asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to appoint a liaison unit with retail distribution with a view to preventing unjustifiable increases in prices; and if he will make a statement.

We keep in close touch with food distribution through our Advisory Group on the Retail Food Trade. The trade also co-operates in the Department's weekly survey of retail food prices which forms part of the arrangements for price surveillance.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the good work he is doing, prices are being increased substantially day by day, in many cases most unjustifiably? Will he consider the possibility of taking some more effective control over such retail prices?

The fact to which my hon. Friend draws attention has not escaped our notice. My right hon. Friend is giving urgent attention to this matter.

Are not rapidly increasing prices, as well as the £11 million deficit announced a few hours ago, a direct and foreseeable result of Government policies designed not in the national interest but to win a snap General Election?

We are doing our very best to look after the interests of the consumer as well as those of the producer. The hon. Gentleman should have learned that lesson long ago.

If the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to look after the interests of the producer and those of the consumer, will he explain why prices to the consumer are now rising faster than ever before—by 1s. 3d. in the £ in the last 12 months—although the producer is getting such an unsatisfactory yield that he is protesting by keeping stock from the market?

Last year, according to official figures, food prices rose by 5·5 per cent. while wage rates rose by 10·9 per cent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from what organisations he has sought in the last year undertakings to stabilise prices for a stated period of time.

My Department is in regular contact with a wide range of organisations throughout the field for which I am responsible. Discussions concerning possible price increases are confidential, and I cannot, therefore, say which bodies or firms have been involved.

Why does the Minister evade answering the Question when he knows that the president of the feeding stuffs manufacturers' organisation made a speech in his presence in which he said that he did not see why that industry should be bullied into stabilising prices when most of the factors which were causing rising prices in that industry were the fault of the Government alone?

There was no reason why the feeding stuff manufacturers should not put that point of view to me. As their president said publicly, we had perfectly friendly discussions. They gave their opinions, but I took another view and we agreed to differ. At Question time on 15th April the hon. Gentleman made a dishonourable statement to the effect that the Government had sought to blackmail certain organisations. I then asked him to withdraw that statement. He was not sufficiently gracious to do so, and I no longer ask it of him.

Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent the British Food Manufacturers Association is being helpful in keeping down prices? Has it not refused to co-operate? Secondly, would he say to what extent the tea manufacturers, Brooke Bond, consulted him before they put up the prices of tea?

Order. There is a Question on the Order Paper about the second point.

There are two Questions on this subject later.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether in view of the shortage and high price of potatoes to the public, he will take steps to increase supplies from the 1970 crop.

The great bulk of planting for the 1970 crop has now been completed. I have no reason to suppose that supplies will not meet the demand.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that over a year ago some of us on this side warned him about the danger of a shortage of potatoes this year, with consequent high prices, because his Government agreed to a quota acreage of 90 per cent. for last year's crop, which has been partly responsible for the high prices? Are not these high prices partly the Government's fault?

No. The acreages are agreed in consultation with the Potato Marketing Board and the N.F.U. The hon. Gentleman will remember that at the period he was complaining about 36,000 acres were not taken up because of bad weather.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the increase in the cost of food per week for an average family of four consequent on the abolition of the present system of financial aid for agriculture.

The immediate abolition of all agricultural support would have such radical and unpredictable effects on the existing pattern of home production, supplies and prices, that it is impossible to assess what the increased cost of food might be.

Is it not the case that the Tory Party policy is precisely this?

No.

We should like to know the Tory Party policy very much. Is it not the case that if there was complete abolition of this kind of support, the average increase for a family of four would be in the region of 8s. a week? Is this the way to keep prices down?

I do not think that there is any doubt that if the support programme was abolished it would be bound to have a reaction which would mean very expensive food indeed.

Would the hon. Gentleman explain to his hon. Friend that this is not what the Opposition are proposing and that they are proposing the elimination of deficiency payments, which is only one part of this, which is a very different matter, and which the Minister has said will put only between 4 per cent. and 7 per cent. on the price of food?

I do not think that it is for me to explain the policy of the party opposite. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a meeting in the constituency of Banffshire has a motion on the agenda asking the Tory Party to state its policy on this matter. Apparently it does not have one.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will liaise with the Minister of Public Building and Works to protect sites scheduled under the Historic Building and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 and the Ancient Monuments Act 1931 from the depredations of ploughing, particularly deep ploughing.

