AGRICULTURE (SPRAY IRRIGATION) (Hansard, 1 June 1965)

§ Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Cornwall, North)
I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Spray Irrigation (Definition) Order 1965 (S.I., 1965, No. 1010), dated 15th April, 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th April, be annulled. This is an extremely important Order to those who are engaged in agriculture, and, indeed, in horticulture as well. The first thing that I should like to say to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is to reply to this short debate, is that under the Water Resources Act, which was passed by the previous Administration, some authorities seem to have taken an extremely strange view of the various licences, and so on, which are necessary for the abstraction of water.
It is, I think, generally accepted, certainly outside this House, that the methods and procedures through which the ordinary farmer has to go to acquire a licence to abstract water are in most cases, in the areas of most authorities, extremely complicated and difficult. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices to see that local river authorities simplify the procedure with regard to spray irrigation licences to abstract water.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey)
Order. We cannot discuss the procedure of extracting water. All that we can discuss is the definition of spray irrigation.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
To be able to spray irrigate, one has to abstract water from the river authority's area. The point that I was making was that if a farmer wants to use spray irrigation he has to apply for a licence.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order. We cannot discuss why he has to apply for a licence. All that we can discuss is the definition of spray irrigation.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
As you will have noticed, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the Schedule to the Order refers to certain Sections of the Water Resources Act, 1660 1963, which relate particularly to the way in which the farmer who wishes to spray irrigate should proceed about the business of getting the water to irrigate his farm and his crops. I would have thought that in that context it was in order to discuss the point that I have raised, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell us whether, following the Question which my right hon. Friend asked the Minister of Agriculture, a circular has been sent out to the agricultural industry explaining how this matter should be dealt with.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman cannot deal with this. The Order is limited to the definition of spray irrigation, and that is all that he may discuss.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
With respect to the Chair, in view of the various changes which are being made—

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order. No changes are being made in the licensing arrangements. All that we can discuss is the definition of spray irrigation.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The Order proposes to make certain changes in the Water Resources Act with regard to spray irrigation. The first change that it makes is in Section 24(2). This is of particular significance to the farming community, because this Order removes spray irrigation from the provisions of that Section of the Act, and thereby allows the person who wishes to spray irrigate to be exempted for up to 1,000 gallons extraction as though he were an ordinary agricultural user of water, provided that he complies with paragraph 3 of the Order. This means that he uses the water as a combination of water and other substances for the protection of plants, as laid down in the Order. I am sure the House will appreciate that this is a considerable change from the existing situation, and I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether I have correctly interpreted the change, and whether the person who wishes to abstract water for spray irrigation purposes will be exempted in respect of 1,000 gallons of water so abstracted.
The next change which it is proposed to make is in Section 35(5). This means that Sections 19 and 29 of the Water Resources Act are not going to have 1661 the effect in future which they have had up to now, and that the person who wishes to abstract water by spray irrigation can now receive a licence as of right as a non-statutory user. Previously he could not do so. He could get a licence, but not as of right. The terms and conditions were entirely different. The position is reversed under the Order. That is a very important point. It means that in granting licences as of right to non-statutory users a river authority does not have to take into account the minimum acceptable flow of the rivers from which water is to be abstracted.
Section 45 of the Act is also being changed under paragraph 3 of the Order. This is extremely important. It means that farmers who wish to extract water for spray irrigation purposes will be charged only £1 for a licence, instead of £5, as has been the case up till now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm this. This is an amelioration for which the agricultural community will be grateful. This abstraction refers to the taking of water from rivers flowing above the surface. As I understand it, Section 60 of the Act, which is also being changed, deals with abstraction from subterranean strata, and in this case there is no charge at all for people abstracting water. This will also be welcomed by the agricultural community.
I now turn to Section 63 of the Act. Here I am in a little difficulty in understanding why the change is being made. As far as I can make out, so long as the extraction satisfies paragraph 3 of the Order no special provision is made between the farmer and the authority. River authorities were empowered to make special provisions and agreements with persons wishing to abstract water, but under the Order these special agreements will no longer be possible. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can explain that.
