HC Deb 07 June 1956 vol 553 cc1249-50
6. Sir I. Fraser

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate was made of prospective increases in the cost of fuel, power and transport in fixing farm prices at the last Annual Review.

Mr. Amory

None, Sir. It is not the practice at an Annual Review to provide against possible future increases in costs.

Sir I. Fraser

Does that mean that there is no contingency fund, and that, in fact, farmers have to work on a Review which, so long as there is any degree of inflation, must be adverse to their interests?

Mr. Amory

If there are any future increases which, at the time of the Review, are known or are predictable, then allowance is made for them. In the case of any other additional costs arising during the year, if there is a sudden or substantial increase in costs, there is a Special Review procedure which can take account of it.

12. Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that in his recent negotiations with the farmers' unions there was general agreement with his proposal for a global £25 million increase; what disagreement there was about the allocation thereof; and whether he will give further details about the negotiations which led to this conclusion.

20. Mr. Willey

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at what stage, and in what manner, the farmers' unions indicated to him that if their schedule of changes had been accepted there would have been an agreed settlement in the recent Price Review.

Mr. Amory

There is nothing I can add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for. Taunton (Mr. du Cann) on 31st May. I regret that I cannot give detailed information about the exchanges at Annual Reviews between the farmers' unions and the Government, since these are confidential.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers simply do not believe the statement issued by him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as to the agreement reached between the National Farmers' Union and his Department over the total award? Is this not because the farmers have been grossly misled? Will my right hon. Friend consider making a broadcast so that the true facts of this matter may reach, not only the farmers, but the taxpayers as well, who like to know how and why their money is spent?

Mr. Amory

I think that the statement I made in reply to a Question last week cleared up the situation. I do not believe there is any misunderstanding today. I hope that we can now regard this matter as closed, and can look to the future rather than to the past.

Mr. Willey

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I desire to take no party advantage of this misunderstanding? I only desire to get it cleared up. Unlike his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), I do not cast any aspersion on Sir James Turner. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir James Turner has made a statement saying that the National Farmers' Union rejected both the total figure and the Government's schedule for allocating it? In the cir. cumstances, would it not be better and franker to say that there has been a misunderstanding between the right hon. Gentleman and the National Farmers' Union?

Mr. Amory

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reread the answer which I gave to a supplementary question last week, which did mention how easy it is for misunderstandings to arise, with different interpretations of an incident. I am satisfied that the Answers that I have given have cleared up the situation, and I really cannot think of any word I could add to make the position still clearer.