Under longstanding arrangements, the Ministry of Public Building and Works notifies my Department of all scheduled ancient monuments situated on agricultural land and we take steps, in connection with any application for grant-aid, to remind the applicant of his obligations under the Ancient Monuments Acts.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I draw his attention to the recent report by Sir David Walsh on his inquiry into the arrangements for the protection of ancient monuments and in particular to paragraphs 19 to 24 suggesting that many ancient monuments are coming under threat by new agricultural techniques? Will he ask members of the National Agricultural Advisory Service to advise owners of the fact that they are operating in areas where there are such monuments?

We have this arrangement as I explained, but I will look into the matter of the new techniques which my hon. Friend has mentioned.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the recent outbreaks of Dutch elm disease, he will instruct the Forestry Research Station at Alice Holt to undertake work on the pathology of Dutch elm disease.

As I believe my hon. Friend is aware, there has already been a great deal of research on Dutch elm disease both at home and abroad. The Forestry Commission is now concentrating on testing and selecting strains of elm which are resistant to the disease, since the planting of resistant strains appears to offer the most satisfactory solution to the problem in the long term.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on that reply? May I ask him whether he will, when the survey has been undertaken—and I hope that it will be done with a sense of urgency—make the findings known to as many interested parties as possible?

I will see that that point is noted.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the strongest and most beautiful of all elm is the Huntingdon elm and that this is resistant to the Dutch elm disease? Will he invite the attention of all concerned to this fact?

Yes.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that weedkillers containing 2,4,5-T present no hazard to human life; and whether he will ban the use of such products while doubt remains in scientific opinion regarding the side-effects of this chemical.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of the ban imposed by the Forestry Commission on the use of the weedkiller 2,4,5-T, if he will take steps to ban its distribution and use throughout the United Kingdom until the results of the investigations of his advisory committee on pesticides and other toxic chemicals are known.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the use of 2,4,5-T in weedkillers, pending results from the advisory committee's inquiry into its safety so far as human beings are concerned.

New evidence from the United States of America is under consideration by the Advisory Committee. Preliminary study has not revealed anything to enable me to add to my reply of 22 April, but I will make a further statement very shortly when the committee has completed its consideration of the evidence.—[Vol. 800, c.113–4.]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that careful answer. Would he bear in mind that there is a feeling in the country that the extensive use of weedkillers can lead to dangers, particularly to human life, and that there is the thought that 2,4,5-T may produce this danger? Will he ensure that manufacturers and users observe careful control of this dangerous chemical?

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said and the concern of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen throughout the House about this. The House will agree that I have not been slow in taking action where I have had the evidence clearly before me. In this case, I feel that my committee should be enabled to look at the voluminous evidence coming from the United States, and I have asked it to report as quickly as possible.

As the Forestry Commission has seen fit to ban this chemical, and as it has also been banned in the United States, would the Minister not be wise, while his investigation is going on, to ban its complete use until the result of the investigations is known?

It would be wrong for a Minister to ban a weedkiller or anything else without having the advice of British scientists and Government committees. This could lead to general public alarm without necessarily any justification. I seek to take a balanced view of these things after proper consideration. As for the Forestry Commission, the hon. Gentleman knows that it suspended the use of 2,4,5-T as a management decision following special representations from the unions. It has made it clear that its decision was not made on grounds of safety.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the ban imposed by the Forestry Commission on the use of the weedkiller 2,4.5-T will result in a reduction in the proposed redundancies of manual workers employed by the commission.

The Forestry Commission has not imposed a ban on the use of 2,4,5-T, but has temporarily suspended its use at the request of the unions pending the result of the review to which I referred in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 22nd April. This suspension will have no effect on redundancy.—[Vol. 800, c.113–4]

Bearing in mind what I have been told by the Forestry Commission, that this is the most economical way of dealing with this wood weed, does this not mean that if it has to be dealt with manually more men will be required? Is it not ridiculous to cut a force of 28 men down to a low figure such as 12?

These are matters which we shall have to consider, as I said in my Answer to the previous Question, when the report of the committee is before us. At the moment, the redundancy question is unaffected. If a ban is effected we shall have to consider the position in the light of the new situation. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern for his constituents, and I shall be glad to discuss it with him if it becomes necessary to impose any sort of ban.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what yardstick he uses for assessing capital investment in agriculture during the rest of this year.