The last Section to be affected is Section 129. As I understand it, the Minister is losing his power to prohibit the removal of water for spray irrigation purposes should there be dry weather or adverse conditions. Section 129 gives the Minister power to prohibit the abstraction of water when the level of water in the area of any river authority is too low. The Order removes that power. I welcome this provision. It is 1662 an advance, but it requires some explanation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will state why the Minister has thought it necessary to do away with this power, in view of the fact that when the Measure was going through the House there was a good deal of discussion about the necessity for Parliament and the Minister to have the ultimate power to say "No". It was felt that a general prohibition in respect of spray irrigation was necessary in certain circumstances. That was why the Minister retained the power of prohibition, if necessary, in the national interest. As I understand paragraph 3 of the Order, the Minister no longer has the powers in Section 129 of the parent Act.
Paragraph 3(1,a) contains the word "substances" used for protecting plants against pest and disease. This is a very loose definition and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should tell the House what it means. I ask this in an exploratory spirit; I am not trying to trip him up. Of course, the point which is important is the interpretation of the word "movable" as it applies to spray irrigation equipment. I do not want to elaborate the point. I think that the definition of the word "movable", which is repeated throughout the Order is open to criticism as not being definitive. If it is definitive, it is too restrictive. Spray irrigation plant does not qualify as movable if it is connected by pipe for the extraction of inland or subterranean water.
I think that I understand what the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to do, but the actual interpretation laid down is much too narrow. The words: … not connected by pipe to an inland water could be open to the wrong interpretation if the authority wished to be difficult. I am certain that the Parliamentary Secretary does not mean to raise difficulties in this matter, and I hope that he will take this opportunity of explaining what is meant. I hope that he will send round a circular to give the maximum publicity to the Order and to the necessity to get a licence to abstract for the purpose of irrigation before 30th June. Time is running out, and the House—and the farmers—should realise this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman 1663 will give a full and frank explanation in that circular of the way in which the Order amends the parent Act from which it flows.
This is most important, as I know in my own constituency. Farmers in my constituency are extremely confused as to how, when, where, and in what form they should apply for licences. This is apart from all the other things—which I should be out of order in discussing—under the 1963 Act. I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to give the maximum publicity through his Department, through the Press, and by other means to explain how we should go about this. Time is running out.
One phrase keeps occurring in the Order. It is at the bottom of page 1 in sub-paragraph (b): by means of a combination of water and growth regulators or nutrients emerging from apparatus that is movable". This appears on page 2 also. We are talking about water, and in using the words, emerging from an apparatus which is movable the hon. Gentleman is—

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)
Coming through the pipe.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
Coming through the pipe—any words which one likes. To use the words "emerging from an apparatus" is carrying Parliamentary drafting too far.
My point is concerned with 3(1,c)(ii) in which the words occur: emerging from spray guns in so far as the water used by such guns in any period of 14 days … Why has the hon. Gentleman decided on 14 days? I should have thought that perhaps 21 days would have been a better figure. If this is too long and it ought to be shorter, perhaps it should be seven days, but there must be some reason why the hon. Gentleman decided on 14 days. I should be grateful for an explanation. In paragraph 3(1,d) we find these rather odd words: … a combination of water and quality additives emerging from apparatus that is movable". 1664 What are the quality additives mentioned there? I assure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that there is genuine concern over this matter and I trust that he will define the meaning of "quality additives" to everyone's satisfaction.
