I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill is commendably short, and it has the merit of combining brevity with considerable potential importance to the horticultural industry. I stress the word "potential", because I am much encouraged by the confidence in the future which has been shown by horticulturists in all sectors of the industry, and I shall be delighted if it transpires that the powers sought in this Bill are not needed to any great extent.

The Bill should be looked at as part of the view taken of horticulture by successive Governments—that is, as a specialised branch of agriculture with problems of its own that justify different treatment from the rest of the industry in some respects.

Thus, to give one example, because horticultural crops are perishable it has not been thought practicable to extend to them the same system of price support which has applied to the main agricultural products. Instead, import duties and, for apples and pears, quantitative restrictions have been used to give our growers protection, but we have also had capital grants to encourage investment to improve their competitive efficiency.

Today the horticulture industry is in far better shape to meet the challenge of increased competition resulting from our membership of the European Economic Community than would have been thought possible a few years ago. Moreover, the special transitional arrangements negotiated for horticultural products ensure that the move to a completely free market within the enlarged Community will be made in a gradual and orderly fashion. All the same, we have never sought to deny that there may be some problems, and, as long ago as 10th May 1967, my right hon. Friend urged in this House from the Opposition Front Bench that the Government had a responsibility to growers, who must not be sacrificed in the wider national interest.

The Community, as we all know, covers a wide geographical area, and climatic conditions vary widely. Some parts of it are better blessed than we are with a climate which favours the production of particular kinds of fruit and vegetables.

The relaxation of our protective measures against other member States will increasingly expose producers here to competition from those in other parts of the Community. This is not, of course, to say that the advantages lie all one way.

For instance, many green vegetable crops grown in the open here are unlikely to suffer much increase in competition. They are pretty bulky and their value is relatively low, so that to transport them from the Mediterranean would add considerably to the costs of growing them. British growers are producing goods of high quality that are designed primarily to suit British tastes, and they have their markets nearer at hand. So I am pretty confident that the great majority will be able to compete effectively.

What is tremendously encouraging is the way in which various groups of growers are realising that there is a market for them in Europe. Cox's and Bramleys are making their mark, and flowers are going across the Channel from Cornwall.

But this Bill is concerned with the minority of growers who have been able to keep going in the past but may find it difficult to do so at the lower prices that are to be expected when the full weight of greater competition is felt. I should like to give an example of the use that will be made of it.

As many hon. Members will know, some growers of dessert and cooking apples and pears have for a long time been regarded as being particularly susceptible to competition from French and Italian growers.

The quotas on apples and pears which formed part of our import régime for horticultural products have been replaced by compensatory amounts, operating as levies on imports, which will be phased out by 1978. The levies are not, of course, as restrictive on imports as a strict quota. At the same time, the compensatory amounts operate as subsidies on exports, and they can contribute a great deal to the export potential of our own growers.

It would be just as wrong to underestimate the scope for popularising our own varieties abroad as to underestimate the demand at home for some of our best varieties. Nevertheless, those varieties can be produced at too high a cost, and the purpose of the Apple and Pear Growers (Special Payments) Scheme which we have already introduced—it came into operation on 1st August—under the authority of the Appropriation Act is to compensate those growers who decide that it would not be profitable to go on growing apples or pears.

If the Bill is enacted we shall take the earliest opportunity of making a scheme under its powers to put the present apple and pear scheme on a regular footing. The Government's present view is that no other sector of horticulture is likely to be affected to the extent of apple and pear growers. However, other cases might emerge with the passage of time, and, if they do, the Bill will provide us with the power to take action.

I come now to the detailed provisions of the Bill.

Clause 1 provides powers to make schemes under which financial assistance may be given to growers to stop growing specified horticultural produce, including a contribution towards the cost of operations necessary to make the land available for other agricultural use. These powers would enable agriculture Ministers to decide on those categories of horticultural produce where growers face special difficulties, the level of payment to be offered and the conditions of payment, including restrictions on the future use of the land released from the particular production. Schemes would be made by statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution of each House.

Clause 2 provides for withholding and recovery of payments where necessary. Clause 3 provides for a maximum fine for making false statements in order to obtain payments. Clause 4 provides for powers of entry on land for purposes of inspection and for a maximum fine for obstructing an authorised officer who is making an inspection. Clauses 5 and 6 are formal and deal with expenditure, receipts, the short title of the Bill and definitions.

I hope I have said enough for the House to support my view that this Bill will enable the Government to discharge the country's responsibility to the horticulture industry.

I have more than once stressed that we are making provision for a minority, and I make no apology for that, because it is one of the traditions that catch the ear of the House that the rights and difficulties of minorities are respected and understood and their special needs are met as far as possible. Should it turn out in the end that little use needs to be made of the powers conferred by the Bill none will be happier than I, but it is right that this provision should be made.

Some hon. Members may be surprised that in introducing this horticulture Bill I have not referred to a matter which caused understandable consternation and a good deal of correspondence a few months ago; namely, the ending so much earlier than was expected of applications under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme.

I have not done so because I would have found it difficult, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill which deals with something entirely new, to marry this completely new approach to horticulture to a subject which, although of great importance to horticulture as a whole, has nothing to do with this particular aspect of it. If, however, Mr. Speaker, you feel it to be in order and if hon. Members want to raise the subject, then, of course, in winding up the debate my hon. Friend will deal with the questions that she is asked and the comments that may be made.

Does that mean that my hon. Friend will be able to compensate in other ways some of the growers who have lost through horticulture improvement grants?

That matter will more suitably come up when the new schemes come to be debated in the House, which I assure my hon. Friend will not be too far ahead from now.

It is pleasant to participate in a debate on agriculture during the hours of daylight. We usually debate these matters in the middle of the night.

As the Minister said, the Bill deals with problems which both sides of the House agree exist. It is ironic that after so many late night debates on bacon and sugar subsidies when we tried to spell out the implications of our entry into the European Economic Community and convince the Government that they were wrong we are today at one with the Government in the sense of admitting that the Common Market creates special problems for certain sections of the horticulture industry.

I am again at one with the Minister when he talks about the quality of British apples and pears. As he said, other countries may have certain climatic advantages, but quality still sells apples.

It is amusing that we are talking about the European Economic Community problem in this context. This is one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of the common agricultural policy as it affects certain aspects of our industry, and perhaps the Bill could be regarded as the cosmetic on that ugly face. The Bill sets out to help the producer, but I propose to raise one or two matters from the consumers' point of view.

Before doing that, however, I should like to mention only briefly the Horticultural Improvement Scheme. To do so at any length would probably be out of order. As the Minister said, this has caused great difficulties and consternation, and we feel that some action should be taken to put matters right.

The Bill deals primarily with apples and pears, but it could be extended to other fruits, and I was glad to hear the Minister say so. Apples and pears are two of the few items of food which are good value for money. The other day the Parliamentary Secretary said in an answer that the price of apples had increased by less than 10 per cent. since 1970, which is well below the increase in the cost of living. Pears had not done quite so well, their price having increased by 23 per cent., but they are still good value for money. The situation has been helped by a good harvest this year.

One object of the Bill is to help rationalise the apple and pear industry. That will obviously have some effect on the supply of apples. Some of our older orchards produce good crops in good years, but in poorer years they do not sustain the crops and that has an effect on the consumer.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary envisage a shortage being created by these new provisions? Will she comment on the report by the National Farmers Union on 10th November in New Insight that tens of thousands of apples and pears are unlikely to reach the housewife because of a shortage of packaging? Can anything be done to deal with that problem?

Two days ago the Minister announced that from 1974 onwards the compensatory payments for apples and pears would be cut by 20 per cent. That means an increase in the import levies on apples and pears from third countries. Bearing in mind the shortage situation, will our supplies from Canada, New Zealand and Australia be cut off? Shall we find that not only British apples but our traditional supplies are cut off from the market and French and other European apples replace them?

The Minister rightly spoke about the quality of apples. I like a good apple, as I am sure the Minister does. However, it is not only quality that sells apples. If apples are priced too high many families feel that they cannot afford them. Even at the reasonable prices which now obtain, I hear people saying that apples are becoming expensive. My worry is that there are many families, possibly in the lower income group, who need, want and like apples but cannot buy just on quality and must look at the price. Does the Minister envisage that the price will rise, not only as a result of our entry into the Community but as a direct result of the Bill?

With those general provisos, the Opposition welcome the Bill. We think that it is necessary, because this is a minority but important interest which produces high quality products. The industry needs help and protection from the Common Market agricultural policy and the climatic conditions which aid other producers.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly referred to the widespread confidence in the horticulture industry at present. Despite that overall confidence, there are many problems in horticulture, many of which relate to the prospect of horticulturists being competitive in the European Economic Community. We must consider the Bill in that context.

One of the problems facing growers, as it faces the rest of industry, is the prospect of fuel shortages. I should welcome an assurance from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that she is, in this situation of potential fuel shortage, keeping a careful eye to ensure that our fellow members of the Community are not finding ways of subsidising the supply of fuel to the horticultural industry in the rest of Europe, to the detriment of our growers' ability to compete.

Another problem, to which the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) referred, is the shortage of packaging materials brought about by the worldwide shortage of commodities. I hope that the Ministry will review the situation constantly and do all it can to ensure that the shortage of packaging will not prevent our growers from getting their products to the market and thus contributing towards stabilising the cost of living for the housewife.

It is also desperately important, if British horticulture is to flourish and to compete in Europe, that our marketing arrangements become much more efficient. Over the last 10 years Britain has seen a tremendous improvement in the efficiency of the industry. In one aspect of the marketing problem we are likely, unless we are careful, to fall behind our competitors in Europe. This is in the supply of market information. I was very disturbed to read recently that there is widespread concern amongst growers that the information which they have on which to base their decisions as to where they can most profitably and usefully send their produce places them at a disadvantage compared with European growers. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Ministry is examining this problem and that Britain can have a computerised system to compare with those in France, Holland and Germany, where they are very efficient.

Another major problem facing us in the situation of competing in Europe and which has a great effect on the prospect of our exporting soft fruit is the shortage of labour for picking it. This is a major problem in my constituency, and I believe that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) will back me up. There is a great problem in finding labour to pick soft fruit like strawberries and raspberries. All too often only the best of the crop is picked and far too much of the fruit is left behind on the ground. It is vital that urgent steps are taken to promote research into soft fruit picking machinery. Only if we can pick our fruit at an acceptable cost and efficiently shall we have the opportunity of taking up the export market potential to which my hon, Friend referred in commending the Bill to the House.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley referred to the widespread disappointment that followed the decision to terminate the Horticulture Improvement Scheme earlier than had been expected. This was a severe knock to the confidence of the industry. There can be no doubt that the industry, having planned its investment on a long scale as requested, received a substantial setback by the early withdrawal of the scheme, although I am the first to admit that it was withdrawn because it had been too successful. It was one of "the problems of success".

I am sure that the whole House, particularly those of us who represent horticultural constituencies, will welcome my right hon. Friend's statement the other day in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) in which my right hon. Friend spelled out the way in which the Government proposed to implement EEC directive 159/72 on new grant aid.

I welcome the Bill in the context of the need for changes to enable our industry to compete in Europe. We have the technology and the will here. With a little assistance from the Government on these sorts of problems I have no doubt that there are real opportunities for British horticulturists to export substantial quantities of crops.

I am pleased to welcome the Bill in that context, for three reasons. First, it is undoubtedly the fulfilment of various ministerial promises given at the time of our negotiations to join the EEC. Some start had already been made in fulfilling the assurances which were given to horticulturists at that time, first by the grubbing grant and, secondly, by the special payments scheme introduced in August this year for which we are grateful.

Secondly, the Bill enables me to claim to have discharged the undertakings which I gave to my constituents during the period of the negotiations leading up to our joining the Community, when at no fewer than 71 public meetings in my constituency many of my horticulturists expressed grave fears about their future in the Community.

Thirdly, the Bill makes flexible provision for appropriate statutory instruments authorising payments to growers in connection with the changing use of land and it reserves to the Minister the right to decide in which circumstances it would be appropriate to make such payments.

