asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a definitive statement on the effect which decimalisation had on price changes.

The change-over to the new currency went very smoothly, and I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 2nd March to the hon. Members for Brent-ford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) and Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd.)—[Vol. 812, c. 376,]

But how can the right hon. Gentleman know whether things went smoothly, particularly when last night he accepted a Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) calling upon the Government

"…to set up an organisation for consumer protection with powers to scrutinise and check prices of essential goods and services."?

That has nothing to do with the Question, which deals with decimalisation. As I have told the hon. Gentleman before in answer to a supplementary question, all the reports are that it has gone very smoothly.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials of the Fisheries Department of his Department are permanently stationed in Brussels during the negotiations currently proceeding for Great Britain to attempt to join the European Economic Community.

My Department is represented at Deputy Secretary level, with supporting staff, on the official negotiating delegation which divides its time between London and Brussels. Officials of my Fisheries Department are brought in whenever the need arises.

Is not that a rather surprising answer? In view of the anxiety felt in the fishing industry, would not my right hon. Friend better be advised to have a permanent official there to see what effect the minimum price scheme, for example, is having on the fishing trade in the Common Market?

No, Sir, I do not think so, because we can keep in much better touch with the industry here, which is the important thing, and Brussels is not very far away. But it is important that in our negotiations we should have at least one full-time member of the negotiating team who is a member of my Ministry, and that is what we have.

As a Member for a fishing port, will the right hon. Gentleman say what is his sticking point in the negotiations? Is he prepared to tell the House that he believes that Article 2, with reservations about the size of vessel, the times of the year for fishing, size of gear and so on, is a sufficient safeguard for our inshore fishing fleet?

The House would not expect me to disclose our negotiating position at this stage, but certainly conservation measures alone, which I think are adumbrated in Article 2, would not be sufficient.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether member States of the European Economic Community individually retain extensive powers to implement conservation measures as part of their individual fishery systems, and how these will apply to Great Britain if Great Britain joins the Community.

Member States of the European Economic Community retain freedom to introduce conservation measures to protect fish stocks within their fisheries limits provided that they do not discriminate between members on grounds of nationality. So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, Her Majesty's Government has reserved its position on the common fisheries policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal of the anxiety about the possible repercussions for the British fishing industry concerns over-fishing? Is he saying today, as I hope he is, that control of this aspect of this difficult problem will be maintained fully in British hands?

I am well aware of the problems, particularly in my hon. Friend's area. His local fishermen were able to put them to me at first hand when I went down to Torbay. What I said earlier in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) shows that I consider that Article 2 alone would not be sufficient protection for us.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider it strange that the Community should delay application of a fisheries policy until the major fishing nations of Britain, Norway and Denmark have applied to join? Would not it have been much better for the negotiations if they had awaited the applications and discussed fisheries policy with those countries at the time?

I think it is clear that what may or may not have been a suitable policy for six countries is not a suitable policy for 10. This number includes the countries the hon. Gentleman has named which are major fish-producing countries. Therefore, I think the answer is, yes.

What does my right hon. Friend mean by saying that the Government have reserved their position?

I mean what is usually meant by that rather ambiguous expression.

Does the Minister realise that many of us who are in favour of going into the Common Market, with certain reservations, are dissatisfied with the attitude which is being taken by the Minister and his right hon. Friend? May we be assured that there is some safeguard for our fishing industry if we go into the Common Market? Does he not realise that the answers which he has given, and indeed the answers given by the Government, give the impression that they are so keen to get in that they do not care a damn about the fishermen of this country?

No. That is not a fair reflection of the view of the House. The House knows generally that the Government are well aware of the problems of the inshore fishing industry and some of the other problems of the deep-sea fishing industry. We have made it plain on many occasions that the present common fisheries policy is not acceptable to us.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who will have responsibility for fixing quality standards in Great Britain for milk and milk products if Great Britain joins the European Economic Community.

The Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community has power to prescribe minimum standards for milk and milk products. It has not yet done so generally, though draft legislation is under consideration. If the United Kingdom were a member of the European Economic Community we should have to comply with any standards so prescribed.

In view of the interest shown in Europe in the excellent work done by the Milk Marketing Board in this country, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to explain to the Europeans the advantages of this type of organisation?

Yes, Sir.

Could my hon. Friend say whether, if these measures are taken by the Council of Ministers, they would be by way of regulations under Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome and thereby be directly enforceable in this country without the intervention of Parliament?

My information is that there is no reason why we should not require higher standards for our own products in the United Kingdom if we want to do so.

That was not my question.

No, but that was the answer!

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from the National Farmers' Union about the progress of negotiations for British entry into the European Economic Community.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his further discussions with the National Farmers' Union about the system of agricultural support in the Common Market in the event of Great Britain joining.

My right hon. Friend has kept in close touch with the President of the National Farmers' Union and there have been regular meetings between my Department's officials and representatives of the Union on a variety of matters arising out of the negotiations on British entry into the European Economic Community.

Does my hon. Friend recall that during the last Price Review in March in the Common Market one farmer was shot in the back, one policeman was stabbed in the throat and 140 went to hospital? Could be explain why Price Reviews happen like that in the Common Market when here they are quite peaceful?

There was a time not so long ago in this country when one right hon. Gentleman had to leave by the back stairs.

Are the Government determined to make sure that, if we enter the E.E.C., production grants will still be possible for hill farmers?

These are matters for negotiation, but there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome to preclude them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the little local difficulty to which he referred, and in which I was involved, was caused by a small number of reactionary Tory farmers who were more concerned about the General Election than about the prosperity of agriculture?

My recollection was that there were rather more members of the Special Branch surrounding the right hon. Gentleman than there were angry Tory farmers.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what benefits hill livestock farmers will gain, if the United Kingdom joins the European Economic Community, from the higher prices paid for cattle and sheep in the Community.

The amount of benefit would depend on the prices ruling at the time of entry and on the extent to which prices for fatstock are reflected back to prices for stores. But the Community's guide price for fat cattle in 1971–72 is about a quarter more than our guaranteed price, and producer prices for mutton and lamb are also higher in the Community. This is evidence that our hill farmers would benefit from a much stronger market for their stock.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this favourable factor, together with such other assistance as he is able to obtain, will ensure that farmers do not suffer adversely as a result of our entry into the E.E.C.?

The problems of hill farmers, particularly the problem relating to the hill cow and hill sheep subsidies, are still matters which we have to discuss in the negotiations at Brussels before the House can come to a decision. I am well aware of these problems, and we will do our best to help hill farmers.

If we do not get a satisfactory arrangement on direct subsidies, such as the hill cow subsidy and so on, will the Minister consider raising the end price sufficiently to give a hill cow subsidy of£22 to£23?

There are many ways in which we can help hill farmers besides the direct subsidy on hill cows or hill sheep.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the National Federation of Young Farmers has rejected any proposition to enter the Common Market?

No, I am not. I very much doubt whether it is representative of young farmers as a whole.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will introduce legislation to control the alcoholic content and gravity of beer.

I see no need for legislation. There is no evidence that the alcoholic content, or gravity, of beer has changed significantly since 1951. Nor is it evident that consumers are incapable of selecting a beer which meets their taste from the many on offer.

Has not the hon. Gentleman seen the Sunday Mirror report, which is quite contrary to what he just said? If it is possible to have the proof written on the label of a whisky bottle and the octane rating on a petrol pump so that the consumer can have a proper choice, why cannot the same be done for beer? If the gravity is declared to the Excise authorities, as it must be, why cannot it be put on the beer pump or the beer bottle label?