When we pass on to paragraph 3(2,a) we find an equally baffling provision, referring to: … a building or other structure … used for the production of agricultural produce, being a building or structure which excludes from the plants growing in or under it water falling as rain". Water falling as rain? What does that mean? I take it that that applies to spray irrigation inside a building. Could we be given a further explanation? I assume, too, that the use of the word "agriculture" means that the provision also applies to horticulture. This subparagraph is, no doubt, concerned with horticultural produce such as lettuces and tomatoes. If so, it brings us to the following sub-paragraph, which refers to: … land in the immediate vicinity of cloches… On the one hand we must consider produce growing in a greenhouse and on the other produce growing under cloches. I trust that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will enlighten us further on this point. In any case, what is meant by "in the immediate vicinity"? How near to something is "the immediate vicinity"—two to four inches or a couple of feet?
These small points of detail must be made clear for the sake of those in the horticulture and agriculture industries. They must know exactly by which method they much apply for licences to enable them to carry out spray irrigation and what changes have been made compared with the provisions in the 1963 Act. The people in the industry must know what to do, if they are to take advantage of this concession—and it is a concession. I trust that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will take great care, as will the Ministry generally, to ensure that all the people concerned are clear about the provisions contained in the Order, so that they may take advantage of the concession.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) 1665 has referred to the provisions of the Order as including concessions to farmers. I represent a constituency where a good deal of spray irrigation is done and where we all hope that more will be done. I am sure that my farmers would appreciate the concessions mentioned by my hon. Friend if they were a little more easily able to understand the language in which the concessions are couched. We have received requests from farmers to explain other Orders in connection with the Water Resources Act. It is in order to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary three very short and precise questions that I venture to rise.
The first question has been touched on by my hon. Friend. Paragraph 3(1,c)(ii) refers to water and manure or dung emerging from spray guns in any period of 14 days. I reinforce my hon. Friend's request that the period of 14 days should be explained. It is not clear to me why it should be 14 days. I may express a personal interest in having had a large piggery where large quantities of combined water and manure accumulated. I should like to know why the period of 14 days was chosen, because if it is a rainy 14 days there is more material than if it is a dry 14 days.
My second precise question concerns para. 3(2,a). It appears that it will not be regarded as spray irrigation if the watering is carried out within a building or other structure". I should like to know if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary includes the very large areas which can be covered by plastic and polyethylene sheeting. I have seen in some areas in the United States literally acres of land under such sheeting. Does the Parliamentary Secretary include that as a building, because a great deal of spraying could take place and a great deal of water could be used inside polyethylene sheets, which sometimes cover areas several times the size of a football pitch. Precisely what do the Government mean by "a building or other structure", and does it include a polyethylene covered area?
My last question concerns para. 3(2,b), which deals with land in the immediate vicinity of cloches". 1666 I ask the same question. Could the Parliamentary Secretary supply a more precise definition of how big a cloche is? The ordinary person thinks of a cloche in a garden as being a comparatively small thing no bigger than the Dispatch Box. Nowadays people are thinking of cloches very much larger than that. If we are to have to interpret these Orders or ask officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or of the Water Resources Board to interpret them, we must have a rather more precise definition than is given in the Order. I am sure that farmers in the West Suffolk area would be most grateful for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's clarification of these points.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)
This is a rather complex problem. I do not object to all the questions which have been asked. I shall try to answer most of them. Some hon. Members may not be as intimately acquainted with the terms of the Act as is the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins). After all, the hon. Gentleman played a considerable part in carrying through the 1963 Act. I hope that the House will remember that it is from that Act that the Order flows.
The Act prohibits the abstraction of water from any source of supply without a licence, subject only to a few specified exceptions. Agriculture was placed in a relatively favourable position, but an important distinction was made between spray irrigation, on the one hand, and agriculture other than spray irrigation, on the other.
Agriculture other than spray irrigation has been treated quite generously—and I think that the hon. Gentleman conceded this—since it does not use very large quantities of water. No licence is required for abstractions for this purpose from rivers and streams. Although abstractions from underground sources for agricultural purposes are subject to licence, the licence fee is only one-fifth of that charged for abstractions for other uses and there will be no charge for the water abstracted.