I must enter a caveat. I am growing a little concerned, as perhaps other hon. Members are, at the enormous growth in the number of statutory instruments in recent years. The Kilbrandon Report has recently shown that over 2,000 statutory instruments come into operation each year. The discretion the House gives to Ministers is considerable.

I should like my right hon. and hon. Friends to know in this connection that those of us who represent horticultural constituencies will press them whenever we detect need and hardship arising as the result of our joining the EEC. We shall press them unmercifully to ensure that they fulfil the obligations, which I am sure they mean to fulfil, in respect of the Bill and the compensation to be given to the people who suffer by reason of our joining the EEC.

In conclusion, although there are various problems in the industry, there is nevertheless widespread confidence in it. I make that bold assertion in the light of the editorial in this weeks Grower, in which, although a noted Cambridge agricultural economist, Mr. Hinton, advised my constituents to pack up and sell their trees for firewood, I am delighted to say that the Grower took the opposite view. The editorial noted that

"only seventeen growers in the country have taken up the Government's offer of compensation for those who wish to give up growing top fruit indicating that confidence generally is high …

Recent years have brought increasing sales expertise and research to the industry and the falling value of the £ has given a tariff barrier which with the existing transitional levy is a big obstacle to imports.

Sharpened awareness by every grower, dramatic changes in the marketing and promotion of home fruit even down to brand advertising have produced a revolution. We support the Minister's view. Our top fruit industry is operating on a firm base for its future prosperity and will surmount the difficulties it faces."

In view of that confidence and my judgment that the Bill can do nothing but back up that confidence and reassure the industry still further. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

On Wednesday night the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mrs. Lena Jeger) announced in the House that she was distressed at the total absence of Liberal representation. She said that this showed the lack of concern that Liberals had for people in general and she deplored the fact that a political party which set out to represent individuals should not be represented in the House on that occasion. Had I not been sitting in the Public Gallery I would have said that it was the opinion of many that Liberals do more for people than do the six Conservative Members and five Labour Members who were present at the time. Whereas today we are admittedly 10 short of our full strength, the Labour Party is 283 short and the Conservative Party 313 short. So we are proportionately well represented, and it is time that someone pointed out the consistently high percentage of Liberals in the House.

I support the Bill, which is an excellent one. According to the Fruit Trades Journal of 9th November the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that the absence of marked response to the apple and pear payment scheme indicated that confidence was generally high. I should like to discuss that for a moment. Although I support the Bill, two things should be generally understood. First, the Bill is difficult for the average horticulturist to understand. Secondly, to say that confidence is shown by the fact that only 17 applications have been received—I am quoting the figure given by the hon. Member for Kings Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), but my information is that the number of 15—

It may help the hon. Gentleman if I tell him that the figure to date is 18.

I am obliged. I see that applications are galloping in. It is totally irrelevant at this moment to take account of the number of applications because there is a levy on apples and pears coming from the Continent. The only time that it will matter is when the levy is off and other people can compete with us. As this country has always had produce of higher quality, usually produced with greater efficiency, the only growers who will apply are the inefficient ones. In my constituency, which is noted for the high quality of its apples and pears, few growers will apply.

I am concerned that the Bill does not cover all growers. There is a five-acre minimum. I am well aware that five acres is not a large holding, but there are some growers with a total holding of under five acres and I and my party would be much happier if the second part of the conditional size, which is the percentage that that amount of land represents in an individual farm, were kept. A grower who grows on 4¾ acres, even if that is the entire size of his apple orchard and horticultural holding, is not eligible.

I am also concerned that the payments provisions are difficult to understand. It is provided that the girth shall be measured half-way between the ground and the point at which the lowest branch occurs. Where the tree forks from the ground the largest branch shall be used for measurement. That is what I meant when I said that the Bill was unnecessarily complicated. It is an open invitation to horticulturists to confuse the evidence, which they could do simply by digging down into the ground so that the girth, which is obviously greater towards the bottom of the tree, will qualify for the larger amount. A Bill that openly invites this sort of practice should be looked at more carefully.

I support the Bill on behalf of my constituents who, where they understand it, believe in it. In speaking in this depleted House in which there is a high percentage of Liberal representation I have discharged the promises which I made to my electorate on the occasion of my election. My constituents, and I on their behalf, approve the Bill and would like it to be extended so that all people who derive their major interest from apples and pears are eligible.

I have no wish to take up the party political point raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud). I thought that one of the claims of the Liberal Party was that it did not wish to make party political points.

The Liberal Party does not necessarily wish to make party political points in front of a large audience.

I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would notice that there were at least three hon. Members from East Anglia in the House. It is much more important that we should be speaking for the interests of East Anglia rather than making party political points. In East Anglia we are a horticultural community and are affected by relations with Europe. We welcome the Bill, and I thank my hon. Friend for introducing it.

I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely that it is difficult to understand, but I wish to raise a point concerning the Horticulture Improvement Scheme. Unfortunately, in the summer I disturbed the Minister in the middle of his harvesting to try to tell him of the anxiety of one of my smaller horticulturists who was being affected by the scheme. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely is no longer present to listen to the pleas which I am making on behalf of some small growers in my constituency.

I am concerned about the workings of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme and the effect it is having on some small growers in my constituency. This does not involve a large sum but the horticulturists in my constituency are people who take care in filling in forms. The forms are difficult to fill in but they have taken the greatest care in completing them and in submitting applications under the scheme. The reason they were not in time with the applications was that they were so assiduous in filling them in.

I hope the Minister will look into this, because the Bill is designed to help us in our membership of the European Economic Community. I am told that people on the Continent filled in the forms without completing all the details, and this is one reason why there was a great rush of money and why the Minister has not been able to help my constituents. If this charge is correct—and it has been made by a number of well-informed horticulturists—it is likely that horticulturists will be seriously affected. I should welcome any denial of this charge.

Apart from this, I welcome the Bill and I hope that the Minister will be able to honour the obligation to the horticulture industry, particularly at present when Bank Rate and the cost of loans have gone so high. If we wish to help our horticulture industry, now that we have joined the EEC, we should consider the Horticulture Improvement Scheme. As the Minister has said, the scheme so far includes only 18 people, but I assure him that the feeling in the industry is in favour of it.

I hope that the Minister will carefully consider correspondence which I have sent to him relating to growers whom I think should be helped. The best way to help them is through the scheme rather than through the Bill.

I am sure that all hon. Members welcome this Bill. The Liberal Party does not understand that this is the kind of day when both parties are agreed upon the business. Friday is a day when Members can visit their constituencies, seeing members of local authorities and constituents. They do not always have the chance to see these people during the week. It is an opportunity for hon. Members to get away from this place because we are all agreed about the business. It is good for hon. Members to have this opportunity of seeing what is going on in the country.

The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) made a valuable point when talking about packaging. Fruit is one of the few commodities for which we get value for money. Often the packaging on food costs more than the commodity. The same is sometimes true of fruit. I would not want increased expenditure on packaging to put up the cost of fruit. The amount of packaging on such fruits as apples and pears and soft fruits is limited, and this keeps the price down.

The crop of Cox's Orange pippins has been a record this year. We should be thankful that we can buy these at local markets for 8p and 10p per pound. I warn the Government not to insist on food being packaged to the extent that it will increase in cost. I would rather buy two pounds of apples in a market where I can see what I am getting than two pounds in Marks and Spencer or some other store when the fruit may be so heavily packaged that I cannot see what I am buying.

I ask the Minister to consider the question of excessive packaging. Farmers are throwing open their fields to the public and allowing them to pick their fruit. They pay for what they pick. This has developed in the South of England and should be encouraged. There is a shortage of labour to harvest this type of produce. It must be galling for a producer to see a fine crop of say, blackcurrants or redcurrants, but be unable to get the labour to pick it. We fully support this measure and will support it in the Lobby if necessary.

I, too, welcome this Bill, which is first class. One or two amendments may be necessary. I am sorry my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) has left the Chamber. He quoted the famous distinguished Cambridge economist who spoke in his constituency recently about growers being tempted to chop down their timber for firewood. My hon. Friend should remember that there is a growing fuel crisis. Despite such feelings he should bear in mind that there may have to be a re-assessment of the value of fruit trees.

The Minister of State referred to conditions laid down in Clause 1 relating to improvement schemes. Will a grower qualify for a grant if the grubbing-up of unsuitable types of fruit trees leads to replacement by a more suitable type? I understand that the intention is to get rid of some of the species of apples and pears which are not very competitive with foreign varieties that are coming in, and I welcome this. But I should like to ask whether there will be a grant available for, say, an orchard owner who has an acreage down to one variety of out-dated apples or pears, which he wants to grub up and replace with a new and more sophisticated variety of fruit.

Of course, the Bill has yet to be considered in Committee, but it appears to me that the intention of the Government is that a grower must release his land entirely from all tree fruit growing before he qualifies for the grant. If that is the case, and if the Bill is not amended in Committee, how will this scheme be operated? Is it envisaged that the land in question will have a permanent embargo placed upon it to forbid the planting thereon of all forms of tree fruit? If that is the case, and if, for climatic or economic reasons, it is found over a fairly short period that one variety of tree fruit or another would be viable, will the embargo on the land be rescinded and will the orchard owner be allowed to plant a new and more profitable variety?

I am most grateful to the Minister for saying that he will listen to representations in relation to the old Horticulture Improvement Scheme which terminates at the end of this year. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) made one or two points in this connection. As my right hon. Friend knows, he and I have been in correspondence for some time about this scheme, the money for which ran out in July. I should like to ask how the provisions in this Bill will tie in with the recently announced Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme and with the scheme to cover horticulture capital grant. The old scheme did a very good job, but it was unfortunate, and it has caused a good deal of concern in the industry, that the money to operate it ran out in July this year.

I have received very satisfactory reassurances from my right hon. Friend, as a result of correspondence which he and I have entered into, about a large mushroom growing firm in my constituency—Country Kitchen Foods Limited—and the difficulty in which it thought it was placed by the expiration of funds under the old Horticulture Improvement Scheme. Can my right hon. Friend say whether this Bill is quite separate from the two new schemes which have been announced to replace the older scheme? Can he also say whether the two new schemes can be varied when this House is asked to approve them, in order to meet criticisms which may be raised?

I think my right hon. Friend said the other day that, within a couple of weeks or so, these two new schemes will be considered by the House. I take it that, as they will be debated in the form which takes place when a statutory instrument is tabled, we shall not have the power of variation. Moreover, I assume that as these schemes derive from an EEC directive our power of variation will be very limited. I therefore take this opportunity of calling my right hon. Friend's attention to one or two criticisms which have already been made about these two schemes. I hope that these criticisms can be noted and, if possible, corrected before the relevant orders are placed before the House for debate.

As my right hon. Friend knows, the EEC directive—which I believe is No. 159—was drawn up by the Community before this country became a member. Therefore, there may be characteristics in the two schemes which are not in the best interests of some farm and horticulture producers in this country, which might not have been included if Directive No. 159 had been drawn up after we became a member. For example, the Country Landowners' Association is very concerned, because it appears that a large number of farms will be excluded from these two schemes for various reasons, such as profitability per labour unit and whether or not a farmer has interests outside agriculture which occupy more than 50 per cent. of his time.

The National Farmers' Union also has criticisms about the position in which egg, poultry and pig producers will find themselves. I am quite sure that before these two schemes are debated in the House my right hon. Friend will receive representations direct from the bodies concerned. All I would ask him to do, knowing that the House cannot amend the orders and can only accept or reject them, is to meet the organisations concerned, listen to their fears and do his best, within the bounds of EEC Directive No. 159, to meet their justified complaints.

Finally, I welcome what the Minister said about the export of our horticultural produce. He mentioned Cox's and Bramleys being exported to the EEC, and hoped that that trade would continue after the compensatory levies had been phased out by 1978. I call his attention to one aspect of horticultural exports which serves the country very well, which, so far as I am aware, has never been mentioned in this House, and which is engaged in many strong land parts of the country; namely, the export of different types of nursery plants, especially roses. It is a not insignificant trade. A number of rose growers in the Midlands have found a great potential on the continent for our roses and rose plants. It is a remunerative trade for the Exchequer, and I hope that the problems which these rose growers meet will be viewed sympathetically by his Department.