The hon. Gentleman has asked several questions. I have read the Sunday Mirror, but a comparison of its article with the article in Which? in 1960 shows no marked trend. If the House wishes, I will circulate the complete comparisons in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The average specific gravity has varied by only 0·2 in 20 years; it has gone up very slightly since 1951. As to the comparison with whisky and petrol, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that they are different. The hon. Gentleman will give just as good a performance on light ale as on heavy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the specific gravity and the alcohol content of beer bear no relation to the quality of the drink, and that the quality of British beer brewed today is higher than it has been at any time since the war?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. There are other things that interest beer drinkers. There is colour and there is flavour, and alcohol content is not one that particularly interests me.

Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that the House must rely for information on a survey in 1960 and a more recent report in the Sunday Mirror? Will the hon. Gentleman consider cutting through all the objections raised on both sides by publishing the tax the drinker pays on a pint, so that the drinker can make his own comparisons?

That is not the Question that was asked. The House does not have to rely on the Sunday Mirror, The Customs returns show that in 1951 the average gravity of all beers was 1036·51 and in 1970 it was 1036·78. Therefore, they show that it is higher.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why it took his Department over 13 years to discover that it had wrongly interpreted Section 3(1)(b) of the Agriculture Act, 1957, when calculating changes in farm costs from one year to another.

Although I have no responsibility for what was done under previous Administrations, my understanding is that the provisions of the Act have in the past been correctly applied for cost changes generally. Feed and transport cost changes were allocated to the "guaranteed" and "non-guaranteed" sectors on the basis of fixed proportions, an arrangement that did not properly reflect later changes in standard quantities. The new method of calculation was accordingly adopted.

Is not that a very serious state of affairs? Is not the right hon. Gentleman saying that he is right in his interpretation of the phrase

"relevant costs of production"

I shall not speculate on the activities of previous Administrations in this respect. The hon. Gentleman should realise that feed and transport costs were originally allocated between guaranteed products on an arbitrary basis. This was never revised, so as time went on it became increasingly incorrect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of disquiet about the way in which he presented his calculations in this year's Price Review, and that he did not make clear in his statement to the House or in his White Paper that costs were£24 million less than they would have been if the previous year's methods of computation had been followed? While there may be valid legal reasons, as the right hon. Gentleman has described today and as he described to me in a letter, for making the change, why did not he say so plainly and explain the matter openly to the House and the country? The right hon. Gentleman has given credence to the belief that this method was contrived to make the Review look better than it was—namely,£3 million under-recoupment instead of£27 million under-recoupment.

I can understand some of the right hon. Gentleman's anguish that a Price Review introduced by me should have had a much better reception than one introduced by him. I did my utmost to save the right hon. Gentleman embarrassment although he had done his calculations wrongly.

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

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the household food bill in the United Kingdom is represented by the cost of processing and packaging.

It is not possible to give a precise figure, but I would estimate that the proportion would be in the region of a fifth to a quarter.

I think my right hon. Friend would agree that these are essentially labour costs. Could we not hope in future to see some reduction as a result of the cut in selective employment tax?

Food packaging and processing, including labour costs, in so far as they form part of the manufacturing process, already mostly qualify for S.E.T. refund. But I agree that the reduction of this iniquitous tax by half will lead to some reduction in prices.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from breeding companies on the extent to which the present licensing regulations hinder the development of more productive strains of livestock.

My right hon. Friend has had representations in this sense from the Association of Pig Breeding Companies and from some of its members.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that an announcement on this subject was expected last year? Will he explain the reasons for the delay?

A Question which is to be answered a little later has a more direct bearing on that subject.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further progress has been reported to him by the Essex and Kent River Authorities in their investigations into the downstream flood defences associated with or arising from the Thames Floor Barrier; and whether he is now in a position to give an estimate of the cost of these works in Essex and in Kent, respectively.

As I told my hon. Friend on 9th February, the problems involved are complex. Both the Essex and Kent River Authorities are proceeding with investigational work in conjunction with soil mechanic experts of the Building Research Station. It will be some time before these investigations and subsequent design work reach a stage where reliable estimates of cost can be made.—[Vol. 811, c. 261–2.]