Spray irrigation, on the contrary, is treated quite stringently. First, a licence at the full fee of £5 is required for 1667 abstractions from any source for spray irrigation, and in addition there will be a charge for the water. Secondly, the licence of right to which existing abstractors are entitled is qualified in the case of abstractions for spray irrigation.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue that. I have already ruled that we cannot discuss the licensing.

§ Mr. Hoy
With due respect, I shall not discuss that, but it will be impossible to explain what the Order does if I am not permitted to say what the licence would be for. The question of the licence will no doubt be a subject for debate later on—it already has been debated once, but I understand might well be raised again—but I cannot very well explain the charge without saying what the charge is for.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
We are not discussing the charge under the Order but the definition of spray irrigation.

§ Sir Martin Redmayne (Rushcliffe)
On a point of order. May I intervene on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary? There is enormous interest in this subject and a good deal of anxiety in the country. If you can stretch the point a little, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would be of tremendous help to agriculture and horticulture.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Very well, as long as the debate does not go wide.

§ Mr. Hoy
I will not take it wide. I have spent too long in this place already, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Sir M. Redmayne) that if I explained this point it would be of interest to agriculturists and horticulturists.
As I said, the licence of right to which existing abstractors are entitled is qualified in the case of abstractions for spray irrigation. Existing abstractors are entitled to a licence of right for the quantities of water they have taken at any time in the five years preceding 1st April this year. But abstractors of water for spray irrigation do not enjoy this right, unless abstractions for this purpose were taking place before the date when the Act was passed or a reservoir to facilitate spray irrigation was in the process of being built at that time and was completed before 1st April this year.
1668 Finally, and most stringent of all, abstractions for spray irrigation may be restricted or prohibited altogether in time of drought. The main reason for this sharp distinction between spray irrigation and other agricultural uses was the large quantities of water used in irrigation, very little of which returns to a source for further use. But the definition of spray irrigation in the Act is very wide. It is: … the irrigation of land or plants (including seeds) by means of water or other liquid emerging (in whatever form) from apparatus designed to eject liquid into the air in the form of jets or spray". This definition in the 1963 Act embraces many essential agricultural activities, such as pest or weed control which would not normally be regarded as spray irrigation, which do not use large quantities of water and on which these restrictions are hard to justify. Indeed, it was accepted by the Government at the time that there would have to be exceptions of this kind made to the comprehensive definition adopted.
The first purpose of the Order, which the hon. Gentleman seeks to have annulled—I quite understand his reasons—is, therefore, to exclude from the definition of spray irrigation for the purposes of the Act the spraying of pesticides, fungicides, nutrients, growth regulators or additives by means of mobile spraying machines or the spraying of organic irrigation by means of mobile spreaders, or, subject to certain limitations, by spray guns. I hope that this has explained a considerable number of the points raised.
The Order has been framed narrowly, with the intention of relaxing control only over operations that can use very small quantities of water.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about size. If, in practice, it proves that the relaxation can be used as a means of evading proper control over spray irrigation, my right hon. Friends will have to consider amending the present Order. Similarly, of course, if experience shows that there is a good case for exempting other operations from stringent control and it can be done without damage to the conservation of water resources, they will be prepared to consider a further Order excepting them. We shall have to see how this particular section of the Order works. We hope that it will work well, as laid 1669 down, but I make these two provisos, in the one case, if it is overdone, and, in the other, if it is underdone.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that ordinary spray irrigation of crops and so on with plain water is not touched by the Order, and that I fully understand, but, in the light of the operation of the Order, he may bring forward later a further Order exempting ordinary spray irrigation with ordinary water from the provisions of the 1963 Act?

§ Mr. Hoy
If this concession is abused, then, perhaps, we shall have to take power to do the other thing and have more restriction; on the other hand, if we find in practice that it is not necessary to apply the Act to other operations which come within the definition of spray irrigation, we shall make an Order to that effect.