The problems which have been put to me by rose growers in my constituency often relate to transport difficulties, and getting their roses from Britain to the continent in a reasonably fresh condition. Their fears for the future relate to how some out-of-date EEC regulations relating to plant health will affect their exports. That is a cloud on the horizon which rose growers and others engaged in nursery produce in this country can see. Before that cloud prevents the continued export of British nursery produce, I hope that my right hon. Friend will do his best to help growers meet the necessary regulations. Having said those few words, I once again warmly welcome the Bill.

On this fairly unique occasion of a Liberal intervention on a Friday, it would be ungenerous not to pay tribute to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) for the transformation which has occurred in the Liberal Party since his arrival. This is not just because on a Friday we are witnessing the presence of two Liberal Members—that is unique not just for a Friday, but, indeed, for any day, although we were disappointed to see the mass exodus of the party at one moment—but because we can welcome the implication of his remark that on every Friday henceforth we shall welcome the Liberals to our debates. We shall be appreciative of their presence.

I welcome the Bill because it is commendably brief and commendably frank. It states clearly that we are discussing the possibility of people losing their livelihood not because they are inefficient but simply because of British entry into the European Economic Community. It is also commendable because it implements a very clear pledge. A promise was made and has been kept. We should be appreciative of that fact. Such a promise was not lightly given or easily obtained.

We should pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who had to work hard to obtain a promise of this nature to compensate horticulturists, particularly, our apple and pear growers. Before the 1970 General Election, when I was a candidate, I had talks with my right hon. Friend on this point, and early in 1970 I received a letter from him which I am sure he will not mind my quoting. Referring to British entry, he said:

"It was for this reason that I got my colleagues in the Shadow Cabinet to agree to the promise of compensation if it should prove necessary for any section of British horticulture."

The Bill is a complete implementation of that promise, not just for apple and pear growers but for other sections of British horticulture if, ultimately, they should be seen to suffer. I thank my right hon. Friend particularly for that.

Although I disagree strongly with the general policy of British entry, I believe we have in my right hon. Friend a man who stands up for British interests, albeit in the context of a wrong policy. Within that context, however, I am sure that he will continue to fight hard for the interests of British agriculture and for the British housewife.

My next point is a complaint arising from the position of the British housewife and the British taxpayer. It is right to compensate growers if they lose their livelihood directly as a result of entry, but I do complain if the British taxpayer should have to pay for this and should not get something back for the purpose, from the massive contribution we shall be making to the common agricultural policy. Over the seven years or so in which this scheme will be in operation, we shall be paying—it is speculation but I calculate it on the basis of the White Paper—£1,300 million to £1,400 million as our contribution to the common agricultural fund. Surely in this case we could say that we are entitled to claw back the £5 million compensation which we shall be paying out if growers lose their livelihood as a result of British membership of the EEC.

That is not an anti-Common Market point. I am sure that everyone here wants to get as much back out of the CAP as we can. We should make representations to the EEC in order to claw back this £5 million of compensation. Have representations been made, albeit unsuccessfully apparently, asking whether there is opportunity for a refund? Have any of the other Community members schemes for grubbing grants and so on by which they can get restitution from the central funds? If none of these things has been done, is there some way of getting compensation for the British taxpayer for this compensatory payment?

In dealing with the number of applications received so far, I share the view that the British industry has a right to be confident about the products it is growing, but we would be mistaken if we were lulled into a false sense of security because of the general feeling in the industry at present. As the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said, it is not now that matters; it is when the compensatory levy is removed from the scene, for that is when the British grower will be exposed to the full blasts of competition, which to a large extent could be unfair competition.

For example, I believe that our Cox's and Bramleys are quality products which should always command a premium on the British market if they are well marketed and well packaged—although not too expensively—because good packaging helps to sell the products. But quantity can drive out quality, and if we reach a time when there is no compensatory levy, when perhaps the temporary advantages of a devalued currency have disappeared, we could find ourselves in a situation where, with the best marketing arrangements and with the best will in the world, we could be swamped by surpluses from the EEC.

I demonstrate this by quoting some figures I received from my right hon. Friend in reply to a Question I asked about pears. He told me that the total British production of pears is estimated for 1973–74 as 40,000 tons. In the EEC the total amount of withdrawals from the market by FEOGA—that is effectively the surplus—for 1971–72 was 378,000 tons provisionally.

One can envisage a situation five years hence, without any compensatory levies, when the EEC will endeavour to market a large proportion of that sort of surplus in the United Kingdom. We all know how sensitive are the marketing arrangements for all horticultural products. It needs only a small amount of surplus at any moment to disrupt the market entirely, and a grower can quickly lose almost his annual profit because of the disruption.

I would like to have seen much longer transitional arrangements for horticulture. I would like to have seen the Community take steps to correct its structural surpluses, because they are inbuilt, before we exposed the British industry to this type of surplus disposal problem. We did not get it, but I would like to have had at least a 12-year transitional period, as with fishery interests. Instead, we have a short, five-year, period. Well, that is now a fact of life.

This scheme goes forward until 1978. I understand that applications have to be in by 1976, but perhaps I have misunderstood. If when we get to 1978 and find that the full blasts of competition are disrupting our growers and causing hardship to certain people, is there scope to extend the scheme into 1979 or 1980, because surely the intention will be to compensate growers if that is the time they really begin to suffer?

Nevertheless, I am grateful for the Bill, which implements an important promise. I suspect that it will be used more extensively than the Government would like to think. Many growers will find it difficult, for many of them are more marginal economically than one would like to think. It is no pleasure to me that this important Bill is going to help in the process of taking away more orchards from Kent and transforming more of our countryside from the beauty of the orchards we have been proud of to the planting of more vast fields of barley and other cereals. There is no aesthetic pleasure in contemplating these changes, but, nevertheless, it is important that these growers are compensated.

I now turn to the changes in the horticulture improvement grant. In the past when a deadline has been set by which persons must apply for grants the Ministry has been relatively flexible. For example, on deficiency payments for cereals farmers are supposed to get their applications in by a certain date. Sometimes they do not do so, but the Ministry has been able, nevertheless, to make payments. I can think of certain instances in recent years concerning my constituents where this has happened. With this scheme, for some reason, the deadline was imposed contrary to expectations, and many applications that were in the pipeline were rejected. In the interests of equity I should like this matter to be re-examined.

I referred the case of a constituent to my hon. Friend the Minister. My constituent discussed the proposals with the officials of the Ministry. The plans had been discussed and everything had been done in substance. However, the form had not been completed; my constituent had proceeded in good faith to apply for a grant for a major scheme but had not actually signed on the dotted line. It may be that others had signed on the dotted line and went ahead in form but not in substance and were able to obtain the grant. In the interests of equity and justice, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to look once more at the problem. I feel that a great deal of good will could be restored if applications that were genuinely in the pipeline were accepted.

There is disappointment that the amount of grants under the new scheme will be somewhat reduced. I understand that the level will fall from roughly 40 per cent. to 20 per cent. on capital schemes. That leads me back to the Bill. The effect of the Common Market on our apple and pear growers cannot be separated from the general confidence of the industry and its general economic conditions. If it is to continue to compete, as we all hope and believe it will, we must ensure that it has all possible assistance from the Government. I should like a generous horticulture improvement scheme to continue and also early relief on mortgage costs. The industry is faced with high interest rates on holdings that could be only marginally profitable.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider these other points and generally try to maintain a healthy and confident horticulture. I thank the Government for introducing the Bill, which has my wholehearted support. In conclusion, may I repeat my question: is there any possibility of its being extended to cover a later period when the full impact of the large Community surpluses might be felt?

My welcome to the Bill is more restrained and more heavy-hearted than that given by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), with whom I agree on so many matters. The southern part of my constituency lies in the Thames Valley and is one of the more considerable areas of horticulture using the splendid soil of the alluvial valley for that purpose. So I cannot approach with any enthusiasm a Bill which is to arrange for the abandonment of horticulture in this country in some degree in aid of the consumers here being supplied from the continent.

Of course, if it is inevitable that horticulturists should be put out of business because of the Common Market arrangements it is desirable they should be compensated in some way for that. I cannot feel any enthusiasm, however, for a policy which does that. Again, slightly disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham, I almost hope that we do not make any attempt to claw back any money from the Community because that would blur the outline of the total disaster that this Common Market policy has been. At least at the moment we may say that we contribute very much and we get absolutely nothing, and it would be a pity if confusion were introduced into that picture.

I, too, would prefer that we ceased to give our contributions to the Community budget.

I knew quite well that my hon. Friend shared my general views on this. I thought he had just, as it were, slipped for a moment in suggesting that by pressure and other means some infinitesimal apparent advantage might be obtained from membership of the Common Market. I merely wanted to correct that.

I particularly want to take part in the debate, because I fear that the policy may go too far. Those who are inevitably damaged must by all means be compensated, but I hope that we shall not get into a fatalistic attitude about the future of British horticulture. It is no real solution that someone is compensated and that the land does not actually go out of cultivation. Horticulture is an intensive use of land, a labour-intensive use of land. To think that some of these immensely fertile areas—in some cases the immense fertility of the soil in question is an artefact built up by heavy capital investment over a period of years and with great care—should be abandoned, perhaps to beef rearing, is a very sad thought. It will certainly result in a good many people being put out of agricultural employment.

We should not accept that the Continent of Europe has any great climatic advantage over us in the matter of horticultural produce. On the whole I think it is true—one cannot but be subjective in these matters—that temperate or cool-climate produce is usually better in quality than that from hotter countries. After all, we get our rice not from the tropical regions, where it mainly grows, but from America, where it grows in a cool climate. We buy our dates increasingly from California rather than North Africa. British produce, certainly apples and salad foods, is much superior in quality to the produce which comes from Europe.

I do not say that about pears. I repeat that one is inclined to be subjective about this. I do not think that I have any pear growers in my constituency. I do not think that we produce as good pears as come from the warmer countries. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham has any pear growers in his constituency they must be exceptional.

The pears are exceptional, too.

Yes, but there are two ways in which pears can be exceptional. I always thought it was a peculiarly felicitous disposition of fate that the Italians have two words to describe pears, mezzo, pronounced "medzo" and mezzo, pronounced "metzo". The first means "half" and the second means "overripe"—in other words, an overripe pear. Many people in this country describe sopranos as "metzo", which is often an apt description but not quite the one they mean.

I am afraid that we shall now enter a period when there will be both on the part of those engaged in it and also on the part of the Government a slightly fatalistic attitude to the future of some parts of British horticulture. British horticulture, at any rate in my kind of area, is going through a particularly difficult time, for reasons which I believe are not altogether connected with the European Community. One is the extreme difficulty of obtaining labour and its high cost when it is obtained.

As it happens, I received in my post this morning details of a case, which I am sending to my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will consider it. It is characteristic of the problems faced in a condition of labour famine in the South-East of England. How is labour to be obtained? It is not possible to get labour to run the Underground, the buses or even the main line railway services. There is a shortage of labour even in the light manufacturing industries of the South-East, in places such as Slough, where apparently firms can afford to pay the earth for the production of nonessential articles. The horticulturist has to compete in that market.

I hope that that situation will not be a permanent feature of life in this country. But let us accept that for the next 12 or perhaps 24 months the horticulturist in the South-East of England is competing in a crazy labour market, that his competitive position is affected by the cost of labour and his production is affected by the sheer difficulty of obtaining it. In some cases a fall in production of up to a half or even three quarters may be forced upon people who have intensive horticulture—glasshouses, and so on—by conditions which are the result of economic policy, indeed, but not the result of membership of the European Economic Community.

I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind very carefully and see what he and his colleagues can do to help the people concerned. Help may have to be given by licensing seasonal labour from outside, perhaps from Spain. But let us not, for heaven's sake, use the Bill as an excuse for letting people go out of production because they cannot obtain labour to run their horticulture units, and then just pay them the money provided for in the Bill and turn the land over to beef production. That is the major danger.

I know that the only scheme at present proposed is for apples and pears, but the Bill is general, and there can be schemes for all sorts of things—tomatoes, flowers and all the rest. It will be a tragedy if we make ourselves dependent on imports from the Continent. If we do that, we shall run down our horticulture altogether, because already the amount we produce is rather small in relation to what is produced on the Continent. When there is a surplus on the Continent, its size is very large in relation to our production. Our growers could be disadvantaged by tidal movements in seasonal surpluses.