In view of the complexity and extent of these works, is my hon. Friend satisfied that they can be completed at the same time as the barrier? Will he assure the House, first of all, that there is no question of the barrier being put into operation before the downstream flood defences are completed? Secondly, since some of the river frontages are privately owned and outside the jurisdiction of the river authorities, is he satisfied that the authorities have adequate powers to co-ordinate the work on the defences and that there will be no gaps?

I should like to be quite sure about the second point my hon. Friend made and I will write to him about it, but I believe that all is in order in that respect. In regard to his first point, one of the matters which is exercising us is the need to co-ordinate work with the design of the barrier.

In view of the fact that it is thought that the subsoil in parts of the Essex coast is not strong enough to hold the necessary barriers, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that no work will be carried out upstream which will inundate parts of my constituency or Essex generally?

Work upstream has already started with the raising of the walls, but I can undertake that we shall see to it that the work is so co-ordinated that what my hon. Friend has suggested will not happen.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the Acts which give him power to influence food prices.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) on 20th April. I prescribe milk prices under the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964.—[Vol. 815, c. 364–5,]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I appreciate his embarrasment and his failure to prevent food prices from rocketing? Therefore, does he feel that his party were wise to make such extravagant promises when they knew that they had no power to prevent such rises? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take power to prevent prices rising, or does he intend to continue with his chief alibi about housewives shopping around?

As I explained to the House yesterday, I do not believe that prices can be controlled in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, but the important point is to bring down the level of wage increases which lie at the root of our problems.

In view of the fact that the Motion proposed yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) was agreed to by the House, will the Minister say when he will set up the organisation for consumer protection of which this House has approved?

Although the House did not divide on the Motion, I listened carefully to the points raised in what was, after all, a Private Member's Motion.

Is the Minister aware that there is still some confusion after yesterday's debate about the different reasons which he gives for the difficulty in bringing down food prices? Which of these is the most important: to bring down wages increases, to have more competition, or to have a stronger British agriculture? The Minister has given all these reasons at different times, and it is not clear on which he is relying most.

They are three parts of a very good policy.

What advice does the right hon. Gentleman give to the housewife who has children, or who works outside the home, or who is disabled or retired—what can she do about shopping around?

She can use all her influence on her husband and on the rest of the community to see that wage increases are not granted for no more work.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the respective contributions to the rise in the cost of food for the year 1970–71 of recent transport legislation, the cost of selective employment tax, the cost of increased fuel taxation, and increased wages.

It is not possible to give precise figures but it is clear that wages were the largest single cause of the rise in the cost of food in 1970–71 over the previous year. Higher costs arising from recent transport legislation and from the 1969 increase in selective employment tax also contributed to the rise. Fuel costs have also risen but the last change in fuel taxation was in April, 1969.

Does this not clearly show that the Labour Party is utterly condemned over the past four years, on the legislation it brought in and the increase in the cost of living? Would my right hon. Friend look carefully at the legislation to see what can be pruned and stop all of this Socialist nonsense that is no good for farming?

I agree that a lot of the legislation passed by the previous Government and much of the taxation introduced by them added to the increases which we are now experiencing. That is why the Government have made a start in reducing it.

rose—

Order. I think there is a tendency to move on from peaches to speeches.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Government intend to strengthen their powers over prices in the private sector?

No, we believe that competition is the right way.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the reduction in food prices that will be possible by halving S.E.T. is less than half a new penny in the£?

Naturally it is a small reduction which can be made in this way, but I am confident that at least it will stop some prices from going up.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest estimates of the average size of British farm-holding, and the most recent comparison with farmer-holdings in the European Economic Community countries.

The average area of crops and grass on holdings of 2½ acres or more in the United Kingdom is estimated to have been 79 acres in 1967, which is the latest year when comparable figures are available for European Economic Community countries. The average area was about 47 acres in France, 27 acres in Netherlands and in Belgium/Luxembourg, 26 acres in Germany and 18 acres in Italy. The average size for the European Economic Community as a whole was about 28 acres.