The Order deals with another aspect of spray irrigation. Under Sections 45 and 129, restrictions or a complete prohibition could be placed on spray irrigation in times of drought; and my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Housing and of Agriculture are at present considering an application by the Essex River Authority to impose a complete prohibition for three months on abstractions of water for spray irrigation. The East Suffolk and Norfolk River Authority also has given notice of its intention to seek restrictions on abstractions for spray irrigation.
A ban on irrigation would, of course, be serious enough for crops in the open but it must be disastrous for crops grown under glass since these have a much higher transpiration rate and yet would be unable to receive even the natural rainfall. Accordingly, the Order provides that such restrictions should not apply to crops under glass. In this connection, I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should not quite go so far as to talk about the kind of erections he saw in America. I should think that the answer to his question is probably "No" in relation to acres covered as he described.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
This is an important point on the definition of what is included and what is not in the word "cloche" or the term greenhouse, for that matter, or covered space. My hon. Friend has raised an important 1670 question. I shall not press the hon. Gentleman to reply now, but I hope that he will take it away and consider it, perhaps issuing a statement later on, by some means at his disposal, closely defining what is included. I am not sure that his interpretation is right on this particular aspect of the matter.

§ Mr. Hoy
I am saying that we were thinking of the normal coverage of glass, and the hon. Gentleman told us that he had seen in America acres covered by polythene. We were not thinking of that type of exclusion when dealing with this point. I am being quite honest with the hon. Gentleman and telling him that we had not thought of that, and for that reason did not refer to it in the exemption.
The hon. Gentleman complained that there was, apparently, a great deal of misunderstanding about this. On behalf of the Department, I must tell the House that we have seen no evidence that there is so much confusion among the farming community about the need to apply for licences, but, if the Order or the manner of its announcement has caused any misunderstanding, I regret it. As everyone must recognise, we are dealing with a complex subject, and I therefore, welcome the opportunity which this debate provides to summarise the position as clearly as I can.
Abstraction of water, whether from watercourses or underground strata, for ordinary spray irrigation requires a licence at the full fee, is subject to charges for the water, and is not affected by this Order. Abstractions from any watercourse for agricultural purposes other than spray irrigation do not require a licence provided the water is used on riparian land. Therefore, a farmer who wishes to abstract water for spraying pesticides or for organic irrigation or for any of the other purposes which we have exempted from the definition of spray irrigation by this Order will not need to apply for a licence, provided he does not wish to abstract water for spray irrigation purposes. He therefore has no licence fee and pays nothing for his water.
Abstractions from underground sources for any agricultural purpose need a licence anyway, and the Order does not affect the need for farmers using underground strata to apply for licences. They 1671 will normally pay a licence fee of £1, and no other charge for water. Only farmers who use water for spray irrigation—which will not now include those operations specifically exempted by this Order—will have to pay the full fee of £5 as well as the charge for water, and only spray irrigators, in applying for a licence of right, will have to meet the more stringent criteria to which I referred earlier in order to be able to abstract the quantities they have abstracted in the past.
The second part of the Order, dealing with the irrigation of crops under glass, does not in any way affect the need to apply for a licence. It merely saves crops under glass from the disaster that would otherwise have struck them when prohibitions or restrictions were imposed on spray irrigation generally.
If any farmer is still in doubt on the need to apply for a licence he can go for advice to any local office of my Ministry, or to his union or to his river authority. But, as my right hon. Friend said in reply to a Question on 19th May, the safe rule is, if in doubt apply for a licence; and do so by 30th June, which is the last date for existing abstractors to establish their claim to a licence of right.
It is said that we might have had two Orders instead of one, but I think that as the object in both cases was the same it was better to have one Order. Both parts of the Order were being made under the same Section of the Act, and it would, in my view, merely have caused confusion to make two separate Orders. I might add that the National Farmers' Union, which saw the Order in draft, warmly welcomed these provisions and certainly did not suggest that they should not be combined in a single Order. It is difficult to see how anyone taking the trouble to read the Order could possibly be confused into thinking that paragraph 3(2) in any way affected the question of licences, since it specifically and exclusively refers to Sections 45 and 129 of the Act.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
As I understand paragraph 3(2), even greenhouses, cloches, and so on, will still need a licence to be obtained at the ordinary rate of £5. Am 1672 I right in thinking the Order does not exempt from that payment?