It is all very well to say that the Treaty of Rome prevents distortion of competition, and all that kind of thing. We know how much that is worth. The regulations, directives and all the rest of the Treaty of Rome will be taken very seriously in Britain, because we are a country in which, on the whole, there is a fairly moderate law, and we take it seriously. People on the Continent are used to immensely fussy, impertinent, all-pervasive laws, and they treat them appropriately in a very cavalier manner. Evasion is the normal practice. It is the only way they can live with their bureaucracy, treating the whole thing with a certain amount of contempt. But we are very law-abiding. If we are not very careful we shall be over-reached all the time in this horticulture business.

Therefore, whilst I support the Second-Reading of the Bill I regard it as embodying certain dangers which can be avoided only if the Government approach the problems of the industry with their eyes wide open, if they are very helpful, for the present about the labour situation, and are watchful for the future over the tidal movements and surpluses which can so easily damage our interests here.

I am grateful for the welcome given to the Bill from both sides of the House. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier, we have over the years made it absolutely clear that we would honour our responsibilities to horticulturists, and I am pleased to be associated with today's debate, which marks the first steps along the path leading to the enactment of the Bill.

As one would expect during a debate on a subject as important as horticulture, a number of my hon. Friends and Labour hon. Members have raised points with which I should like to deal.

There has been a great deal of concern about the exhaustion of the funds for the Horticulture Improvement Scheme in July this year. We appreciate, of course, the disappointment felt by horticulturists whose applications for grant were received too late to be considered, but the considerable rush of applications in the early summer left us with no alternative, given that there was a maximum sum, when those applications had exhausted the amount provided for in the legislation. But my hon. Friend has pledged that outstanding applications under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme will receive priority treatment immediately under the new schemes.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) referred to the quality of apples. Coming from another of the great fruit-growing counties, a privilege that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), I know perfectly well that, in view of the quality of our apples—of the great British apple—the British grower has nothing to fear. But we realise—my hon. and learned Friend for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) had to say this, too—that our climatic conditions for the growth of pears are not always perfect. However, our growers have very good quality standards in apples.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the compensatory amounts. We recognise that the applications so far for the apple and pear scheme in a measure reflect the fact that the tariff situation is as it is. But the cut in the import levy means that there will be a smaller total on apples, whether from the European Economic Community or from third countries. Apples from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have not, in practice, been subject to the levy, as it operates only from August to March. For those countries there will be a small tariff next year instead of duty-free entry, as we move towards the common customs tariff. It varies according to the time of year, increasing to 8 per cent. as the home crop is marketed, and it is moving towards that figure now.

As the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) said, many hon. Members would have liked to take part in the debate, but, as the measure is welcome and they have constituency demands, we understand their absence.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) has had to return to his constituency. He raised the problem of fuel. We are aware that the industry, like other parts of the economy, will need to reconsider its use of fuel, and make such arrangements as it can to effect the maximum economies with the minimum disruption of food production. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service has been giving the question a great deal of thought and is, as usual, available to advise growers who seek its help.

My hon. Friend also mentioned market intelligence. In the United Kingdom the Ministry publishes weekly wholesale prices on a wide range of home-produced and imported produce. Crop reports are published bi-monthly during the main home-grown season, February to November, and monthly in December, January and February. We are not convinced that the usefulness of a widely extended formal system will repay the cost involved, but we are prepared to consider any specific proposals on market intelligence which are put to us.

My hon. Friend then referred to packaging, as did the hon. Member for Battersea, South. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham that packaging is an added attraction to the consumer, although he will be well aware that consumer organisations and other consumer bodies generally watch this point very carefully in terms of what they may regard as excessive packing. However, much of this packaging is an added attraction to marketing, as I am sure we would all agree.

May I press the hon. Lady on this matter. Can she confirm reports that tens of thousands of apples may not reach housewives this year because of the shortage of wooden packaging?

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that packaging in general is a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. There is currently a worldwide shortage of packaging material. This affects the whole range of goods which have to be packaged.

Several hon. Members referred to the shortage of labour. The hon. Member for Battersea, South referred to the system of "pick your own" which has been used quite extensively by fruit growers, and this certainly applies to my own county. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn asked about research and development projects into harvesting machinery. A great deal of research has been done on this question. New mechanical harvesting systems are in commercial use for blackcurrants and are very successful. A prototype harvesting system for strawberries is now ready for commercial development, and mechanical means of picking raspberries are now being developed.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) referred to the number of applications. The scheme has been operating since 1st August. To date we have had about 18 applications, of which about seven were not eligible. About a dozen eligible applications have so far been received. I accept the comments by the hon. Member and other Members that this is a reflection of the situation as at present. Nevertheless, it is clear that apple and pear growers are not unduly perturbed about their ability to compete, at least in the immediate future. I say this despite the generally lower prices from which the consumer has been benefiting.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to "hon. Members and other Members". Is she implying that there are dishonourable Members in this House?

I apologise for that slip of the tongue. I meant hon. Members and my hon. Friends.

The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely also referred to what he felt might be a system of arranging payment by re-digging ground levels. There are ample provisions for the prevention of such incorrect use of public money. He raised the point about a five-acre minimum and the special grant-aided orchard grouping system which operated from 1st September 1971 until 31st March 1973 in an effort to help the "little man". The scheme was aimed primarily at the smaller orchard with uncommercial production. The point is that the scheme was not intended to cover an inefficient producer, as I think the hon. Gentleman recognises.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) mentioned, as did others, the Horticulture Improvement Scheme and asserted that he had received information that there had been pressure from Community growers on this scheme which had resulted in pressure earlier in the year which had exhausted funds. I cannot comment on this matter, but I have noted his comments and I will look into this matter. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich has had to leave the House to attend an engagement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to some detailed points in the scheme and asked whether people could replace or switch the type of variety. It is undesirable to switch varieties within broad categories in the scheme since it is designed for people who want to get out altogether. If they replant within five years, they have to repay the money. But grants for grubbing to permit switching will be available under the new scheme.

Reference has been made by several hon. Members to the new schemes under EEC Directive 72/159. I will not go over that matter since it has been the subject of a statement and a Press release by my right hon. Friend. The Horticulture Capital Grant Scheme will offer grants at five percentage points lower than for horticultural investment under the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme, except that improvements grant-aided under the latter scheme at 10 per cent. will not be grant-aided under the capital grant scheme. I am sure that the House will understand it if I do not go into the two major schemes.

My hon. Friend said that if the grower were excluded from the Farm and Horticulture Development Scheme because of too high a net income per labour unit he might be eligible for the other scheme—namely, the Horticulture Capital Grant Scheme—provided that he met the minimum requirements of that scheme. In other words, he should have four acres or an equivalent intensified area for use in this project within the immediately preceding two years—exactly the same as in the Horticulture Improvement Scheme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham raised several points on Community schemes and funds. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the comments he made about my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture maintaining his pledge. It was a pledge made by the Minister in one of his speeches as early as 1967. He has brought that pledge to fruition today in the provisions of the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments.

My hon. Friend referred to EEC funds. The apple and pear scheme, which is now being regularised by the Bill, is a national scheme, but if a comparable EEC scheme is introduced it could replace our national scheme. Its financing will be discussed at that time and we shall bear in mind the possibility of a FEOGA contribution.

My hon. Friend asked about the final date for applications in this scheme. The date is 31st July 1976, unless closed earlier through the introduction of an EEC scheme. A reasonable time will be allowed for completion, but a further scheme can be brought in for a further five years if this is thought necessary.

I hope that I have covered all the points which have been raised on both sides of the House. Therefore, I trust that in the light of my remarks, and in view of the fulfilment of my right hon. Friend's pledge to the horticulture industry, the House will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading, which will provide help to the industry.

I beg to move,

That the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) (Amendment) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 25th July in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

The Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) (Amendment) Regulations are being introduced under the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act 1956. Their main objective is to reduce the level of noise inside new tractor safety cabs so that it cannot present a threat to the driver's health.

For many years the overturning tractor has caused more fatal accidents on farms than any other single type of accident. To stem this toll of human life regula- tions were introduced in 1967 requiring, after 1st September 1970, all new tractors to be fitted with safety cabs when first sold to the farmer and when used by a worker. From 1st September 1977 all tractors, including those built before 1970, will have to be fitted with a safety cab when they are used by a worker. Tractors fitted with safety cabs are no longer unfamiliar on the farm, and when tractors have overturned many lives have been saved because safety cabs have been standard fittings. Although more and more powerful tractors are being used in agriculture, the number of fatal accidents caused by overturning tractors last year was the lowest ever recorded. Safety cabs can thus be shown to have saved lives, and I can only urge every farmer to fit a safety cab to his tractor as soon as possible, so that he can enjoy the protection that it gives.

As with many new developments, however, the tractor cab has brought problems as well as benefits. Tractor cabs save lives, but the cab also concentrates the noise of the tractor inside it. The noise inside many of today's cabs can reach a level at which the driver's hearing may be damaged if he drives at full throttle for any length of time. We would all agree that while it is better to have a driver who is made hard of hearing than one subjected to a fatality when a tractor overturns, it is better still if cabs can be made quieter so that a driver need be neither deaf nor subjected to that high risk if his tractor should overturn. This is what these new regulations seek to achieve. Under them, all new tractors sold to the farmer after 1st September 1975 will be required to be fitted with a safety cab in which the noise level at the driver's ear does not exceed 90dBA. Furthermore, after 1st September 1977 the same noise limit will be applied to all other cabs sold for use with pre-1975 tractors. Cabs fitted to these tractors before 1st September 1977 will not, however, have to be exchanged for quiet ones after 1977.

I would like to explain the reasoning behind these provisions. Noise level of 90 dBA has been fixed because it is the level that the Government's Industrial Health Advisory Committee recommends should not be exceeded in normal working conditions. I was interested to see in some technical advice given to help the layman to assess a noise of 90 decibels that it describes the noise of 80 decibels as the noise at one's ear inside a small car and that of 90 decibels as the noise of an Underground train. It is therefore the level adopted in this regulation and by the Department of Employment in its code of practice on noise exposure in factories. The date of 1st September 1975 has been adopted as the earliest feasible date by which manufacturers will be able to reduce the noise level within the cabs fitted to their latest models.

Older tractors provide a difficult problem for the acoustic engineer, as it is technically difficult and, therefore, expensive, to make cabs fitted to older tractors quiet at the driver's ear. This is because to obtain this noise level greater integration of the cab with the tractor will be required, and this is difficult to achieve with a tractor orginally designed and made without a cab. We have therefore decided to allow cabs not covered by this new noise regulation to be fitted to tractors sold for use in agriculture before 1st September 1975 until 1st September 1977 when all tractors used by agricultural workers must be fitted with a safety cab. This will give manufacturers of cabs an extra two years to meet the likely demand from farmers. However, I would want to encourage all farmers not to wait until the deadline before they fit a cab to their old tractor.

Is it the case that after 1977 every tractor must have a a safety cab, or that after then any new cab fitted to a tractor or any new tractor supplied must have a safety cab, but a tractor supplied before 1975 or a new cab supplied to an existing tractor before 1977 can still continue in existence after 1977?

I listened carefully to my hon. and learned Friend, but he has only succeeded in even further confusing me. However, I will consider that point and ensure that he receives a correct answer to his question.

I was thinking of the regulations that we are discussing, which are merely about noise. My hon. Friend will agree that after 1977 one could still have a tractor with a safety cab, but it would not have to comply with these regulations, would it?

I shall make certain of that and will write to my hon. Friend. I do not exactly understand his point, although I know he has tried to make it clear.

We have therefore decided to allow cabs not covered by this new noise regulation to be fitted to tractors sold for use in agriculture before 1st September 1975 until 1st September 1977, when all tractors used by agricultural workers must be fitted with a safety cab. A tractor can overturn at any time and a cabless tractor that overturns almost always results in a fatality, whilst the driver of a tractor fitted with a cab almost always survives an overturning.

