at least to the disease being made a notifiable disease?

No, Sir. We are always getting into trouble with the Opposition, which includes the Liberal Party, about spending money. If we were to carry out a full scheme of eradication, it would cost between £45 million and £50 million, apart from the fact that our milk supplies would be reduced during the operation. Hon. Members in the Liberal Party should look at things practically and not from an airy-fairy point of view.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many milk producers there are in Dorset; and how many there were three years ago.

The number of registered milk producers in Dorset at 31st March, 1968, was 1,952, compared with 2,175 in March, 1965.

While appreciating that the larger herds are now more economic, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to bear in mind that many of the Dorset holdings are essentially dairy holdings, not suitable for anything else, and that too great an increase in the number of milk producers cannot be desirable?

It is true that since 1950 the number of herds has progressively declined. I know that it will be a consolation to the hon. Gentleman to know that in his part of the world the decline has been much less than in the rest of England and Wales. In addition we have increased milk production, and have larger herds in his area.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the use of granular insecticides this year in order to reduce the loss of bees and other useful insects.

My Department has already begun, and will continue to give, seasonal publicity on ways of avoiding harm to bees arising from the use of pesticides. The National Agricultural Advisory Service will be encouraging farmers to adopt methods of control which do least harm to bees and will advocate the use of granular insecticides wherever appropriate.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he is satisfied that his message is drawing the attention of farmers to the very real value of bees for increasing certain crop yields?

I do not think that the agricultural community needs to be given that piece of advice. We all know the value of bees, especially those of us who are growing beans. I was at an agricultural executive committee meeting not far from the hon. Member's constituency the other day, and when I entered the room the discussion was about the use of these granular insecticides. Our N.A.A.S. representative was giving advice to farmers. I can assure the hon. Member that steps are being taken, but there are occasions when granular insecticides are not so appropriate as wet spray.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the committee set up to advise on the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the appointment of a body to consider the evidence about the use of antibiotics in animal husbandry and veterinary medicine and its implications in the field of human health.

I hope to announce the membership of this committee very shortly. Its terms of reference will be:

"To obtain information about the present and prospective uses of antibiotics in animal husbandry and veterinary medicine, with particular reference to the phenomenon of infective drug resistance, to consider the implications for animal husbandry and also for human and animal health, and to make recommendations."

I am glad to say that Professor M. M. Swann, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, has agreed to be the Chairman.

In these circumstances it is not possible to say when the Committee will report.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that in view of the fact that his predecessor announced the formation of this Committee as long ago as last September, this is a regrettably unsatisfactory record? While allowing for the pressures on his Department occasioned by the foot-and-mouth outbreak, will he recognise that we will forgive him only if he can give an unqualified promise to the House that the Committee will be encouraged to report quickly and that he will take action on its report immediately?

I am sorry that it has not been possible to set up the Committee earlier, for the reasons which my hon. Friend has given. Nor is it possible to say when a report of an independent committee of this kind will be made. I am sure that the Committee will report as quickly as it can. The important thing is that it should do its job properly.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, since the slap-happy use of antibiotics in agriculture appears to be self-defeating, in rendering some animals and possibly human beings, through food, unable to resist infection, the terms of reference will be wide enough to enable the Committee to recommend a ban on certain antibiotics used in agriculture, as well as just making general control recommendations?

I cannot accept the charge levelled in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. If she will read the terms of reference—which I have read out to the House—in HANSARD tomorrow, she will see that they are sufficiently wide to enable this work to be done admirably.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he could not have gone to a better country or a better city to get the Chairman of this Committee?

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what expert representations he has now received in regard to the need to print the specific name and the amount of artificial sweeteners on food labels; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now introduce regulations to require that, in the labelling of products containing cyclamates, the specific name of the sweetener shall appear on the product.

My Department has received no further expert representations since the Labelling of Food Regulations, 1967, were made, and I have nothing to add to my Answer given to the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on 23rd October last.—[Vol. 751, c. 383–4.]

Can my hon. Friend give a categoric assurance that his expert advisers are satisfied that it will be possible to measure the amount of cyclamates taken in with food without this kind of information on the label?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have to depend on our advisers who are specialists in these matters. Their opinion was embodied in the 1967 legislation, and I see no good reason to depart from it.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are still many people who, rightly or wrongly, regard cyclamates as a potential danger to health? Surely people who feel this way are entitled to be told when any product contains this specific type of sweetener? Why cannot this be required to be done?

Those who advise us on these matters said that if we put on "artificial sweetener" this would convey the necessary information to those people. There are many who will argue, and certainly some gave evidence to this effect, that if this is clearly stated on the label, it is more readily understood by the purchasing public.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what factors he attributes the continuing in- crease in the number of officials employed by his Department in the last five years, in view of the progressive decline in that period in the number of agricultural holdings in England and Wales.

The main factors causing an increase in this Department's staff over the past five years are the additional work arising from the development and implementation of new policies, and the associated significant expansion of technical and advisory services. The net output of agriculture has risen by about 15 per cent. in the same period.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he would agree that the pattern of figures which I have put in my Question is unsatisfactory? If one projects it sufficiently far into the future the position will become entirely ridiculous. With that in mind, will the hon. Gentleman try to contain the costs of his Department?

We always try to contain the costs of Government Departments. I would point out that there is no direct connection between the number of holdings and staff requirements. It is almost in reverse proportion, because as smaller and non-viable or uncommercial farms are amalgamated, generally speaking the farmers concerned are more progressive and want more advice and more farm improvement schemes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that they should be there. Of the 840 increase in staff that I have mentioned, 429 are technical staff, "vets" and so on, and 72 are in the economic division. It is not a case of officials for the sake of them. They are mainly advisory and technical people.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when last a dog died of rabies while in quarantine; and if he will give the same information about cats in quarantine.

The last death of a dog from rabies in quarantine was in October, 1949. The last death of a feline animal was of a leopard cub in November, 1965.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree that three or four animals developed rabies in quarantine in the last 20 years out of perhaps 50,000 or 60,000 subjected to it? Will he further agree that during this period, the great majority of animals capable of carrying rabies coming into the country have not been subjected to quarantine? Will he look at this matter again?

I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's figure but my figures are that the number of cats and dogs imported annually has risen from 3,650 in 1963 to 4,750 in 1967. The figures are rising and the danger is greater. Although the numbers of outbreaks in recent years are small I would point out that in two, if not three cases, since 1929 there have been instances of rabies occurring after the six-months' quarantine period. The hon. Gentleman must know what a terrible disease this is if it gets into human beings, and I do not think that precautions can be too great.

Would my hon. Friend agree that it is very many more years since there has been a case of human rabies in this country, but that we are almost unique in the world in this respect, and that this shows the value of our quarantine regulations?

I agree.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the civil servants employed by his Department in Wales come directly under the London office; and how many come directly under the Welsh Secretary in Aberystwyth.

The Welsh Secretary takes full responsibility for the work performed by 918 of the Ministry's staff in Wales. The remaining 562 are certain professional, scientific, technical and supporting staff for whom the Welsh Secretary has a general co-ordinating responsibility, but who report on technical matters to the directors of services at Ministry headquarters. The senior officers in Wales of the major technical services are stationed alongside the Welsh Secretary at Aberystwyth.

Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it would probably be more convenient if in course of time all these officers were directly responsible to the Secretary of State for Wales? Is a review being carried out into this in the Department at present?

No, Sir. Since I had this job I have been to Wales a great deal and I have been in close touch with the Secretary of State for Wales and Welsh farmers. I have not heard any complaint about the services we provide and the way in which we run them and I see no reason for altering them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party included in its 1964 election programme all agriculture with health and education under the aegis of the Welsh Office, and that there is a widespread belief that this is not being done because of the unwillingness of certain Departments to release the Welsh part of their administrative empires?

Has not the hon. Member heard of the pragmatism we have been looking at in the last four years?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of modern travel and educational facilities, whether he will take steps to ensure that all locally discovered historical and artistic objects of value should remain in their local museums instead of being concentrated in central overcrowded museums.

Where these objects are treasure trove and therefore Crown property decisions about their safekeeping are best taken individually, with regard to their nature, value and national importance, the facilities needed to care for them adequately, the local interests involved and the accessibility of the museums concerned to the majority of the interested public.

Is the Minister aware that St. Ninian's very valuable treasure, which was discovered by an Aberdonian in the Shetland Islands, was incarcerated for a very long time in Edinburgh Museum away from public view until at length it was rescued and sent to Aberdeen Museum where happily it is now on public view? Was it not a disgrace, and will he see that this does not occur again?

I do not think I would accept everything my hon. and learned Friend has said, but replicas of St. Ninian's treasure are being made. Most of these have been completed now and I hope they will be made available to the Shetland Museum shortly. That, I think, we would all welcome.

Would not the hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision and transfer this treasure to the Shetland Museum in view of the fact that it is a very beautiful modern museum and that there is an absence of crime in the Shetland Islands, which cannot be said of many parts of the mainland of Scotland?

I am not sure what is meant by the second part of that supplementary question, but this matter has been considered carefully and I do not think we can reconsider the decision which has been taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that several Glasgow commercial establishments have closed down because of the high burden of rates; and if he will take steps to reduce the rates burden on commercial premises.

I am aware of some commercial establishments in Glasgow have closed, but not that increased local rates have been the only reason for these closures.

The incidence of rates on commercial premises raises complex issues, on which my right hon. Friend is not yet ready to make a statement.