There can be no single yardstick for assessing levels of future capital investment in agriculture. This is influenced by the availability of cash and credit, the expected return, and other factors, but previous trends provide an important guide.

With regard to the part of the Price Review devoted to deficiency payments, is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is revealed almost daily that farmers have so little left to invest in capital enterprises that in the coming year agriculture will suffer? Bearing in mind this long-term aspect, will the hon. Gentleman consider either an emergency Price Review or other action to deal with this part of the Price Review problem?

My right hon. Friend has heard the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary. As to the first part, there is no indication that this is taking place. The applications for farm improvement schemes are going ahead. There is no sign of a slowing down in the buying of tractors. There was a little recession in January but registrations went up 27 per cent. in February. For the first quarter of 1970 new investment is up 9 per cent.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the future of the National Agricultural Advisory Service; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins) on 9th April.—[Vol. 799; c.126–7]

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he will take great pains in the reorganisation to ensure that the advisory and administrative functions of the new service are kept quite separate and are seen to be kept separate?

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I think that he is referring to what has been called the integrity of the N.A.A.S. I take this opportunity to repeat willingly my unequivocal assurance that those engaged in advisory work will have a duty to give completely impartial advice. I attach great importance to that.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the differential in the price of feeding stuffs in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain.

The differential in 1969–70 is estimated at some £1 million.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a very serious disparity, which has been allowed to drift owing to the ineptitude of the Government, in spite of the fact that a detailed analysis of this problem was carried out in 1968?

We have noticed the gap, but it has nothing to do with ineptitude. The gap is narrowing a little. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have remembered that there are also disparities even within Great Britain itself.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give his estimate of the increased costs of feeding stuffs in Ulster if the United Kingdom enters the Common Market?

No, I should not like to hazard a guess.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now review the scale of incentive in the Farm Amalgamation Act, 1967.

We have increased the rate of grant under the Farm Amalgamations and Boundary Adjustments Scheme to 60 per cent. for the next two years, and the scheme will be made more attractive by the proposals in the Agriculture Bill, particularly the reduction from 40 to 15 years in the period for which the amalgamated unit must be kept together and in agricultural use.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the response to this scheme has been disappointing and that, owing to inflation running at supersonic speed, the so-called " golden handshake " has dwindled in value to a meagre handshake, which will have no appeal to the outgoing farmer?

No, Sir; that is not the case. There have been about 3,500 applications in the United Kingdom; in Northern Ireland there were 270 amalgamations and 227 payments to outgoers. We did not get the supersonic speed which the hon. Gentleman would like, but we hope the new conditions will help.

When the Bill was introduced in 1967, were any projections made of the trend in amalgamations over the succeeding three, four or five years? Have these expectations been met by the scales which were then introduced?

No projections were made. There were two reasons for the scheme—first, to increase amalgamations and, second, to help people who wanted to retire. There has been a tremendous amount of help, particularly to elderly people, to get out of the industry.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the reduction in income to hill flocks of sheep as a result of the 1970 wool clip prices announced by the Wool Marketing Board.

This will depend on the farm, the flock and the season. I understand, however, that on average the prices in the board's schedule are around 5 per cent. lower.

Could the right hon. Gentleman direct himself particularly to the problem of the hill and upland farmer? Is he aware that the 1970 wool guarantee is exactly the same as it was 10 years ago and that this is particularly hard for the upland farmer, because he does not benefit directly from the increase in the fat lamb guarantee price?

It must be remembered that the Government have maintained the wool guarantee at a high level in relation to the market price, and this accounts for about one third of the producer's return on wool. I do not agree with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. He must know that the incomes of owners of hill flocks should benefit from the substantial increase in the guarantee for fat sheep of 3d. a pound, which was the highest since 1947.

Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a matter of national concern that the sheep flock is going down and that there has been particular hardship in the hill areas? Is this matter being kept under review this summer, in view of certain undertakings given by the Minister at the time of the Review?

Yes, but it is true that the flock is not going down in the uplands. We thought that it was right to put up the end price, as all farmers have asked. The flock is going down in the lowlands, and we hope by these means to increase it so as to increase the flock overall.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the net value to the producers of the 1970 United Kingdom wool clip; and if he will make a statement.

I am advised by the British Wool Marketing Board that it estimates the return to wool growers from the 1970 clip, net of their marketing costs and based on a forecast clip of 65 million lbs., to be over £12·25 million.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a reduction in the return from wool? Why was no cognisance taken of this during the Price Review to safeguard the production and marketing costs increases which have happened?