New technology can be costly, and the protection of tractor drivers from excessive noise will cost money. Quieter cabs will be more expensive cabs, because to achieve lower noise levels new cab designs may be required. Human life is at stake here and we should not measure the situation purely in cash terms. However, a quieter cab will provide a very real gain both to the worker and the employer, and is therefore worth the cost. The worker will gain, because the noise inside the cab will no longer be a threat to his health, and his working environment will be improved. The employer will gain because the driver of a tractor will be able to use the power at his disposal without suffering acute discomfort from the noise in his cab. By thus investing in his worker's well-being, the employer will be able to use his machinery to greater efficiency.

In these regulations we also are providing for certain minor amendments in the original tractor cab regulations. One ensures that tests on cabs are made to the latest revision of the British Standard. The others correct certain anomalies that occur in the existing tractor cab regulations.

I would like, finally, to acknowledge the help that we have received in the preparation of these regulations. Organisations representing both employers and workers have been of great help to us, as has the Agricultural Engineers Association and the individual manufacturers of both tractors and cabs. This is the kind of co-operation towards the achievement of a highly desirable measure that is most heartening to come across yet often so difficult to achieve. We are indeed fortunate in the agriculture industry that such co-operation occurs as often as it does.

The co-operation to which the Minister referred crosses the Commons as well. I am pleased to welcome the regulations. The fact that this proposal is non-controversial does not mean that it is unimportant. It is vitally important, and I welcome it on behalf of the Opposition.

Looking round the Chamber, I cannot help remarking on the pedantic numerical sleight of hand by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who tried to show that the Liberal Party was better represented in this House today than either of the other two parties. It is interesting to note that the Liberals do not have one representative in the Chamber now.

I am particularly interested in the regulations, not only because they concern agriculture but because the largest single employer in my constituency produces tractors.

Whilst I welcome the regulations, I must put one or two small points to the Minister. First, why must we wait until September 1975 before we can have these new cabs fitted on new tractors? The industry may possibly feel that it cannot produce enough cabs, but it is producing cabs of this high standard already because certain Continental countries to which we export require these standards. Denmark immediately comes to mind in this respect. It seems a long time to wait until September 1975 before this regulation is introduced. Is there no possibility of bringing it forward sooner?

The Minister mentioned extra cost. Obviously we do not know what it will be. At standard rates it could be £50 extra per cab. If so, I agree that this is a small price to pay for a man's hearing, which, ultimately, is what we are concerned about.

It is interesting that we should be discussing the regulations today when only yesterday the growing awareness of noise was further officially recognised in the Government's publication of the Environment Protection Bill, which contains provisions on noise which are greatly welcomed.

I was pleased to hear the Minister's remarks about the reduction in fatalities involving tractors in the agricultural industry last year. The hon. Lady said that fatalities were the lowest for a number of years. This is welcome news indeed. I certainly join the Minister in urging farmers not to wait for these regulations which will make it compulsory to use tractor cabs, but to comply with them as soon as possible.

I am not being churlish, but why must we wait so long for these regulations to come into force? There is enough statistical evidence—especially the work carried out by Professor Burns and Dr. Robinson for the Department of Health and Social Security—to show that hearing deteriorates with constant exposure to noise levels higher than 90 decibels. My argument that the regulations should be brought in as soon as possible is also strengthened and backed by the Department of Employment's code of practice. With larger fields, more mechanisation and larger tractors, the problem will get worse. Noise in a visually attractive area is no less damaging than in the middle of a grimy old factory.

My last point, which is on Regulation 3(b)(2A), is purely technical. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that she will demand adequate silencing and sound-proofing for certificates issued before 1st September 1977? I gather that there is a query about the wording of that regulation. It would help if she could give that categorical assurance or, if not, would promise to look into the matter and, perhaps, write to me.

The Opposition welcome the regulations. They are a step forward. We would like them to take effect sooner than is proposed—we would always like things sooner—because it seems a long time to wait until September 1975. However, if the regulations help to maintain the health of agricultural workers and the efficiency of the industry we certainly welcome them.

I welcome the regulations relating to noise in tractor cabs. I share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) and my hon. Friend's assurance that she will urge everyone to introduce this system on a voluntary basis well before it becomes law in 1975. I hope that she will redouble her efforts in that respect in the hope that we can get compliance with the spirit, if not the letter, of the law before 1975.

We are considering not the noise of a tractor but noise in a tractor cab. We are concerned not so much about the noise caused by a tractor engine as by the vibration of a metallic cab. Cabs are regarded by everyone working on the land today as absolutely necessary for tractor drivers not only to protect them from the weather but as a useful protection should a tractor overturn.

In welcoming the regulations I should like to call the attention of the House to the number of fatal accidents in the agriculture industry. It is the only industry of which I am aware where the likelihood of fatal accidents has doubled in the last 20 years. Fatal accidents in most industries employing operatives on heavy machinery have markedly reduced in the last 20 years, but on the land they have doubled.

This has been brought about by two factors. The first is the tremendous amount of mechanisation of a great deal of what formerly were simple hand jobs on the land. The second, and perhaps more consequential, is the halving of the labour force in the last 20 years. The annual number of fatalities on farms is almost static—just over 100 every year—but in the last 20 years the labour force has halved. I hope that it will be possible to reverse the trend in the likelihood of an agricultural worker meeting with a fatal accident.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement that she will encourage compliance with the regulations before the due date in 1975. Let us not forget that every year bigger and more powerful tractor engines come into use. On many ordinary farms today one sees tractors with 120 hp engines. Tractor cabs are to be soundproofed to protect drivers against the continual drumming noise of these powerful engines, but let us not forget the country dweller, nor the dweller on city estates where, for hour after hour, these powerful tractors are at work at the end of the back garden. Let us do our best to encourage manufacturers to improve in every way the silencing of these engines.

I, too, welcome these regulations. They deal solely with the acoustic qualities of tractor cabs, and noise is one of the problems to which we have not paid sufficient attention.

I share the hope of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that tractor noise can be reduced for the sake of people around as well as those driving the machines. The countryside is ceasing to be as quiet as it used to be. With aeroplanes overhead, helicopters flying back and forth, and tractors and combine harvesters pursuing their tasks, one sometimes almost longs for the silence of a great city.

Deafness will be one of the serious problems of the future. Discotheques and dance bands are doing their work every night of every week, and agricultural and industrial machinery is supplementing it. This is something to which we must pay a great deal more attention, and I therefore welcome these regulations.

I now propose to help my hon. Friend in connection with a question that I asked during her speech. She need not trouble to write to give me the answer for which I asked because I have read the regulations and I was right, as is perhaps not entirely unusual. Because that is so, I suggest that the time will come for further regulations, perhaps in 1977 or later, requiring cabs to be acoustically suitable. It is probably right not to lay that down in these regulations, because it could be a little harsh to do so, but the time will come when we must require all tractor cabs to be of this type.

Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend will not mind my telling her the answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. David Clark). It is that she cannot give an undertaking about requiring cabs to be of the quality proposed in the regulations before 1977, because they do not give her that power. The wording is tricky. This statutory instrument was before us in the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments yesterday. I regret that that Committee is concerned solely with the words and not with merits. The language may be a little abstruse, but until 1977 it rests in the discretion of the purchaser or the manufacturer to ask for this additional requirement. The Minister cannot require it.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) knows the law very well, but I should like to reiterate why these dates have been chosen. It is because we recognise that it is not feasible for manufacturers to comply with these requirements earlier than is proposed. I support what was said by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. David Clark). We want to encourage farmers to instal quiet cabs just as soon as they can.

The hon. Gentleman referred to fatalities. The total number has been reduced considerably. This year there were only five fatalities due to overturning tractors. In the majority of cases the occupant suffered only slight injuries or escaped unhurt.

We are very much concerned with the problem of noise, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I, too, want farmers to comply with the spirit of the regulations before the due date.

I hope that the House will approve the regulations.

Am I right in thinking that the interpretation—

Order. Did the Minister give way to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. David Clark)?

No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had asked the House to approve the regulations.

In rising today to deal with the Total Oil depot at Langley, in Slough, in my constituency, and the accident that occurred there on 5th October, I have the full support of my local authority, of the residents of Langley—who were and still are affected by this development—and hundreds of others in my constituency who know what happened and are just as much concerned for the safety of their neighbours as they would be for themselves. I have the support, too, of many people on Canvey Island. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) is present, and I know that he hopes to participate in the debate, because his constituents are experiencing perhaps not exactly what happened at Langley, but similar problems.

What underlines this debate is the growing general concern over the siting of certain installations connected with oil, and in particular over what happened at Langley on 5th October. There is a great deal of planning background to the Total Oil depot in my constituency, and much of it is extremely confusing. Going back into history will not help the situation very much, but it is important to underline one or two of the aspects of the background to this debate so that everybody understands the problem that confronted the local authority at that time, and will confront it in future, and also the difficulties that are met in trying to gain full knowledge of what happened on that day.

It was in 1835, or round about that date, that Acts connected with railways laid it down that operational land—that is, land within the control of the railways—was exempt from normal planning procedures. Planning legislation was introduced only this century, and thus, at the time that the operation of railway land was discussed there were no means of controlling what would happen on it should it be put to use. When the legislation on planning was brought into operation it was ruled that such land could be brought into planning control only by the Minister making an appropriate order.

The land which the railway proposed to use for the depot was operational land and unfortunately came within the council's development scheme. It was argued, at the time, that although the local authority could apply for an Article 4 order, which would have involved the Ministry in looking at the whole development, we would no doubt have lost such an application for the permission to be refused since we had scheduled that land for development as a local authority.

The trouble was—I know that the regulations have been changed and it would be interesting to know why—that when a local authority, over a period of years before such matters arose had said that the land was available for certain types of development, it was not possible for it to foresee that such things as oil installations would come under this general heading. If that had been so the Langley Depot would have been strongly objected to by the local authority and the residents.

Unfortunately, the local authority was caught by the general terms surrounding the whole question of development sites. I do not believe that anyone in the area at the time welcomed the fact that an oil depot was to be built on the railway land. My correspondence on this matter goes back for five years. It is important to remember that when it was known that such a project was to be built, the residents mounted large-scale objections and demonstrations.

Many of the objections were concerned with the traffic hazard created by oil tankers moving along narrow roads. The nearest tank at the depot is about 100 yards from the back of a row of houses in Mead Avenue. When we took up the question of traffic congestion with the firm—which was always courteous, and tried to meet our objections, bearing in mind that it had an interest—we were told that the safety risks, danger from fire and derailments were minimal and did not constitute any real hazard.

This was never accepted by the Langley Residents' Association, representatives of which I met from time to time as an intermediary. I also had correspondence with the Department of the Environment and others. On 5th October, in the evening, there was what I am told I have to call a mass ignition of petrol. I am told that I must not call it an explosion because, technically, it was not. We will call it a mass ignition, which means that a lot of petrol was ignited at the same time.

For the people in the area who saw a 60 ft. flame within 100 yards of their houses it was an explosion, or appeared to be. Whatever it is called, at the depot we had a fire of gigantic proportions, which caused a great deal of fear. It has resulted in people in the area being terrified of what may happen next. We understand, although much has to be confirmed, that the locomotive concerned drew tankers away while the discharge hoses were still connected to a tanker that was being filled. We know that the hoses broke and oil and petrol spilled along the railway line. It would appear—this has to be confirmed—that the application of the brake caused the resulting fire.

No one was killed and the injuries were confined largely to the firemen, who, as usual, did a magnificent job in a situation of such magnitude. The heat was tremendous, and it must have been felt there was imminent danger to the residents, because those living in the immediate area and not just in Mead Avenue were evacuated on the advice of those concerned with safety. Large numbers of people took others into their homes and looked after them until it was safe for them to return home. Many of these were elderly people, and some were children. These people are frightened about what the future is likely to hold.

After the disaster the depot ceased to operate and we were informed that investigations were to be carried out. The local residents' association, my local authority and myself, have always insisted that there should be a local inquiry into what went wrong on the night of 5th October. Obviously we want to know what caused such a thing to happen. Moreover, I feel that the local authority and I will not be in a position to give any assurances or to act as mediators or comforters unless we know the full facts. They will come to public knowledge only through a public inquiry.

