§ 9. Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his estimate of the reduction in the total value of the guarantees for the purposes of the 1960 Annual Price Review which will be effected by the reduction in the guaranteed prices for cereals.
§ Mr. GodberThe reductions in the guaranteed prices for cereals represent a reduction of about £3 million in the total value of the guarantees as calculated for the purposes of the Annual Review.
§ Mr. WilleyWould the hon. Gentleman agree that this shows that the muddle that the Government have got into over the subsidy policy is now making nonsense of agricultural 539 economic policy? Surely, in view of the possibility of the balance of payments difficulty this year, we ought not to be creating this savage disincentive to the growing of feeding stuffs here? On the contrary, we ought to be encouraging it.
§ Mr. GodberIf that were what we were doing, I would agree with the hon. Member, but it is not. As to his suggestion that this is a savage disincentive, I would not interpret a cut of 3d. a cwt. in the price of barley, which is the main feeding stuff, as being a savage cut. I should have thought that, in view of the increase in yields that we are getting, barley is still a profitable crop to grow in the areas in which it is normally grown. I do not think this should be interpreted as a disincentive on the part of the Ministry.
§ Sir J. DuncanWould my hon. Friend agree that, instead of this being a savage disincentive, in total the estimates for this year add up to £263 million, which is an excess of £22 million over last year's estimates?
§ Mr. GodberYes, I think my hon. Friend's figures are correct. There is certainly no question of a savage cut, and cereal growers will not be inhibited by what we have done.
§ Mr. WilleyThe declared purpose of the cut is to reduce production.
§ Mr. GodberNo, I certainly would not agree that it is. That is not the intention. It is not said in the White Paper that we intend to decrease production. We want to see the production of cereals, particularly coarse grains, maintained.
§ Mr. de FreitasIs the hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever the figures, the farmers' union in the county which we both represent is so critical of the Government's policy today that it has called for the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture, and that if the members of that union did not know and like the hon. Gentleman they would have coupled his name with this demand?
§ Mr. GodberI appreciate the implied compliment in the last part of the supplementary question, but any calls for the resignation of my right hon. Friend are most unfair in this context, from whatever quarter they come. The farmers of 540 Lincolnshire, who are friends of mine as well as of the hon. Member, have perhaps taken a somewhat jaundiced view at this stage, but when they have had a good harvest I hope they will look at the matter differently.