HC Deb 24 June 1952 vol 502 cc2194-200
Mr. Hale

I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert: and for all subsequent schemes shall include the period from the first day of October to the fifteenth day of April. I am very pleased, indeed, that the previous able and eloquent discussion ended so happily. As one of the few Englishmen representing an English constituency and as a member of the Parliamentary Committee for World Government, I wondered whether I had the temerity to rise at all tonight. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who should have moved this Amendment, has today opted voluntarily for a life on the ocean wave, where he distinguished himself so much during the war, and I have to move this Amendment in his place.

This matter was fully debated in the last discussion, but the Minister of Agriculture appeared to think there was something sinister in this proposal or that we had something up our sleeves. He was convinced in the end that there was not. We have put down this Amendment now to hear whether the Minister can tell us the result of his deliberations, battle, or conference with the other parties interested. I am certain that if he is able to make concession he will do so, but, if on this occasion, after all his successes, he has failed, I know that he will say "No" as courteously and politely as a Minister should.

Mr. Manuel

I beg to second the Amendment.

12 m.

Sir T. Dugdale

I am sorry that on this occasion I cannot respond to the request which has just been made. It is true that since the Committee stage we have examined this matter most carefully, and although we are not frightened of any of the horrible consequences behind this Amendment we feel that these words are unnecessary.

This Bill is an enabling Bill. Those of us who have been in this House for some time know that Governments change. I am not in the least indicating that it may be that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will be in charge of affairs, but there may be other Governments from this side of the House. It might be that at some future date, when this Bill is on the Statute Book, and when there is a change of Government, there might be a wish to introduce a scheme and it might not be convenient absolutely to tie the period of the scheme to these dates.

I assure the House that in any scheme which is introduced the dates will be specifically set out and, further, that as long as I have the honour to be the Minister of Agriculture no scheme that I introduce will start on 5th February. That, I think, is the real fear of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget).

Mr. Hale

The Minister's argument is so irresistible and irrefutable that I find myself speechless. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.2 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Sir T. Dugdale.]

Mr. G. Brown

I have no desire to detain the House. On the other hand, there are one or two points I wish to make. We are indebted to the Minister for the way in which, right up to the very end of our consideration of this Bill, he has met the various suggestions put forward and the generous manner in which he has listened to what we have had to say even when it seemed that his own brief did not support him all the way. He has been willing to consider what we have said, and we are grateful to him.

I have said many times, and I say it again, that some of us regard this Bill as making a very much stronger case—to put it no higher than that—for legalising the first emergency scheme than it does for any further schemes. The Minister will have power to make his first scheme to put in order the bargain he made at the Price Review. It will enable him to pay the farmers the money to which they think they are entitled, as, indeed, morally they are.

But he will also have obtained power to introduce further schemes from now on. I appeal to him, despite the fact that he will have obtained the power, not to proceed from now on without a good deal more thought before he introduces further schemes. Some of us were almost crying in the wilderness when we began saying that the new principle of these subsidies agreed at the Price Review was not a good thing in general. Now I gather that the weight of support for that view is growing very considerably.

There has been great evidence in the interested Press that there is a strong body of opinion which supports the view which some of us have taken. I have good reason for thinking that there are a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who take the same view. They include those who are most closely connected with agriculture who know most about what these guaranteed prices really mean. Because that opinion is growing, because I am so sure we are right, I appeal to the Minister not to go on his wider powers without a good deal more thought.

I know that the National Farmers' Union, at Bedford Square, attach a great deal of importance to the continuance of ad hoc subsidies rather than guaranteed prices. I believe that on this Bedford Square, not for the first time, does not know its own membership as well as it ought to or as some people outside do. I believe that they are making the mistake of thinking they are playing to the views of the most vocal group but not the most important group or the most instructed group of their members.

I am sure that the industry will be better served by guaranteed prices than by these ad hoc subsidies except under special circumstances or for special reasons, such as might be said to operate this year. Therefore, I hope that we shall not be faced with a continuing scheme without a good deal of thought and some special reasons being adduced. I have heard in the last week or so some criticisms from the counties that the payment has not already been made for the ploughing done this year. That arises from the fact that they do not understand our somewhat lengthy procedure. When they had the announcement made to them that there was to be a ploughing grant, many months back, they got the impression that as soon as they did the ploughing up they would get the grant.

They have now spent money on tractors, fertilisers and seeds and they are beginning to get a bit worried. All I am asking—the Minister should get his Bill through quickly—is that in the meantime he should have laid on all the machinery so that the payments can begin to be made at the earliest possible dates. If farmers have committed themselves, particularly the small farmers, it is important to get money into their hands quickly, because they are the very ones short of ready capital to finance their operations.