Unfortunately, we have not got very far with our demand for a public inquiry. It is largely because of this that I raise the matter now. I have had extensive correspondence with the Department, and long telephone conversations, and I am hoping that I will be received to discuss the matter further. The fact that there has not been any sign of a public inquiry alarms us. The Home Office and the Department were involved and their case was that there would be two investigations, one by British Rail and the other by the Total Oil Company.

We were told—and I know this happened—that the Chief Explosives Officer of the Home Office would be present at both inquiries. My local authority sent along Dr. Black, who is our specialist consultant. It was agreed that he should be allowed to be present at the investigations, but he was not allowed to talk to any of the employees of Total Oil or British Rail.

My local authority, I and the residents feel strongly about the fact that a responsible, knowledgeable person, technically and locally, was not given the opportunity to talk to these employees. I would like to know why such permission was not given. We have been told that if there is to be a public inquiry it will rest on the results of the two investigations already held. I and my local authority assumed that the full facts of these investigations would be made available to us.

The local authority made representations and received a reply from Miss Bovill, the Private Secretary to the Secre- tary of State for the Environment, on 30th October, as follows:

"I note your statement that the corporation will be hampered in the performance of their statutory functions since the technical information will only be in the possession of the Home Office. But I am informed that the Home Office will certainly make available any relevant technical information concerning any remedial action that may be called for bearing on the functions of the corporation as a licensing authority."

What good is that to the local authority or to me? My local authority wants, and has every right to demand, all the reports and proceedings of the two inquiries, so that it can draw its own conclusions on the causes of the accident, the result of the inquiries and the advisability of siting an oil depot so near the houses.

It is wrong that the Home Office should restrict information to that which relates to the local authority's position as the licensing authority for the petroleum establishment. That is too narrow a definition of the local authority's function. The local authority is concerned with the safety aspects, and it is under great pressure from the residents to find out exactly what caused the accident and to press for a public inquiry and the closure of the depot.

To my knowledge, there have been two previous accidents at the Total Oil depot. When the second one occurred I was in my constituency. I was received by the company and assured that there was no question of danger to individuals. Although they were not major accidents, the two previous accidents were disturbing. Having been constantly assured about the safety aspects of the depot, now that this more serious accident has occurred we feel that we have a right to be fully informed.

There is a great deal of history to the siting of the depot which, when examined in detail, explains why the local authority was not in a strong position to object to it. It may be a matter of interpretation, but I believe that the advice given to the local authority at the time led it to that conclusion. The regulations concerning railway land put the local authority in a difficult position, but since the accident the regulations governing planning permission for railway land have been changed. Had the change occurred before the first notification by British Rail of the establishment of the depot, the local authority would have been in a much stronger position to make objections to the Minister. The local authority is now in a much stronger position to make objections should a similar accident occur in future.

The local authority was told that because a certain type of development was scheduled for certain land owned by British Rail, the local authority, if it made objections, would be liable for £500,000 compensation. That represented a major difficulty for the local authority before March 1973. It was pointless for it to apply to the Minister when it knew that it was caught within the trap of the development plans. At the time the development scheme was drawn up, in the 1930s and 1940s, no one had reason to think that the land would be used for the siting of an oil depot. I am sure that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East will be familiar with the difficulties that have arisen on Canvey Island during the past few years.

We want full information on the two inquiries that have taken place. The local authority wants to be in a position to withdraw permission for the depot to operate without being subject to compensation. I hope that the Minister will receive a deputation from the local authority and others who are concerned. The hint in the correspondence from the Department that the local authority will be given only such information as applies to its function as a licensing authority suggests that it is likely that the depot will continue to operate but that perhaps more stringent safety restrictions will be applied, about which the local authority will be consulted. That is not good enough. We want the depot to be closed. It is in the wrong place, and it is time we recognised that the siting of the depot should not take precedence over the comfort, well being and quality of life of residents in the immediate surroundings.

I support what the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) said. The Total oil refinery is inside the borough of Slough in the hon. Lady's constituency, but it is right on the border adjacent to my constituency. When the large conflagration occurred on 5th October, some of my constituents were, naturally, apprehensive of the results that might follow if the fire spread to the storage tanks and explosion resulted. Had such an explosion resulted, undoubtedly the effects would not have been confined to the borough of Slough but would have spilled over into my constituency and affected certainly the safety of the property of my constituents.

It would be wrong for me to rehearse again all the matters which the hon. Lady covered in considerable detail. The point that arises at this time is that it is obviously wrong that anyone should be able to establish an oil depot anywhere without planning consent. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development will be able to reassure us about the change in the law and practice and tell us that it is comprehensive. There have been various exemptions for railway operational land.

The oil depot was established within the legal framework which existed at the time. Obviously, from the point of view of the local residents it would be better if there were no oil depot there. There are two aspects of that. There is the fire danger, which cannot be ignored, because whatever regulations there are people are imperfect and mistakes will occur. The other aspect is that of traffic, which is, naturally, rather lost sight of when one is talking about an episode such as that which occurred on 5th October when a large quantity of oil and petrol caught fire. The traffic consideration is material. If one were considering afresh whether one would put the Total oil depot in that position, the traffic objections would weigh as heavily as the safety objections.

Therefore, from both these points of view the local residents have reason to lament the presence of the depot in its present position. However, it is useless to think that one could get rid of the depot without compensation. After all, the company went there within the law, and if it were required to close or to limit its operations it would have to be compensated.

However, we can ask that the safety precautions and regulations should be examined with particularly close scrutiny as the oil depot is situated in a populated area. I realise that my right hon. Friend is probably not departmentally responsible for the safety precautions at oil depots.

I will try to be.

For the purposes of the debate, that will no doubt do. I was under the impression that it was a Home Office responsibility. I think it is technically. Therefore, I am speaking to the responsible Minister at one remove. I do not know whether we can have particularly stringent requirements imposed upon a refinery because it is in an unusually unsuitable position or whether we must make do with the general rules for safety in oil storage depots.

I join the hon. Lady in asking that the result of any inquiries which are being held into this aspect should be made known. One does not doubt the good faith and diligence of those who are officially responsible for these matters, but people living in the neighbourhood are worried about this kind of occurrence and want to know what went wrong and what is being done to stop it from happening again.

I welcome the opportunity that the debate affords to draw attention to a somewhat related problem in my constituency. The hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) was kind enough to refer to it. She has revealed a most unsatisfactory state of affairs in her own constituency concerning control over the siting of industrial establishments which by their very nature are high fire risks, especially where these are sited close to residential areas. She rightly emphasised the importance of the authorities not ignoring the feelings and susceptibilities of those who must live alongside these installations and the views of the local authorities concerned. That is why I strongly support the representations which have been made by the hon. Lady and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell).

As a result of planning decisions made over the years we in South-East Essex now have, as I believe—a belief shared by the local authorities—far too great a concentration of industrial high fire risks for the health and safety of our population. On Canvey Island, where some 30,000 people have their homes, we already had the largest methane terminal in the country, methane storage tanks, oil wharves, and oil storage tanks. Now, despite determined opposition from local authorities, the planning authority and the Secretary of State's own inspector at the public inquiry, we are also to have two oil refineries.

However, this is in an area where we already have two of the largest refineries in the country only a short distance away, in neighbouring Shellhaven and Coryton, with other refineries opposite on the Kent side. All these installations lie in the path of the prevailing southwesterly wind. In addition to the 30,000 people living on Canvey, there are well over 50,000 people living to the north, in Benfleet, and an even larger population in the county borough of Southend, further to the east.

Repeatedly, over a period of about eight years, I have opposed the action of successive Governments in adding to these risks to our environment. In 1965 the Labour Government, supported at that time by a Labour-controlled Canvey Island Urban District Council, gave planning permission for an oil refinery to be established on the island in the teeth of local opposition. In 1972 authority was given by the present Government for another to be built. That, too, was bitterly opposed by the local population and by a Conservative-controlled local council. One would have thought that might have been the end of it. But this year authority was given for a second refinery. We in South-East Essex wonder why we have been singled out for such treatment.

The irony of it is that we have also got to take the Maplin development at the other end of the constituency, which we are assured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be constructed in accordance with the highest environmental standards. We take that with a pinch of salt, because we have seen what has been done to the environment at the south-western end of my constituency by these ill-considered planning decisions which have been opposed root and branch by our local authorities and the residents. I have, of course, taken a deputation to see my right hon. Friend. I asked him to revoke planning permission, but he refused to do so. I asked him for an explanation of what he meant when he said that the national interest must prevail over our local amenities. I have never yet managed to elicit from him what, in this context, the "national interest" means. Nobody in our community would dispute that the country may need additional refinery capacity. The question is: is Canvey Island, with its large and growing residential population, the proper place to site it? We have had no answer to that question.

But leaving aside the whole question of local amenity, and the possibility which always exists with refineries, of occasional atmospheric pollution, there is also the danger accompanying too great a concentration of industrial high fire risks, of playing ducks and drakes with the safety of the area. I am not talking about something that might happen. I have elicited the fact that, since 1st January 1968, the Essex fire brigade has received no less than 116 calls to various industrial establishments in my constituency and neighbouring Thurrock. Of those calls, 54 were to the Mobil refinery at Coryton, 24 to the Shell refinery at Shellhaven and 16 to the methane terminal on Canvey Island. Let me say at once that the vast majority of these were not too serious incidents, but I am advised that there were in fact nine major incidents. Yet, against that background, we are now to have two additional oil refineries added to the scene.

Of course, the danger does not end there, because we have had repeated examples of bad navigation on the Thames, with incidents involving tankers. In July 1970 we had the SS "Monte Ulia" veering off course at Coryton, hitting an oil jetty, severing the oil lines there and literally setting the Thames on fire. In all conscience there have been enough warnings. Less than three weeks ago, we had yet another major fire at the Shell refinery at Shellhaven—the third in three years. I have to ask the question: who is responsible for looking at the totality of effect of these planning decisions, and for measuring the totality of risk? I have put this question repeatedly to Ministers in this House, but I cannot get an answer. Clearly, the first requirement—and what the hon. Lady has said this afternoon provides me with an opportunity to press the point—is an inquiry into the totality of effect of these cumulative planning decisions on our environment, and on the health and safety of our residential population on Thames-side and, in particular, in South-East Essex.

It is not as though I have only just thought of this matter; I have raised it over and over again. In December 1972 I told my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary:

"… I have one very simple question to put to my hon. Friend. Is there no limit to the number of installations of this kind with all their attendant environmental disadvantages and risks that can be planted down within sight and smell of residential areas or will my hon. Friend concede that we have already had more than our fair share of them?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December 1972; Vol. 847, c. 1769–70.]

Incidentally, that question was asked before the second refinery was authorised on Canvey Island, but I have never had an answer. Then, again, on 15th June last, in an Adjournment debate in this House after the second refinery had been authorised, I mentioned that I had taken a deputation to see my right hon. and learned Friend, and that he had refused to revoke his decision, and when pressed to say why he held that it was in the national interest he could not tell us. I asked that the implications for the health and safety of my constituents should be studied by the Government. I asked, at c. 1978, on 15th June:

"Will the Government consider the implications? Can studies on this subject be put in hand without delay?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June 1973; Vol. 857, c. 1978.]

I was given a promise that this would be looked at, but I have heard nothing further. I do not know how much longer we have to go on protesting in this House at thoroughly bad planning decisions or, if we have to live with them, how much longer we have to go on pressing for safeguards.

I therefore ask my right hon. Friend this afternoon—I am not expecting him to give an off-the-cuff answer now—whether he will undertake to look into my complaints in the utmost detail and with the utmost speed. I also ask him to consider something else. From time to time, it has been suggested to me that a planning inquiry commission under the Town and Country Planning Act would provide a suitable means of looking at the totality of effect; in fact, it would not. I know quite well that this is a procedure which the Minister can undertake at an early stage before a planning decision is arrived at, but not after the decision has been made. Indeed, the view of the Department of the Environment has always been that there is no need for a planning inquiry commission, because at a public inquiry the inspector is perfectly capable of looking at the whole situation in the round. Therefore, I am asking my right hon. Friend to consider setting up an interdepartmental inquiry which will take into account not merely the planning decisions involved, but the health and safety matters involved.