Does not the hon. Gentleman concede that, in view of the figures he has given, the Community will experience extreme difficulty in reaching the Mansholt target plan for the 1980s?

There are great difficulties lying ahead for the Community in that sphere. One thing to be thankful for is that we start with a good lead.

Do not these figures show that British farming under the postwar Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957 has been able to grow in prosperity and confidence, based on investment, because of the guarantees in the 1947 and 1957 Acts which are now being removed?

British agriculture has indeed done a magnificent job since the war. It is an example to the nation. It will continue to do so.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what investigations his Department has undertaken into the nature and extent of contamination of vegetables grown in the proximity of main roads.

Joint investigations by the Ministry and the Agricultural Research Council over the period 1963–69 showed little or no risk of contamination of vegetables unless these were grown very close to busy roads, and then only surface contamination was found.

Is the Minister aware that a senior official of the Department of Health recently told the Royal Society of Health's conference at Eastbourne that there was the likelihood of contamination by lead of vegetables grown alongside main roads? Has the Minister any advice to give to housewives and market gardeners who might be using these vegetables?

The Macaulay Research Institute did some research on this subject between 1963 and 1969. Some outer leaves of vegetables were very slightly contaminated within 50 yards of busy main roads, but not to anything like the extent which is considered dangerous under the Food and Drugs Acts.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the current cost of an average-sized peach.

Retail prices of peaches are not collected officially.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on one famous occasion last year he thought he had a success story because peaches were falling in price? Now he cannot even claim credit for that. Will he go a little further and confirm speculations that the figure for the cost-of-living index in April will be the highest since figures were compiled? Perhaps he will urge his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to get these figures out before the local elections are concluded.

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question has nothing to do with his original Question, to which I would only say that he is so blinded by his prejudices that he would not recognise a good peach if he saw one.

Would the right hon. Gentleman return to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) earlier about price increases? My right hon. Friend asked what the Government would do about the decision—

Order. I should point out that this Question relates to peaches.

I assume that the price of peaches can be dealt with by the body that would be set up if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to carry out yesterday's decision of Parliament. Is he prepared to agree to the Motion and to put into operation the proposals passed by Parliament yesterday? If he is not prepared to do that, is it not obvious that it is this sort of situation that leads the people of this country to feel that Parliament is being brought into disrepute by the actions of the Government?

The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he is nearly always as much out of order when he is on his feet as he is when he is sitting down.

In view of the more auspicious climate for growing peaches inside the Common Market, is there not a likelihood that, once we are in, peaches will be cheaper?

Under Conservative prosperity peaches will be eaten much more than before.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy with regard to Government assistance towards the provision of hypermarkets, in view of their contribution towards a lower cost of living.

The provision of hypermarkets is largely a matter of commercial judgment for the firms concerned.

While agreeing that that is so, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the promoters of the hypermarkets are of the opinion that they can save the housewife about 5 per cent. on food costs and 20 per cent. on non-durables? Would he not agree that that is a very high figure? Is he further aware that if he could persuade local authorities to support these promoters it would be a good thing for the housewife?

I do not think that there is any unanimity on the point made by my hon. Friend. In so far as any development of increased competition will reduce prices, then it has my blessing.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that this was part of the problem we discussed yesterday when the House passed a Motion calling for an organisation to deal with prices? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by his answers today he is in grave danger of flouting the will of this House, not for the first time? Is he aware that he is putting himself in the position of Marie Antoinette and that I should not like to see him lose his head? Will he tell us when he will carry out the terms of the Motion and set up such an organisation?

I cannot see the relevance of that supplementary question to the original Question.

In view of the concern about meat prices and the Minister's advice to people yesterday to eat pork instead of beef, may I, as a vegetarian, sincerely ask him to suggest that the answer is to give up meat altogether and to rely on peaches?