§ Mr. Hoy
I think that under the present Order the fee will be as the hon. Gentleman has said. I will check that, and make sure. When dealing with these licences as between £1 and £5 it is sometimes difficult to remember which type is which. But I will certainly confirm that point for the hon. Gentleman.
It is true that time is running out in regard to these Orders. The responsibility should not be placed upon this side of the House. The Act has been in operation for some time and if consultations had taken place earlier, these arrangements might have been started while the hon. Gentleman's party were in office. We have sought to take everybody into consultation, as one must do of necessity before reaching agreement on the Order.
It was suggested that every farmer concerned might have been circularised, but the job was far too big. The National Farmers' Union agreed that the action we had taken was ample. Everybody has been informed. Notices have been printed and exhibited. We have used the radio and we have gone to considerable trouble to ensure that everyone involved has got to know about the situation. Indeed, on a recent occasion when the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) moved a Prayer, he said that he could not read a farmers' journal without seeing this matter discussed and that farmers were well aware of it. If they were well aware of it some weeks ago, they are no less aware of it tonight.
The period of 14 days has been referred to and I was asked whether we should not have chosen seven or 21 days. We restricted the period to the normal size of tank on a small farm. I do not say that 14 days is the absolutely correct figure, but it seemed to us to be reasonable in the circumstances.
As the hon. Member has said, the definition of "movable" is meant to be restrictive. We want to protect water from being wasted and we thought that "movable" in this sense was the best way to achieve that. It is difficult to make a more specific definition than we have used.
The hon. Member complains first that we are too restrictive and then that we are not restrictive enough. What the 1673 Department has to do, and what we have done in consultation with the people who will be affected by the Order, is to get the best possible definition to meet the greatest number of cases. That is what we have done in the Order. There may be one or two points of which people are not well aware and which, perhaps, I have not explained properly, but I have tried to Summarise what is essential under the Order and I hope that in doing so I have made the situation clear to the farming community.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
Can the hon. Gentleman explain briefly two points on which I still am not clear? I am concerned with the combination of water and manure in paragraph 31(1,c). What worries me, to put it crudely, is the possibility that if a farmer were unscrupulous and sought to evade the purpose of the Order, all that he has to do is to use as much water as he likes and that as long as he puts in a little dab of manure, he is perfectly in order.
The phrase in paragraph 3 is by means of a combination of water and manure or dung". If the combination is 99.9 per cent. water and merely the slightest amount of manure, as far as I can see the abstractor can take as much as he likes. I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to answer this.

§ Mr. Hoy
I cannot give a precise definition of what the components should be. I am not underestimating the difficulty, and I am not suggesting that there may not be farmers who are unscrupulous enough to keep filling up with water and putting in only a little manure. The whole purpose of the Order is to get people to work the arrangement reasonably, because it is for the benefit of the industry. People can abuse anything, but we hope that in this case they will be reasonable in doing what is requested of them.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
I am grateful to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his full and clear explanation. I must, however, qualify my use of the word "clear". It is clear inasmuch as the whole business is extremely complicated. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we would not have moved our Motion if there had not been a great deal of confusion among farming constituents as to the meaning.
1674 I impress on the Parliamentary Secretary the fact that there is a great deal of confusion about interpretation, although this debate and his admirable speech have clarified some of the points. However, there are others which remain in a murky atmosphere but not because of what my hon. Friend said. This only illustrates the difficulty under which we are labouring. I hope that he will consider every means of explanation, interpretation and above all simplification. It is not very long until 30th June, and all of us want to see this Order operating efficiently. It will be to the advantage of the industry. Any help that the Parliamentary Secretary can give will be greatly appreciated.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.