Part of the difficulty, of course, is that the Department of the Environment is responsible for general environmental matters, for relations with local authorities, planning decisions, and the like, but ultimate responsibility for safety from fire rests with the Home Office. Indeed, responsibility for navigation on the Thames, and for transporting dangerous and hazardous cargoes up and down the river past my constituency, rests with the Department of Trade and Industry. Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friend this afternoon at least to concede that there is an urgent case for setting up an inter-departmental inquiry which will look at the totality of the effect of these matters upon the environment, the health and the peace of mind of tens of thousands of people who live in South-East Essex. Clearly, there is need for some co-ordinating authority. It does not appear to exist at the moment. I urge my right hon. Friend to set the wheels in motion in order that we may get such machinery established as quickly as possible.

Again, I ask whether, even at this late hour, it is not possible to stop the work on the refineries until such an inquiry has been held. I do not know what the financial implications would be. They might well be considerable. But I am concerned with the implications for the health and safety of my constituents. It is on this score, therefore, that I beg my right hon. Friend to consider very carefully what I have said and to arrange for me to be provided with an answer as soon as possible.

I hope that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) will forgive me if I deal first with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine). There was not time for me to be briefed on the points he raised, and perhaps I can remember them more easily if I deal with them first.

My hon. Friend has raised the question of the oil refineries in the neighbourhood of Canvey Island. I stress that these are refineries, whereas the hon. Lady referred to a storage depot, so we are talking here about two different things. My hon. Friend referred to two planning permissions. One was granted in 1965, and, as far as I personally am concerned, that was that; I held no responsibility for these matters then. I say that not as an excuse but just to put the history of the matter right. This project was quite a distance away from the residential part of Canvey Island. It is on that marshland before one reaches the island itself—the marshland which, from the environmental point of view, we have been very anxious to keep open. It is, as it were, the lung of Canvey Island, dividing it from the mainland.

There was a second planning permission, to which my hon. Friend did not refer. It related to the same applicants as the third, which he called the second, and it was made in 1971–72. Planning permission was granted to these applicants to build an oil refinery right in the middle of the marsh, blocking the gap between the mainland and the island. It was, in my opinion, a bad planning decision environmentally because it blocked up that lung, which should be kept open.

The applicants who made the second application then made a third application, in which they gave the local planning authority, and, on appeal, the Secretary of State, the alternative as to whether they should be allowed to go ahead with what was obviously a very bad earlier decision, or accept a concentration of their works with the refinery for which permission had already been granted next door.

We were at that stage presented with an extremely difficult dilemma, and, as my hon. Friend knows, on the first occasion the appeal was rejected with certain indications that it might be considered if the application were put forward again with the plans very much reduced in size and much more concentrated next door to the area for the existing planning applications. Further application was then made for the area which, when the decision rejecting the first appeal was given, had been indicated as being possibly acceptable. That is the history of the matter.

I think that, in view of the dilemma of previous permissions, the final result has reduced very considerably the area that will be covered by the refinery. I believe now that the two companies are in negotiation to combine their refineries and thereby reduce the unsightliness of what I, as a layman, call the "meccano" part of refineries—the unsightly steel girders and so on which are associated with a refinery. I believe that if that amalgamation can take place it will be a great improvement.

Faced with that position, we had, of course, to consider to what extent that area of the Thames estuary has now become saturated with oil refineries. My hon. Friend asked who was responsible for looking at the totality of the effect. My Department is, of course, responsible for the planning and environmental side, but we take account of the safety aspects and the other points which my hon. Friend mentioned.

A Minister dealing with planning is supposed to have no knowledge at all of the area for which an application is made; otherwise he may prejudice the Secretary of State in his final decision on the appeal. I say from this Dispatch Box that I have always thought that that rule was nonsense; and I will say nothing about my knowledge of this area, if any, before the appeal was heard.

What I will say is that a few weeks ago, because of my anxiety—the same anxiety as my hon. Friend has expressed—whether we were reaching saturation point with oil refineries in this area, I spent a whole morning flying over it in a helicopter, because one gets a much better impression of this sort of development from the air.

From that experience, I believe that my hon. Friend is right—that we ought to consider very carefully the whole implications of any further development of this kind in the area. One can only get a knowledge of this by really looking at the area, and one does get very good knowledge by looking at it from the air as well as from the ground and studying the effects there.

I cannot off the cuff give my hon. Friend an undertaking that any interdepartmental committee or commission will be set up, but I look on it as the responsibility of the Ministers concerned to get together and ensure that further damage is not done to an area of this sort. I can assure my hon. Friend that, following my examination of the area from the air, I am in discussion and in consideration of the matter with my colleagues.

That is as far as I can go today in reply to my hon. Friend. I appreciate that he has taken the opportunity to raise the matter, thus giving me this further opportunity of expressing our concern with the developments in this area and with how much further, if further at all, we can go in any large development there. Of course, my hon. Friend has the same problems as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough in that these developments are near residential areas.

But in the hon. Lady's case the development was very much nearer residential areas. She has said that the depot is about 100 yards from the nearest residential area and I understand very well the anxieties of her constituents. The question is bound to be asked whether it is safe for an installation such as this to be sited near where large numbers of people live. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment fully appreciates this concern and recognises that these anxieties should be allayed as quickly as possible.

I ask the hon. Lady to accept that we are seeking remedies to the problem as quickly as possible, and I shall argue that her proposals might delay our efforts. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary shares this anxiety, and his Department and mine have kept in close touch since the accident occurred. I shall attempt, as I said to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), to answer for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary today in respect of the matters which are his responsibility. The hon. Member for Eton and Slough asked whether we would receive a deputation. I would be most willing to discuss the matter with her and a deputation whenever she wishes, and if she thinks it worth while I shall invite one of my colleages from the Home Office to attend the meeting as well.

May I recall the circumstances of the fire, which I think are important? It broke out early in the evening—about 6.30—on Friday 5th October at the sidings adjoining the Langley oil depot while petrol was being discharged from a rail tanker into the installation. During the course of this operation the train moved, with the result that the pipelines through which the loading was taking place were broken and a major leakage of petrol resulted, which then ignited. A large number of appliances were called to the fire, and it was brought under control by midnight. As a precautionary measure, the unfortunate families living nearby—about 30 of them—were evacuated by the police, and trains on the main line were diverted. The fire was confined to the sidings, and little damage was done to the installations themselves and virtually none to any other property. As the hon. Member said, there were some slight injuries. Three firemen were slightly injured—two scorched in the face and one with a hand injury—but no other casualties were reported.

British Railways, on whose land these installations are, gave notice of the fire to my Department in accordance with the statutory requirements relating to railway accidents, and the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways satisfied himself that proper arrangements were made for the protection of traffic on the neighbouring passenger lines, involving the closure of the lines to traffic until the following morning. It was his job to see that proper immediate steps had been taken to protect the public, and he found that the steps had been taken properly. Trains were diverted via alternative routes, and local passenger services were operated with the aid of a special bus service.

Having established that the fire occurred during the unloading of the train in the depot, the chief inspecting officer took the view that the investigation of it was properly a matter for the fire department of the Home Office, and he advised my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that an inquiry into the fire by the railway inspectorate should not be ordered and he found, as for the railway inspectorate, that all had been done that should be and there was no case for an inquiry on that side.

British Railways and the Total Oil Company, whose depot it is, decided at an early stage to set up their own private inquiries. The Chief Inspector of Explosives at the Home Office arranged that one of his inspectors should take part in each of these inquiries. We were, therefore, involved via the Home Office in these inquiries. This was believed to be the proper way of handling the matter because, although this was indeed a major fire, it did not cause any loss of life or serious injury and the Home Office took the view that the facts would come out fully at these private inquiries. Nor was there any significant damage to property outside the railway sidings directly involved.

The Government would not feel justified in directing a public inquiry to be held at this stage into the circumstances of the fire unless, of course, it became evident that the essential facts could not be established in any other way. There is no reason to suspect that the investigations initiated by the Total Oil Company and British Railways and in which, as I have said, two of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives have participated, would not reveal all the relevant information. The Chief Inspector of Explosives has now received copies of the reports of both these inquiries and has taken account of both of them in his own survey of the accident. Recommendations as to the remedial action to be taken in the light of it are being made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

These are being considered by my right hon. Friend now, and, as the hon. Member was told in the letter which she quoted, arrangements will be made for the Slough Borough Council to receive as soon as possible all the information from these investigations which it is considered are germane to the exercise of their statutory functions in connection with the installation. I read those last few words from my notes, as the hon. Member did from the letter. I think perhaps the phraseology was a little too red-tapish. If the borough council had a representative at the inquiry—Dr. Black—I see no reason why the evidence given at the inquiry should not be disclosed, so far as it was recorded, to the borough council and discussed and a disclosure made of what was said about the need for remedial action.

This is a most important point. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman said he felt the narrowness of the language was a bit red-tapish. Is he now saying—and may I tell my constituents and my local authority—that the local authority will receive full copies of the reports and the evidence taken at the two private inquiries?

I do not know. I have not seen the reports, so I cannot go as far as to say that. I think this is a subject which the hon. Member and I and the representatives of the borough council could discuss if there were a deputation. I shall then know a little more about the reports. I do not want to commit myself too far or commit my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I am saying only that when the authority has had a representative at an inquiry I see no reason why there should be any secrecy about that inquiry. I think it should be open to discussion between the local authority and my Department to see what steps can be taken over whatever evidence was given. The hon. Member will see that I have raised my eves from my brief and that I have spoken off the cuff on that. However, she made a very strong point that the local authority should be brought into this completely.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South asked whether specific remedial action could be applied to one particular depot. The answer is that it can. The local authority can attach any conditions it chooses to licences which the depot requires. If it is the local authority that has to apply the safety precautions, it is only right that there should be full discussion between it and the inspectorates of both my Department and the Home Office.

I listened carefully to the hon. Lady's arguments. I still believe that by virtue of the part played by the inspectors of explosives at the private inquiries sufficient information will come out of the inquiries. I am not anxious to set up any other inquiry, because what we want to learn now is what new remedial action is necessary, what safety precautions should be imposed at the depot. I have a nasty feeling that if we set up another inquiry I should have great difficulty for months in finding the right inspector to hold it. There would be legal representation arrayed on all sides, and possibly in about 12 months' time we should eventually get the inquiry to a hearing. If the hon. Lady agrees, I prefer to have informal discussions with her and the borough council, take their advice and give them recommendations from both my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State.

The two inquiries that have taken place are private, and, therefore, no report of them can be published as a public document. I want to discuss their contents with the hon. Lady and the borough. I have already explained that I want to involve the Slough Corporation in the matter as much as possible.

I hope that I can give further assurance by repeating a statement which has already been made elsewhere, that the Government accept that it is important that any lessons of general application which may derive from such investigations should be publicly available—that is, their results, not necessarily reports of the investigations—so that we may apply them generally.

I should like to deal briefly with the planning history. The site is part of a large area between the railway and the Grand Union Canal. For many years it has been railway operational land, and is so allocated in the Slough town map. When the town map was being prepared, no one considered installations of the sort we are debating.

In June 1967 the Slough Borough Council was informed by British Railways of their intention to lease the site for the purpose of a road-rail interchange depot, to convey oil in bulk by rail from Milford Haven to serve the Slough area. It was pointed out that that would be development permitted by the General Development Order 1963. Under that order, the development of railway operational land—the land in question comes within that definition—had implied planning permission; it did not need specific planning permission.

In July 1967 the matter was put to the borough plans sub-committee, of whose minutes I have a note here. The committee recorded no objection, subject to agreement on detailed design, layout and vehicular access. It considered that there was not a sufficiently strong case on its merits to justify subjecting the development to specific planning control by an Article 4 direction. It could have applied to the Secretary of State for such a direction, which removes the matter from implied planning permission under the General Development Order and requires an application for planning permission to be made. It no doubt had in mind the compensation provisions which the hon. Lady has mentioned. If a direction had been approved and subsequently permission had been refused on appeal, compensation would have been payable by the council in excess of £500,000, representing at that time, I am told, a 1½p rate for 30 years. Therefore, it was rather an important matter for the council to consider. Whether the law is right—

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that another difficulty was that even if the depot had been refused the land was still railway operational land, and that we could have had something worse and have gone through the same rigmarole again? That was the planning aspect that made it so difficult for the local authority, one that I am glad to say was changed last March.