It certainly was taken into consideration. That is why, as I said in reply to a previous question, we decided to put 3d. per pound on the end price for fat sheep.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the proposals made to him by the Potato Marketing Board for increasing its levy; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received two representations. Amendments to the scheme, providing for this increase and other changes, were submitted yesterday to my right hon. Friends. Statutory procedures governing this matter will now be followed.

In view of rising costs to potato producers, would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a serious addition to potato growers' costs?

We got these representations only yesterday. There have been intimations to my right hon. Friend, but, of course, there are certain procedures, of which the hon. Gentleman is well aware, which we must follow.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has now made of the effect on livestock haulage of the restriction on drivers' hours as a result of the Transport Act, 1968; and if he will make a statement.

As the hon. Member will know, the regulations provide concessions in respect of the haulage of livestock. As I said in my reply to the hon. Member on 15th April, we have received only one representation about the difficulties arising in England and Wales.—[Vol. 799, c.239]

But would the hon. Gentleman please appreciate that the farming industry, on top of the extra costs which the Transport Act has brought, is suffering considerable inconvenience through the working of that Act in relation to hours, which in some cases causes suffering to animals? Would he consider this urgently and recommend the Minister of Transport to give exemption on hours for livestock haulage similar to that enjoyed already by fish traffic?

I am aware that the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland have received representations about this which are being studied. There are some concessions to livestock transport which help.

Would the hon. Gentleman please make special representations to the Ministry of Transport? Is he aware that the animal welfare societies are becoming increasingly concerned about the hardship, pain and suffering being caused to animals because of the difficulties imposed by the Act? Would he get together with the Ministry of Transport to try to solve this problem?

I will certainly look into that point.

Can my hon. Friend give any information about the payment of wages to transport workers who are not working this week because of the irresponsible ban by the farmers on the movement of livestock to market?

That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had this year with the agricultural industry relating to the haulage of livestock to and from auction markets.

None, Sir. My right hon. Friend has not been asked for any.

The key point is the time that transport drivers spend waiting at an auction mart. Is it included in the working day or not?

It depends on the waiting time. In general, drivers of goods vehicles are restricted to 10 hours' driving time out of an 11-hour working day. Some relaxation has been allowed for work in connection with the carrying of animals. The daily duty can be spread over 14 hours provided that the actual on-duty time, including waiting time, is limited to 10 hours. Any time waiting in marts could be included in the 14.

Will my hon. Friend give this matter further consideration? It is causing consternation in many of the marts in Scotland where it is necessary to hold stock over to the following day. A slight adjustment here could be beneficial not only to farmers but also to haulage contractors without doing anyone real harm.

As I have said, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland are discussing this matter with the Scottish N.F.U.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by whom he will be represented at the West European Fishing Conference in Aberdeen in September of this year.

I understand this will be a private meeting of European trawler owners, and the question of Ministerial representation does not, therefore, arise.

If it does not arise on the Ministerial plane, would the right hon. Gentleman not consider sending an official to the meeting?

I am afraid that this is a private meeting among the trawler owners themselves. Since we are not invited to it, we can hardly ask them to invite an official to a private meeting. If they want to have one, we shall be delighted to co-operate.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is very important that he should be represented by an expert and authoritative person, having regard to the various problems in the North Sea which are outstanding, such as poaching and the safety of life at sea?

All I can say is that I would be delighted to go, but I have not been invited.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce the appointment of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Eggs Authority.

We shall be making an announcement as soon as possible.

The right hon Gentleman will realise the anxiety in the poultry-industry as a result of the Government programme in the Agriculture Bill. Would he give an assurance that the Government will look again at the case for subvention, by means of support buying, for eggs?

That would hardly arise from this question. I said that we hoped to make an announcement about the appointments very soon.

May we be assured that " jobs for the boys " will not be found before the dissolution of Parliament?

I can remember some of the jobs found for some of the other boys when they departed.

When my right hon. Friend is considering the two appointments, will he direct the attention of those who are appointed to the continuing diminution in the size of eggs? Is he aware that the diminution in size is not being accompanied by a diminution in price and that this is a most important matter to housewives? Will he take it into consideration and see what can be done?