The Minister might consider issuing, through his county committees, a note about the position, so that the farmers who do not follow our debates with all that enthusiasm we ourselves do will know, nevertheless, what is happening. We are very glad on this side to give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading, because, obviously, we want to see this first scheme through. But we must not be taken as committing ourselves to the view that other schemes are either desirable or necessary; and I hope that the Minister will keep an open mind.

12.8 a.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin (Leominster)

I have imposed upon myself a self-denying ordinance during the whole of this Bill. It is well known that I have opposed subsidies ever since I came into this House, and I am glad to think that after five years a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer has recognised the absurdity of subsidies. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will follow his example, and not deal with the farmers through this method.

There have only been three or four consistent opponents of subsidies ever since I came here, and it was strange to hear the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) condemning subsidies and pump priming, because if anybody is more responsible for subsidies and pump priming I do not know who he is. One speaks of poachers turned gamekeepers. The right hon. Gentleman is more like a gamekeeper who has turned poacher.

On the Second Reading he said that subsidies were pump priming. I hope he will apologise for using the word "subsidies." The phrase should be "production grant." I was brought up with the idea that if a pump wanted priming you only primed it until you could call in someone to remedy the defect. The right hon. Gentleman also said: Our experience in the past has been that the thing upon which one has been priming the pump does not go on under its own momentum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1952; Vol. 500, c. 434.] I hope that my right hon. Friend will reap the benefit of his experience and will take note of that. Another statement made by the right hon. Gentleman was that there were many criticisms against the use of subsidies instead of an end price.

That is the sort of thing that some of us have been saying for many years, that instead of subsidies and expedients of that sort the right way to deal with agriculture is to give an end price for the product we are producing and not to lay us open to the jibes and criticisms of hon. Members opposite who talk about the industry being feather-bedded, £5 note bedded, and so on. Although I realise that the Bill is necessary to make possible the first scheme which we have been promised, I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Belper and will not proceed with any other schemes of this sort.

All the arguments against it were used by the right hon. Gentleman in the Second Reading debate, and I do not propose to repeat them, although, if necessary, I could do so. The way to make farmers plough up is to make it worth their while. Give them a profit on what they produce and go for a tonnage target instead of an acreage target. What matters is the tonnage, and not the amount of acreage ploughed.

I hope that not only in this particular instance, but in every instance the industry will be treated as a business concern and not as one in need of pump priming, subsidies, and so on. We are the biggest industry in Great Britain, both in output and in the number of men we employ. It is time that we were treated as a business concern and given a certain amount of freedom. If we get that, I am sure we shall produce a great deal more than at the present time.

I still maintain that this country can be pulled out of the mess it is now in as regards its balance of payments position if only agriculture is treated as it should be treated and is given a free hand to help to close the trade gap which exists. I hope that we shall have less of this sort of subsidy and that by the next Price Review we shall be given a price for what we produce and that this method will be abolished.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Nugent

I am sure that the House will not want a very long and comprehensive reply from me because we discussed this matter at great length in the Committee stage. May I first say to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), who, I know, has the deepest and strongest interest in getting the maximum production from our fields, that I sympathise with his point of view, although I cannot agree with it?

I would also say to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that we are giving most careful thought to whether there should be a future scheme, and, if so, what it should be. If and when we bring it before the House then will be the time to discuss it in great detail.

The problem of whether (a) we shall get a greater acreage ploughed and therefore greater production, and (b) at a lower cost by giving these ploughing subsidies rather than a higher end price, is something one can debate at considerable length, and I am sure it is not necessary for me to do so now. But I think it would not be right to let the matter pass if it was thought that I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that those who are in closest touch with farming necessarily take the view which he takes that the higher end price is the better method. I do not think that is so at all. There are two schools of thought on this matter. I dare say that those who agree and disagree will be found in all positions in agriculture and in the agricultural world.

With regard to the smaller issue which the right hon. Gentleman raised I can assure him, and the House, that preparations are being made and that as soon as the Bill has reached a stage where it is appropriate for forms to go out to farmers they will go out. We hope that that will be fairly early on next month. We are trying to get them out as early as possible, and I am at the receiving end of a number of complaints about non-payment. I am reminded that we are committed to a second scheme and we shall be bringing it forward before the House so the right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity. The main justification for the ploughing subsidy is that it has got the acreage ploughed and is getting the food we want. That is the justification for the Bill, which I now ask the House to give a Third Reading.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.