§ 23. Mr. R. W. Elliottasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why investment incentives are now included within the total expenditure on agricultural support set out in the Price Review White Paper.
§ 38. Mr. Godberasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the figure of estimated cost of investment grants for agriculture has been included in the list of production grants given in this year's Price Review White Paper.
§ Mr. PeartAgriculture is among the industries benefiting from the investment incentives. These replace the previous investment allowances and are included with other payments to agriculture because they now take the form of direct Exchequer payments instead of tax concessions.
§ Mr. ElliottBut were not investment grants formerly included as an item in the total review award? Therefore, is it not bogus to include it this year?
§ Mr. PeartNo. They are given for information, but they do not come into the review calculations. This is why there is a distinction. But they are included in Exchequer payments.
§ Mr. GodberThis is not satisfactory. They are included in the total clearly given in the White Paper and as such must be used as a bargaining factor, certainly by Treasury officials if by nobody else, in regard to the totality of the requirement. Surely the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry should be concerned in this. There was no provision for the old investment allowances. Therefore, it must be a distortion of the total if it is now included when it was not included before.
§ Mr. PeartI am sorry; it is not a distortion of the totality. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is still prejudiced because of the Treasury's attitude when he was involved in the administration. I assure him that there is no distortion.
§ 47. Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the figure of £9.6 million investment incentives contained in the 1967 Annual Review takes into account the extra taxation which the agricultural industry will bear as a result of the withdrawal of investment allowances.
§ Mr. PeartThis figure refers only to direct Exchequer payments and takes no account of changes in the tax position.
§ Mr. HillAs the Review as a whole sets out to provide mathematical statement of the balance of support going to the agriculture industry, would not a fairer picture be given if the Minister included an estimate of the amount of extra taxation which the industry will bear to offset the loss of the investment incentives? What is the amount?
§ Mr. PeartI will consider that suggestion. It is true that the figure in the White Paper, £9.6 million, did not include, for example, horticulture or higher initial allowances. That was because these are not relevant to the Annual Review. I am anxious to give this information, and these figures were not included purely for that reason. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question of our wanting to hide this information.