AGRICULTURE (Hansard, 15 July 1965)

§ Q1. Mr. Farr
asked the Prime Minister what decision has now been reached on the further contribution agriculture can economically make to import saving, as a result of his discussions on 6th May.

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)
None, Sir. This matter is still under consideration as part of the preparation of the national plan for economic development.

§ Mr. Farr
Does not the Prime Minister agree that it was never more important than it is today that every sector of our national economy should play its full part? Therefore, will he take steps to free the whole of our agriculture industry from any artificial restrictions, so that it can expand its production, make use of its very high level of efficiency, and make a big saving on our food import bills?

§ The Prime Minister
I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of any part of our national economy being able to substitute home production for imports. This was the basis of my talk with the National Farmers' Union in May. As for freeing the industry of restrictions, one of the big inhibiting factors that we have to consider in trying to work out this plan is the fact that, unknown to many of us, the previous Government entered into all sorts of agreements which precluded an increase in home production as a means of substitution for imports.

§ Mr. Loveys
Does not the Prime Minister agree that one of the main difficulties facing the agriculture industry in its attempt to help the import position is the highly unsatisfactory and inefficient anti-dumping legislation?

§ The Prime Minister
The position there has been that where a case is made to the Board of Trade proving that goods—whether agricultural or industrial—are being dumped into this country, the President of the Board of Trade is able to pronounce whether an anti-dumping duty shall be introduced?

§ Mr. Heath
When the Prime Minister says that he has been inhibited in 769 the policy that he wants to follow by agreements entered into by the previous Administration, is he aware that those are the G.A.T.T. Agreements, entered into with the Commonwealth by the Administration of which he was a Member? Is he suggesting that both of those agreements should go?

§ The Prime Minister
No. I am referring particularly to cereals and to the bilateral agreements with the United States, Canada, Australia and Argentina, which Fledge that Britain will take remedial action if total cereal imports decline below the average level for 1961–63. What this means is that the late Government said that they would prevent British production from increasing if there was any question of imports falling off—whereas the right hon. Gentleman himself was perfectly prepared to substitute French wheat for Common wealth wheat.

§ Mr. Derek Page
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cut in cereal prices does not appear to have resulted in any decrease in the acreage of cereals planted in Britain this year? The arrangements entered into by the previous Government do not appear to be working.

§ The Prime Minister
That is another question. When I met the National Farmers' Union in May it naturally expressed very strong feelings about the Price Review. This was understandable and understood. But I discussed with it the arrangements we may have for working out some increased agriculture programme in order to save imports.

§ Mr. Soames
Is the Prime Minister aware that the agreements to which he has referred were designed and intended to ensure that the increase in production which was called for by the increased consumption of cereals in this country would be of benefit to the farming industry, and that the agreement arrived at was agreed to both by the N.F.U. and by himself, when in Opposition—and that there is no earthly point in his endeavouring to call this in aid of the rotten Price Review?

§ The Prime Minister
This has nothing to do with the Price Review. It is certainly true that under these agreements there is an arrangement to provide that increasing consumption will be 770 shared between those from whom we import. So far as British production is concerned, so far as cereals are concerned, as I have said, we promised to take remedial action if the result of home production was to lead to a reduction in imports. What I cannot understand is why we were not permitted to increase British production in cereals while the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to see any amount of French wheat coming in and cutting out Commonwealth wheat coming in.