If my recollection is correct, the change came at just about the time we were arguing the case of the Abingdon gas works. The whole question of operational land of the nationalised industries came up, and eventually led to an amendment.

In May 1968 Total Oil submitted an application for ancillary buildings which needed specific permission. That was given in June 1968. Details of the buildings were approved, and permission to improve the road access was given, in February 1969.

News of the proposed depot was published in the local Press in the autumn of 1968, when it caused an immediate out- cry in the neighbourhood. There was correspondence between the hon. Lady and the Under-Secretaries to the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, both of whom explained the planning situation to her. The correspondence continued during 1969, leading to a deputation of the Langley Residents' Association, which the hon. Lady kindly brought to the Under-Secretaries.

At that time the deputation was concerned mainly with the traffic changes arising from the use of the narrow and winding Station Road and High Street, Langley, as the access route for tanker lorries, although I believe that there was also mention of anxiety about the depot being only about 100 yards from the houses. There were fears of loss of life and damage to property in a fire or explosion.

The deputation was told that planning permission was a matter for the borough council and that road improvements were a matter for the county council, and that the Departments could not move unless the local authorities applied for an Article 4 direction or in some way brought the Departments into the matter.

The depot eventually came into existence at the end of 1969. It fell within the class of permitted development in the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order 1963. At that time the exemption from specific planning permission applied to those who leased lands from British Rail, as Total Oil Ltd. had done in this case.

It was in the amending order this year that we removed the offending words "or their lessees". The situation could not arise today. If Total Oil acquired the land now and put in an application as lessees of British Rail, it would have to apply for planning permission and go through the whole process. I am glad to say that we have amended the law. It is unfortunate that it was amended only after Total Oil had obtained planning permission for this area.

The hon. Lady asked whether we or the local authority would withdraw the permission now, and suggested that in some way it could be withdrawn without the obligation to pay compensation. I am afraid that this would need some form of parliamentary legislation. It is impossible under present law to withdraw a permission of this kind without paying compensation. The unfortunate thing is that, even if the Secretary of State took it into his hands—and he seldom takes this step—to withdraw permission if the local authority were not prepared to do so, the local authority would still pay compensation.

Will the Secretary of State pay?

When I have been faced with the duty of withdrawing a permission of this sort, I have often thought that it would be nice to say "We will pay" and not force this on the local authority. But the law is otherwise.

The hon. Lady said she wanted to see the depot closed. That would go beyond the present powers. She would need legislation for that to be done, if it were to be done without large compensation being paid to the Total Oil Company.

What we can do, and are determined to do, is to look at these reports very quickly, have a discussion with the hon. Lady and the borough council to see what remedial action should be taken by imposing further conditions on the licence to Total Oil, and see whether we can give better protection to her residents. I look forward to further discussions on this matter as early as possible with the hon. Lady and her borough council.

I should like briefly to raise the subject of forestry, because this is the first opportunity we have had to discuss this very important subject since the Minister's statement on 24th October. My right hon. Friend would be the first to agree that the statement has had a mixed reception. Those who grow timber seem to want to keep the annual maintenance grant payments, and yet those who object for one reason or another to an expanded timber policy, such as the Ramblers Association, seem to think that both private and State forestry should be curtailed.

I wish to make clear at the outset that I am a forestry expansionist. Last year our total timber imports amounted to just over £900 million. This year it is estimated that our total timber import bill will be £1,200 million, which is up by a third. Moreover, imports of timber now represent about 8 per cent. of our total import bill of all commodities.

Before last month's trade figures I felt that a forestry expansionist policy was desirable. I regard the latest figures as additional evidence of the need for an expansionist policy for home forestry production as essential in the national interest.

I wish to remind my hon. Friend of the report by Mr. Verney and his working party—a report prepared for the Secretary of State for the Environment in relation to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held in Stockholm last year. The Verney Report contained several pages on forestry. I should like to read the concluding paragraph, since this is an impartial source of information and represents part of the case which the Secretary of State for the Environment put to the Stockholm conference. The paragraph reads:

"Woodlands are an integral part of our biological natural resources and of our countryside. They afford shelter for agricultural land, houses and gardens, provide cover for the growth of vegetation, habitats for wildlife and regulate the run-off from rainfall. Our consideration of forestry suggests the need for more trees: more hardwoods and mixed woodlands for amenity, more well-sited conifer forests to contain our import bill and absorb the growing demands of leisure and recreation and, in the uplands, a growing forest industry to provide employment. Trees are beautiful as well as useful. They are one of our country's renewable natural resources; too often they are taken for granted."

I think that passage is extremely relevant to this debate.

I said earlier that there had been a mixed reception to the Minister's statement of 24th October. One group of people who appear to be rather hostile to the Government's forestry plans are the members of the Ramblers' Association. That association seems to be hostile to any form of extended tree planting. I cannot understand this attitude, because trees help to make Britain more beautiful. To anybody who walks in the countryside—I am sure that the Minister of State will agree—a landscape broken up by trees, either in blocks or scattered here and there, is far more attractive and pleasant than a landscape that is desolate, bleak and treeless.

The Ramblers' Association's objections to plans for forestry expansion probably stem from the existence of large blocks of conifers. Its members probably object to the strict fire rules which perhaps impede ramblers in their walks through the countryside in places where young plantations have been established. There is no doubt that the Ramblers' Association has a valid objection when its members see whole mountainsides clothed in soft woods in one uniform brand, such as Scots pine and spruce trees. They tend to become monotonous and a rather unpleasant sight if repeated too frequently.

This objection could and would be met if the Minister, before making up his mind on this subject, gave consideration to the introduction of a new scheme for the planting of isolated plantations. I am thinking, for example, of a plantation of under 50 acres containing a mixed variety of woods. I suggest that if the Minister were to double the planting grant as well as the maintenance grant for these isolated mixed plantations it would do a great deal to meet many of the objections by some of the bodies which object to the monotony of large coniferous plantations.

I shall be sorry to see the annual maintenance grant go, if that is the Government's decision. This is the view of many influential people who have been in touch with me on forestry matters. We think that the grant places on the shoulders of private forestry owners and woodland owners a certain amount of financial discipline, and is useful for that reason alone.

I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something today about the Government's policy in what I hope will be a renewed expansion of our forestry industry. Is there any likelihood in the near or distant future of an EEC directive on forestry and timber products, bearing in mind that the enlarged Community is a net importer of timber?

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for initiating this debate, because, as he said, it is a long time since we discussed forestry in the House. I recognise the strength of his argument about expansion. My hon. Friend quoted the import figures for last year and this year. It is probably glaringly obvious to say that no planting that we do now will help us much in the very near future, but I take on board his point that imports of timber are very substantial.

My hon. Friend asked me about the possibility of an EEC directive having effect in this country. There is no likelihood of this in the immediate future, and the statement which I made in answer to a Question in the House, while recognising the existence of that directive, was not in any way influenced by it.

I wish to go back to the time last year when the Government's consultative document first saw the light of day. Many people had their misgivings about whether it was in fact consultative and was not rather a declaration of Government intent. No one can have any doubts about that now, because consultations have taken place on the widest of scales. I myself have had prolonged discussions with a delegation from the trade unions led by Mr. Jack Jones; with representatives of the private forestry interests; with those who came to see me on behalf of the timber trade; and many others. My hon. Friends with responsibilities for forestry in the Welsh and Scottish Offices have done likewise and there have, of course, been parallel consultations between the environmental Ministers and the local authority and other amenity interests.

To all those who have submitted their views, either orally or in writing, I would like to pay grateful thanks on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the work done, the help given and the advice always so generously offered by the Chairman of the Forestry Commission, Lord Taylor of Gryfe.

The result of these consultations is to be found in the reply I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) on 24th October last, and I think it not unfair to claim that the reaction of those interested in forestry has been one of cautious welcome—my hon. Friend used the phrase "mixed welcome", and I shall not quarrel about that—cautious because only the broad framework of Government policy has been announced. Discussions on the detailed application of it are now going on.

What caused great dismay among private foresters was the suggestion in the consultative document that the dedication scheme should be ended so far as new entrants were concerned. Indeed, despite frequent ministerial assurances to the contrary, it was widely supposed that the ending of dedication applied to those who had entered into covenants already. In fact, as was made clear, it was always a case of suspension, as opposed to finality. The Government wanted to look at the future of the whole of the forestry industry after a gap of some 30 years since the previous review, and dedication was an important feature of the private sector.

Forestry is, I suppose, the use of land with the longest cycle involved. I often think that a six or seven year rotation on a farm is not exactly short term in the planning and management which it calls for; but it is small stuff compared with forestry. Good management is essential to good forestry, and a dedication covenant ensures that management is good. Indeed, in entering into one, owners of private woodlands voluntarily enter into an obligation which deprives them of freedom to manage their own property as they choose—and that is no mean sacrifice to make; but they make it because, like most of those who have any responsibility for the land of this country, they attach an importance upon which it is hard to place a value to what lies within their care. My experience is that those who own and manage woodlands, be they the commission or private individuals, take their responsibilities every bit as seriously as anyone else.

The Government have thus decided to retain dedication, albeit in a rather different form. Until last year one dedicated for all time. We think it makes a more workable proposition to dedicate a forest or plantation for its lifetime. When it is felled, its successor can be considered for dedication in its turn.

In order to qualify for the grants which a dedicated woodland will earn certain new conditions must be fulfilled. To put them in their simplest form—the country must be kept beautiful and the land used well. Hardwoods take a very long time to grow, but so much are they a feature of our countryside—particularly in England and in Wales—that we want to encourage the planting of them. This is why the Government's announcement contained the news that a significantly higher grant would be paid for hardwood planting.

We want too to spread abroad the enlightened approach which both the commission and many private owners are already showing in giving the public access to their woods. This is where the Ramblers' Association comes in. Camping sites and woodland trails in private woods in Westmorland and further north; log cabins put by the Forestry Commission by the side of Loch Lubnaig on the way from Doon to the West of Scotland—all this enables the people of this densely populated island to appreciate forestry and the value it has for the country.

This, I am afraid, takes me on to my hobbyhorse. We are, as I have just said, one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Moreover, the population continues to increase, while the motorways and the housing schemes remove land at a rate of between 50,000 and 60,000 acres a year. We cannot therefore afford to see land used other than to really good effect.

Hill farming, on land where many of the trees are likely to be planted, must be in good heart, and if hill farming is in the dumps, as it was not long ago, vast areas of conifers will be planted in a way which does not use land to the best effect.

There are those who always have looked and always will look upon forestry and farming as being in competition with one another. They are, I am afraid, so wrong—and so blind. No one who is interested in this subject and who has passed by that high, high town of Tomintoul in Banffshire can fail to have noticed and be impressed by the way in which the Forestry Commission has planted its forests in Glenlivit, to the enormous benefit to those whose farms are adjacent to them. The same can be said of a private estate near Fort William, where what used to be poor stock-carrying land has been improved, thanks to the shelter given by well-placed woods, many times over. My own farm on the northern slopes of the Lammermuirs, which, like every other farm, is the most difficult farm in the country, would be a hard, windswept place without the 120 acres of plantations which guard its 600 acres from the winds that sweep in from the Bass Rock in the North Sea or storm down across Soutra Hills.

So foresters, farmers and those who have an eye for the landscape must get together. They will do so on the Forestry Commission's regional advisory committees, which are to be reconstituted, so as to bring together forestry, agricultural, amenity and planning interests with a new mandate both to discern the broad area strategy for rural land use and to advise on cases of doubt in the administration of grants to private woodland owners.

In this way, for the first time, the Forestry Commission will have at its elbow a network of expert and representative groups which can help to reconcile the demands which agriculture, forestry and amenity are making—and will continue to make—upon our diminishing reservoir of rural land.

It is a long time since many words have been spoken on forestry in the House. I again thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of putting some of my thoughts on record. I note the points that he made with such clarity about the need for expansion and will certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend.