HC Deb 02 April 1969 vol 781 cc458-62
4. Mr. Dudley Smith

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent this year's Annual Price Review implements Her Majesty's Government's long-term policy for the expansion of British Agriculture.

8. Sir J. Langford-Holt

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the terms of the Agricultural Price Review implement the Government's policy of expansion announced on 12th November, 1968; and if he will make a statement.

16. Mr. Body

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the prospects for future expansion of the agricultural industry, in the light of the recent Review.

33. Mr. Scott-Hopkins

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he is taking to expand agricultural production in line with the statement of Government policy made on 12th November, 1968.

41. Mr. Charles Morrison

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in the light of the Annual Price Review, he will make a statement on the Government's plans for agricultural expansion with a revision of the targets he set in his statement of 12th November, 1968.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

This year's Annual Review determinations provide substantial incentives for the key commodities in the Government's selective expansion programme announced last November.

Mr. Dudley Smith

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, despite all his protestations to the contrary, he has dealt a damaging blow to the farming community with his totally inadequate Price Review, and is he aware that, far from encouraging the much-needed expansion of British agriculture, it will probably have exactly the opposite effect?

Mr. Hughes

I am satisfied that the determinations which I announced in the Price Review in relation to the priority commodities, beef, wheat, barley and pig meat, will have the desired effect and will enable the industry to be on course in 1972–73 in relation to those commodities, providing not only recoupment of costs but an injection of capital as well. The important need now is for the industry to realise that it can go ahead, but that will not be helped by the gloom being spread by the Conservative Party.

Sir J. Langford-Holt

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if he is to succeed in his object, a vital factor is the confidence of the industry, and is he not at least somewhat alarmed by the fact that the vast majority of farmers have no confidence in what is taking place?

Mr. Hughes

I believe that when the industry has settled down and has studied the terms of the Review in detail in relation to the commodities, it will realise that the Review gives agriculture the tools to get on with the job. I am satisfied that what is important now is that there should be a concerted effort to give the industry confidence, and not to deprive it of confidence as the Conservative Party appears to be doing.

Mr. Body

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are at least two essentials for expansion, one, the injection of more capital into the industry now, the other, more effective control over imported foods; and does he agree that he is providing neither?

Mr. Hughes

I pointed out a few moments ago that we are providing not only recoupment of costs but an injection of capital in relation to the key commodities. I agree that that is important, and we are doing it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the industry as a whole is under-recouped by at least £6 million, on top of falling income, and that even in the priority products it is still unrecouped having regard to the total increase in costs which farmers had to meet last year? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look again at the necessity of providing extra capital facilities if he wants any form of expansion, particularly in the hills, where there was a bad winter?

Mr. Hughes

I agree that the industry is being asked to absorb some of its costs, but we are providing in this Review just over 80 per cent. of the total costs, which by comparison with past Reviews is very respectable indeed.

Mr. Stodart

Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that the industry has not already studied the details of this Review and come to its conclusion? Does he realise that on two earlier Questions and on this one he has dodged the issue? What is the contribution being made by this Review to import saving?

Mr. Hughes

The hon. Gentleman should go back and read the little Neddy Report and my statement of last November. The objective is that we should save imports by concentrating on the priority commodities of beef, cereals and pig meat. This we are doing. The Review determinations and last November's statement are pretty well in line with the "Little Neddy" Report. The Opposition, on the other hand, have at no time said what their objectives are or what they would have done in relation to priority commodities. They have been as vague as possible throughout all they have said, both in debate and at Question Time. If they think that they have thrown a smokescreen over the industry, they are making a big mistake.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Answers ought to be reasonably brief.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

In view of the unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again at an early opportunity.

22. Mr. Peyton

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the extent to which progress towards the net saving of imports of £160 million a year proposed in the Government's recent planning document will be facilitated or hindered by the conclusions of the Price Review.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

In setting the import saving objectives of the expansion programme to 1972–73, which I announced in November, the Report of the E.D.C. was taken into account. Our Review determinations provide encouragement and resources for the key commodities for that programme. The progress of production under the programme is described in the Annual Review White Paper (Cmnd. 3965).

Mr. Peyton

The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that not everybody now shares his hopes. Will he take the opportunity to discuss with the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs the soundness of the forecasts made in "The Task Ahead" and tell him that if there is to be any hope for continuing selective expansion material must be provided on which the hope can be based?

Mr. Hughes

I am satisfied that what we have done in these determinations is to give the industry the right incentives during the first of the four Reviews between now and 1972–73. The determinations to which I refer are framed to encourage expansion of the priority commodities of beef, cereals and pigs. The amounts involved are £20 million for beef, £12 million for cereals and £5 million for pigs. This means an injection of capital of over £37 million for the main priority commodities.

Mr. Godber

The right hon. Gentleman has on several occasions used the phrase, "I am quite satisfied". Will he now accept from us that the trouble is that he is quite satisfied?

Mr. Maxwell

No.

Mr. Godber

Whether the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) accepts it or not is immaterial. I am addressing the Minister. It is not satisfactory. Can the right hon. Gentleman name any organisation connected with agriculture which has said that it is satisfied with the Price Review determinations?

Mr. Hughes

The right hon. Gentleman must not take my words out of context. I said that I am satisfied that the determinations on key commodities will get the industry going to achieve our import-saving objectives by 1972–73. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be satisfied.

Mr. Manuel

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as well as cushioning agriculture, he has a clear duty to the millions of consumers? Will he recognise that he must watch his import-export policy very carefully in order to keep food costs where they should be—as low as possible?

Mr. Hughes

I appreciate that, and one of the main objectives of any well-organised Annual Price Review is to stabilise food costs. As I said, in the case of this Review we have put no added burden on to the consumers.