At the end of the day, I shall have to leave it to the hen. But what my hon. Friend has said will be taken note of.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of land in County Antrim has been approved for the payment of hill cow subsidy; and whether he is satisfied that all farmers who are eligible are receiving the grants.

Approximately 26 per cent. of the total areas of agricultural land in County Antrim has been approved as eligible hill land for the payment of hill cow subsidy. We are satisfied that all farmers who have claimed and are eligible are receiving the subsidy.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that authorities in a position to judge the situation in Scotland as well as Northern Ireland are of opinion that if the same criteria were applied in Northern Ireland as in Scotland to define hill land the acreage might be doubled?

I have no proof of that statement. When land is inspected we are guided by experts. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on the figures I have given, I am sure that he will conclude that the area has been well treated.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he now anticipates an increase in the hill ewe flock in 1970.

It is too early to make a reliable forecast of hill ewe numbers for 1970. However, I am confident that the additional measures announced at the Annual Review provide the means and encouragement for greater productivity and growth in the hill sheep industry.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the price of wool has a significant effect on the increase or decrease of the hill ewe flock? Does he also agree that in the price review the Minister gave different increases in income for dairy farmers and so on, together with different acreage calculations? What will be the decrease in income for hill sheep farms with two, four and six hirsels in the coming year?

My right hon. Friend answered the point about wool in a previous Question. I will try to give the hon. Gentleman the estimate he asks for.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement on this season's sugar beet crop; and what sugar import substitution is expected to take place during the current season.

The British Sugar Corporation now reports that 87 per cent. of the authorised acreage of sugar beet had been drilled by 2nd May and that drilling was virtually completed last week. The season has undoubtedly been a late one but prospects in most areas now seem no worse than they did at this time last year and in some areas look rather better. It is, of course, too soon to make any prediction on the likely output of sugar.

Does not that reply show that there is a serious risk of the yield from home sugar production being below what the Government have planned and what is required? Would it not be better in future years to have a margin of safety in terms of a larger permitted acreage?

It is difficult to predict what the sugar content will be, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. If we get weather like today's, it can improve it tremendously. It would be difficult for anyone to predict accurately what the outcome was likely to be.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of Kentish farmers are advocating the growing of sugar beet in Kent? What is his attitude towards extending sugar beet production to that area?

I will not deal with that area in particular but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that work is at present going on which will give us a considerable increase in capacity.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the 8d. per pound increase in the price of Brooke Bonds P.G. Tipped tea was made with his consent; why this was not referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and whether he will make a statement.

I was not given information to enable me to consider whether the increase was justifiable against the criteria set out in Cmnd. 4237. In view of this, and of other increases in tea prices similarly made without giving me advance information, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity and I are referring the industry to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware how pleased we are to see that he and his Ministry are doing something positive to try to prevent what would appear to be quite unnecessary increases and the very high-handed attitude which has been adopted by some of these big businesses?

I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, from the statement on the front page of theDaily Mailyesterday, 16,500 individual price increases have now been notified since devaluation, and that wholesale grocers say that they are in the position of not being able to notify the Minister within the 28 days required simply because costs are rising so fast as to overtake any possibility of giving that notice?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the statement which I hope to make on the general issue at the end of Question Time. As he and the House know perfectly well, the figure of 16,500 increases produced by theGrocerwas totally misleading.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has now received from the Meat and Livestock Commission to improve home production; and what reply he has sent.

We have had no recent representations from the Meat and Livestock Commission on home production generally. My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have received the commission's views on sire licensing, which are being considered along with those of other interested organisations.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that, in view of the capital position in the industry at the moment, this proposal, particularly for the abolition of bull licensing, seems incredibly complacent?

As the hon. Gentleman has heard, we have had this represented to us, and it and other representations will be considered.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that fattening livestock is becoming so unprofitable that for the first time since the war keeping is not selling in the Welland Valley?

That is a rather different question, but I note what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether agricultural and horticultural products consumed in Great Britain have been grown abroad using chemicals which are either prohibited or restricted in the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend cannot exercise surveillance over the detailed agricultural operations in the numerous countries from which we import agricultural and horticultural produce, but the food we import is safeguarded by the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, and the Imported Food Regulations, 1968.

Can the hon. Gentleman, in his Ministry of Food hat, say whether he is satisfied that in no circumstances is food consumed in this country having been grown in conditions which would not be allowed in this country? Secondly, is he, wearing his Ministry of Agriculture hat, aware that in certain circumstances it is possible that the farmers in this country have to maintain standards higher than those maintained by our suppliers overseas and that they are, therefore, at a disadvantage?