This is a Question about hypermarkets.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement of his policy towards private woodland owners.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to conclude his review of the work of the Forestry Commission.

As already announced, my right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales are conducting a review of forestry policy. It is a wide-ranging one including cost-benefit studies, and I cannot yet say when it will be completed. Their conclusions, which will relate to both public and private sectors, will be announced in due course.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that statement, may I ask whether he is aware that the costs for private woodland owners have been increasing very rapidly recently? Will he introduce an amended scheme for the owners of dedicated woodlands?

There has to be a mandatory review of such grants every three years and that is about to take place. I do not wish to anticipate the outcome of it.

In view of the import-saving potential in forestry, can my hon. Friend say whether it is the Government's general intention to increase afforestation, by means of encouraging either the Forestry Commission or the private woodland owners?

That is one of the subjects that is being dealt with under the general review.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has now made in his consultations with all the interests concerned prior to his amendment of the Regulations on Tractor Safety Cabs; and when he proposes to lay the amended regulations.

My right hon. Friends cannot take the matter to completion until they have received and considered the views of the organisations consulted under the statutory procedure which I described to my hon. Friend on 20th April.—[Vol. 815, c. 364,]

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that every week that these consultations go on, manufacturers are using the wording of the present regulations to hold the farming industry to ransom? Is he aware that this is causing a great deal of resentment and that the sooner it is brought to an end the better?

I cannot go beyond what I have said. A reasonable time for consultations must be given.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his intention that the Codes of Practice now awaiting ratification will permit the penning of sows in stalls in which they can neither walk nor turn around, and in which it will be legal for them to be incarcerated from the time of their first farrowing until their breeding life has ended.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave on 25th November, 1970 and 9th February, 1971 to his Questions on this subject.—[Vol. 807, c. 165; Vol. 811, c. 266–7.]

When will my hon. Friend stop stonewalling and give an undertaking to the House and to the country that he is not prepared to have animals incarcerated in diabolical conditions inside factory farms? If such conditions and practices obtained in zoos, the people responsible would be subjected to prosecution without delay.

I have clearly failed to convince my hon. Friend that neither he nor I are experts on whether these sow stalls are cruel. I told him before, and I repeat, that they eliminate certain other discomforts, such as cannibalism and fighting, and they have the support of the Welfare Committee and the State Veterinary Service—

No.

—both of which bodies' recommendations were accepted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, as they are by us.

Can the Minister assure us that these regulations have the undisputed majority support of the House of Commons? Have they ever faced that challenge?

These regulations are under discussion at the moment with various organisations, and they will be laid before the House of Commons for discussion in due course.

When?

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that many animals are kept in far better conditions and provided with much better food and general climate than many elderly people?

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg leave to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long ponies imported from abroad are kept in quarantine before being disposed of to private owners.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 4th May.—[Vol. 816, c. 313,]

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that this system of certification by foreign veterinary surgeons is working satisfactorily and that there is no fear of infectious diseases spreading among the equine population of this country?

No horses or ponies are allowed in from any country where African horse sickness exists, and a veterinary certificate is needed from an exporting country. Animals arriving without one are isolated and examined.

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will arrange to have discussions with the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention on the proposals by the Scandinavian countries for the banning of the discharge and dumping of chemical and industrial waste in international waters.

I should not consider these matters appropriate for the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, but Her Majesty's Government is convening a meeting of North Sea states next month to discuss pollution and dumping in the North Sea. This will be followed by a wider inter-governmental meeting to discuss marine pollution generally.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while his answer gives some satisfaction, the fact that the Fisheries Commission will not be dealing with this matter gives cause for grave doubts about the seriousness of Her Majesty's Government in dealing with pollution in international waters?

The hon. Gentleman need not be worried about this matter. We are very concerned about it. Marine pollution is already under consideration by other international bodies and we do not want to add to these. However, I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman said.