Would not the Minister agree that it is rather ridiculous that Lewis's, in Argyll Street, Glasgow, should pay twice as much in rates per square foot as Selfridge's, in Oxford Street, London, and that Glen's Warehouse, in Ingram Street, Glasgow, is now paying twice as much in rates as 10 years ago? Does the Under-Secretary agree that the problem of empty shops in Glasgow is urgent and serious? Will he consider action before the revaluation of 1971?

We are looking at the whole question, but there are other arguments about the reasons for these increases. It has been argued that there is over-restrictive ownership and that there are, perhaps, too many stores in the centre of Glasgow.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that most fair-minded experts in valuation of commercial properties recognise that Glasgow is over-stored and that, particularly, the House of Fraser has brought this problem on its head by leasing properties from insurance companies at enhanced rents?

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not the only reason, but it is a very major reason, and will he try to drop the apparent air of equanimity with which he views this disturbing trend?

There was no air of equanimity. I said that we are considering it and wish to identify the areas where the average increase is highest, and so on. We take all the factors into consideration. We are not going to jump at an easy answer on this matter simply through panic pressure from hon. Members opposite.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the operation of a single entrance date each year for primary schoolchildren in Glasgow; and what reply he has sent.

A number of representations have been received from parents and others. My right hon. Friend has now required Glasgow education authority to fix two commencing dates for the 1968–69 session and to submit proposals for this purpose. He has also indicated that he will be glad to have further discussions with the authority on any proposals it may have to put to him.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that many parents who wrote to him directly or through their Members of Parliament, will be extremely grateful for the action taken in this matter?

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost per annum to public funds of the publication, "Scottish Economic Development: Quarterly Report".

About £2,000.

As this glossy publication seems to consist almost exclusively of highly tendentious puffs for the Transport Bill and the Secretary of State for Scotland—no doubt both need those puffs—would it not be more seemly if it were financed from Labour Party funds?

I think it an excellent publication. I am sorry that the hon. Member either does not read it or, if he does, does not understand it.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many teachers have now registered with the General Teaching Council.

I understand that 41,688 applications have been received by the General Teaching Council and that registration has been completed in respect of 32,108.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on resisting the representations of minority teachers' organisations? Can he say how many teachers are not yet registered with the council?

I am not able to give an exact figure, but I think the number will be very small indeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the Cullingworth Report proposal that Glasgow's housing problem should be treated as a special case; and, in view of the fact that the recent storm has aggravated the position, whether he will now announce his decision.

My right hon. Friend has been thoroughly examining this and the other recommendations in the Report, and he hopes to announce his proposals soon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the private owners' associations in Glasgow are most reluctant to effect repairs on houses which have been impaired by the storm? What powers has the local authority in Glasgow to go into these properties and effect repairs for people who are suffering as a result of the storms?

On the aspect of storm damage, the Minister of State is having weekly meetings with the local corporation, and tomorrow he is having a meeting with the corporation and property owners to go into a number of the very complex financial issues involved.

As the Under-Secretary said that he is looking at further assistance for Glasgow, can he give an indication when the assistance might be increased?

I do not know whether the hon. Member is referring to storm damage or to the general Cullingworth Report. Our decisions will be made known, I hope, shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what sums he estimates will be paid to horticulturists in Midlothian as a consequence of storm damage.

About £1,100.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Is he aware that there is still some anxiety in Midlothian about damage? I think he will recollect that I wrote to him about it. Can he do something to disabuse people's minds about the way in which these payments can be expedited?

As I recall the exchange of correspondence, the constituent involved has received a satisfactory answer. We give up to 38⅓ per cent. in grant towards the cost of the damage. Only one case has not been met and that is where only minor damage was involved.

As the hon. Gentleman refers to "what will be paid", does he mean what has been paid, because the storm took place in January and it is very disturbing to think that there are any claims still unpaid under the horticultural improvements scheme?

This depends on how quickly people applied. We have tried to use every measure to ensure that people apply timeously. We believe that there are still some applications to come in, but those which have been received have been met timeously.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for introducing legislation to amend the law of Scotland relating to young persons with particular reference to the devolution and ownership of property, to contracts and to franchise.

As the reply is rather long, I shall, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

In these days of widespread education and early maturity, does not the Under-Secretary agree that the splendid young people of today should have all the rights of citizenship?

Yes, but it depends upon how far down the scale my hon. and learned Friend brings the word "young".

Would the Under-Secretary consider that 18 would be a good age for all the purposes of status, franchise, contracts and property, and would have the advantage of simplifying the position so that all young people would know exactly where they stood?

The hon. Lady was reiterating much of the content of the Latey Report and will be aware of the discussion and the debate which has taken place on this subject in the House.

If my hon. Friend accepts the suggestion of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), does he agree that he would be making the position of a number of young people in Scotland under 18 considerably less advantageous than it is at present?