The answer to the first question is " No ", and the answer to the second " Yes "; and it is difficult to avoid.

Does not my hon. Friend remember that there are provisions in the Medicines Act, 1968, whereby World Health Organisation regulations were anticipated and the covering provisions of our own legislation were embodied? Has that part of the Act yet been put into operation?

It has not been put into operation, but I am glad that my hon. Friend has reminded the House of it.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move to refer to the Select Committee on Procedure the rules and procedure by which hon. Members are referred to by name and their constituencies with an instruction to the Committee to make proposals to enable any hon. Member to select and adopt any name or title to which he may lawfully and legally be entitled, and to be so referred to in Parliament.

Such a matter is already within the terms of reference of the Committee.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that exciting reply, but cannot he go a step further and refer the matter to the Committee, as he has done other important subjects, and no doubt ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Lambton) to give evidence on this very important issue?

Although my reply may not have been exciting, it was precise and I cannot go beyond it.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now provide self-seal envelopes for the use of Members.

If there is evidence that Members generally would like these envelopes to be stocked, I will certainly make the necessary arrangements.

The House will appreciate the great anxiety felt about what is rather a sticky question. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I have calculated that I could save myself half an hour a day—extended over 50 weeks, that is 10 working days—in this way, which perhaps would allow me to ask 16 more Oral Questions a year? Does he not think that this should be taken into account?

On that evidence, I might have wished to give a different reply. I am anxious to help hon. Members and save their time. I will make the necessary arrangements.

While my right hon. Friend is looking into that matter, will he also look into the question of the printed postcards of acknowledgement? If they had " official paid " printed on the reverse side, it would save the use of an envelope.

I will look into that suggestion.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will initiate an inquiry into the question of security within the Commons part of the Palace of Westminster.

The problems of safeguarding classified documents in the Palace of Westminster are being reviewed by the authorities of the House in consultation, as necessary, with the security authorities, to determine whether any changes in present procedures are required.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he considered, or will the appropriate authorities be considering, the need for the appointment of a full-time security adviser for the House rather than leaving the matter to the House authorities, who are not as experienced in the matter as perhaps they might be expected to be?

I note what my hon. Friend has said. In view of my answer, I think this point should wait until we have the consultations.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 24th July, 1968, when this House was considering, on a Privilege Motion, the case of an hon. Member providing information to the Press from one of our Select Committees, the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) supported that hon. Member? Is he further aware that I accordingly declined to sit under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Fife, West on the Estimates Committee and resigned from that Committee? What right has the hon. Member, therefore, to raise a question of security when he himself condones the provision of information to outside bodies from within this House?

In view of what I have said in reply to the Question on the Order Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has a perfect right to ask me about this matter, which is one of interest. In view of my reply, let us leave it at that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has made an attack on me which is quite unjustified. If he reads in HANSARD the speech I made on the occasion he referred to, he will see what a distortion of it he has just made.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will arrange to have published a daily Demand Form for Sessional Printed Papers and affix it to the front page of the Vote.

I am asking the Services Committee to look into this matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members receiving this form have some difficulty in finding it at times? Very often it is mislaid or an hon. Member drops it, with the result that important matters are not brought to Members' notice as they should be.

I have said that I will look into this with the Services Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many economic growth points there are in Scotland.

The Government's investment incentives policy and programmes of infrastructural investment are designed to benefit the country as a whole rather than a limited number of favoured growth points.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the Government's attitude is infinitely preferable to the limited growth which we should get from the limited growth point philosophy of the Conservative Party? Would he not further agree that it is essential now in the run-up to the General Election that the Conservative Party should clearly determine those parts of the country which would be in growth areas and those which would not?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The best example that I can give from recent months has been the publication of the Gaskin Report, in which two so-called growth points are identified. This caused a great deal of controversy locally. Our attitude is that areas as such and zones as such should be encouraged in accordance with industry moving in.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the General Secretary of the T.U.C., speaking in Glasgow last weekend, urged that in Scotland we should consider a return to the growth area principle which was worked so well by the previous Conservative Government?

It was not worked well by the previous Conservative Government, as is exemplified in many counties in Scotland, including my own. I am not aware of what the General Secretary said. [HON. MEMBERS: " Why not? "] He is the Chairman of the Regional Committee of the Scottish Economic Planning Council, which wholeheartedly supports the present policy of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from organisations to reduce total Government assistance to industry in Scotland; and what replies he has given.

None, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that both he and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), on Question No. 45, mixed up Mr. James Jack, the General Secretary of the Scottish T.U.C., and Mr. Victor Feather, General Secretary of the T.U.C.? Is he also aware that I have read Mr. Feather's speech in Scotland last week and that it did not coincide with Tory Party policy in any way whatsoever?

It is not the first time that the hon. Member has been tripped up by a feather.

Will the Minister agree that what matters in the end is the success of the policy? Will he not agree that under the regional policies operated by the Conservative Party employment in Scotland increased by 30,000 jobs over our last four years and that under the regional policies of the Labour Government there has been a loss of 41,000 jobs?

Under the present Government the rate of supplying new jobs to Scotland has doubled, is on target, and is well over 120,000. Under this Government the slimming-down of the older industries has gone faster than expected by anyone, including right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

The hon. Gentleman was asked a simple question. Why does he not answer it?

I answered it. The hon. Gentleman does not like the truth.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Economic Planning Council regarding the proposed construction of an ore terminal in Clydeside.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on 16th July, 1969. There was a public inquiry between 17th November, 1969, and 13th February, 1970, into the rezoning of land at Hunterston for various industrial purposes, including an ore terminal. My right hon. Friend awaits the report on that inquiry and cannot comment on the physical planning issues meantime. No recent discussions have taken place in the Scottish Economic Planning Council.—[Vol. 787, c. 110–11.]

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a long time since the Clyde Port Authority offered to build this terminal at its own expense? Would he not agree that it is urgently required? Who makes the decision whether the ore terminal goes ahead? Is it the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office, or the Ministry of Transport? How many Ministries are involved, and who will sort it out?

I am sorry that the hon. Member is so ignorant of these important matters concerning Scotland. Without planning consent by the Secretary of State, this development could not take place. The Secretary of State's decision can be founded only on the evidence given at the inquiry. But that does not mean that various points of view—some, by the way, contradictory, including some from the Conservative Party—on this issue at Hunterston do not have to be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State.

Does my hon. Friend agree that with the tendency of the shipbuilding industry to run down in Clyde-side other industries of even greater importance would be highly welcome there to meet the coming deficiency?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will realise the difficult position that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are placed in, owing to the quasi-judicial function of our office. We are considering a public inquiry. Certain persons have laid objections to certain proposals, and these must all be considered properly. When the reporter submits both sections of his report my right hon. Friend can make his decesion. In the meantime, it would be wrong for Parliament to lead me into making pronouncements of one kind or another, however tempting it may be to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children were receiving part-time education in Scotland at the most recent date for which figures are available; what percentage was in Glasgow; and what were the comparable figures in each of the past four years.

The figures for January given in the replies of 22nd January and 10th February to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) are the latest available, At that time 46 per cent. of the children concerned were in Glasgow schools. The total for January 1969 was 7,191 and 55 per cent. of the children concerned were in Glasgow schools. I do not have January figures for earlier years.—[Vol. 794, c.190; Vol. 795, c.317]

Does the Minister agree that this is a rather serious situation in which Glasgow is carrying far more than its fair share of the load? What plans have the Government to relieve the situation in Glasgow and, more important, to try to obtain more regular and up-to-date statistics?

We are very concerned about the matter. We have asked for a regular return of the numbers of pupils in part-time education not only in January but also in May and September of each year. The supply of teachers for the primary teaching qualification courses —and it is in the primary schools that the fundamental shortage mainly lies—has risen from 2,049 in 1964–65 to 3,213 in the current session.

Since mal-distribution of teachers is the real problem, were any representations made during the recent salary negotiations on behalf of primary teachers to have the £100 rise increased to £200 in special areas?

I would not like to answer that question off the cuff. I should like to consult my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is the Minister aware that while the grave shortage of teachers is particularly serious in the primary sector, the shortage is spreading and widening in the secondary sector? Is he aware that this comes immediately before, and in addition to, the very large shortage of teachers that there will be in the secondary sector in 1972? Will he recognise that this is a very grave matter requiring the most urgent attention?

I recognise the gravity of the situation, which has been with us for a considerable time. Fortunately, the Government have made some progress, though I agree that it is not as much as we would like.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of concern for employment prospects in Midlothian as a consequence of the contraction of coal-mining and paper making; and what steps he will take to provide more job opportunities.

Along with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Technology and the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity my right hon. Friend keeps in close touch with employment problems in Midlothian. The Government will continue to encourage new industrial growth and expansion in the area.

Whilst I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, is he aware that there is great anxiety in my constituency about the continued contraction of the older, dying industries, particularly those that provide male employment? Will he give an undertaking that a meeting could be held between representatives of the Ministry of Technology and Midlothian County Council to try to resolve the problem, which is perturbing us?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. I met the Greater Livingston Group, which comprises West Lothian County Council, Midlothian County Council and the Livingston New Town Development Corporation on 24th April, when we discussed the Greater Livingston Plan. We also discussed the question of industrial promotion and the need for more industry for Midlothian. I am certain that out of that meeting will come initiatives which should help us to improve the situation in the county of Midlothian.

Has the Minister given any consideration to what would be the future of the coalmining industry in Midlothian and elsewhere in Scotland in the event of Britain's joining the Common Market?

I would not be bold enough to try to answer that question without notice.

What steps have been taken to promote the growth of industrial development to the south-east of Edinburgh, which is in Midlothian, as was proposed in the development plan in 1965?

If my right hon. Friend, who has a great deal of knowledge about the matter, looks again at the Greater Livingston Plan, coupled with the recent study of the area carried out by HeriotWatt University, and consults Midlothian County Council about the recent meeting I have mentioned, which was held in the county council buildings, he will see that we are pursuing this very matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a further statement about the reorganisation of health services in Scotland.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given on 18th March to the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis).—[Vol. 798, c. 396–7.]

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern in Scotland about the apparent delay in making a further statement? Can he give us any indication when a statement can be expected?

We must take into account the views of the doctors, and being a doctor I would naturally like them to be considered in this matter. The White Paper on the reform of local government in England, published in February, has suggested that the health services will not be run by local authorities. That is not necessarily to be the case in Scotland. We are still discussing the matter, and we shall issue a statement as soon as we can.

Will the Minister give an undertaking that consideration of the reorganisation of the health services will in no way hold up the Government programme of local health centres in different towns in Scotland, which does not seem to be going at the speed originally intended?

I do not see the connection between the second Scottish Green Paper and the progress in health centres, which has been remarkable in the past five years. There were three health centres when we came to office, and now there are 22 built, under construction, or scheduled.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the capital resources available to Scottish farmers in 1970–71.

No precise estimate can be made but the recent Annual Review settlement is designed to augment the resources available.

Is the Minister aware that capital should come very largely from farmers' income? Is he aware that incomes are already low and are being constantly and rapidly eroded by rising costs?

The hon. Gentleman is as expert in agriculture as I am—[Laughter] Normally he is not the spokesman on agriculture, and neither am I. I accept the first part of his statement as very true. As to the second part, I will consult my hon. Friend.

Whilst I welcome the substantial increases in capital grants to both crofters and farmers in the recent Price Review, will my hon. Friend keep a close watch on the rate of take-up of the increased grants with a view to studying whether the necessary injections of capital are being made for the modernisation of Scottish farming?

Certainly, Sir

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give the net migration figures from the North-East of Scotland for 1969 as compared with 1967–68.

The Registrar General estimates that the net loss by migration from the North-East of Scotland in the years 1967–68 and 1968–69 was 2,500 and 2,000.

What impact do the Government think the massive unemployment throughout the country has on this serious problem of migration from certain districts?

The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that for the rest of Scotland the net emigration figure has been halved since the present Government came to power. We have seen it drop from an all-time high of 47,000 in the country as a whole to about 20,000. In the North-East, which I agree was one of the most badly-affected regions, it is a welcome fact that that loss is also being reduced steadily.

Is the Minister aware that in the North-East of Scotland, as elsewhere, there is a steady decline in the number of men in employment? This is causing great worry. When will the Minister give effect to the growth point policies put forward in the Gaskin Committee Report?

They are being acted upon quite rapidly. Hon. Members opposite did nothing about the matter for the North-East when they were in office. We have authorised the erection of six Ministry of Technology advance factories, and we have an extensive building programme by the Scottish Special Housing Association in support of industry. Assistance has also been obtained from the Development Commission. and within that assistance there is to be an advance factory at Keith, which I had hoped to announce personally in March.