§ Q3. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his conversations with the President of the National Farmers' Union; and what consideration was given to the question of agricultural levies.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to the reply given on my behalf to Questions by the hon. Members for Westmoreland (Mr. Jopling) and Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on 27th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 1791–92.]
§ Mr. MartenIn the light of that reply, may I ask whether the Prime Minister agrees that the present system of subsidies has served the county well? If we are to get real expansion of agriculture in this country, is not the only answer to go over to some form of levy system?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. This Question relates to my conversations with the President of the National Farmers' Union. He put the case for increased Government expenditure on subsidies with great vigour. But I found, as I suspected, that his organisation thinks even less of the Opposition's proposals than we do. Therefore, it is hardly the case that the farmers of this country feel that they would give a sustained increase in agricultural expansion. What is clear from the Opposition's proposals is that they would lead to a prodigious increase in food prices.
§ Mr. Grant-FerrisMay I ask the Prime Minister whether his conversations with Mr. Williams included discussion on the bitterly vexed question about which farmers in the foot-and-mouth disease areas feel very badly, namely, the settlement of the £-for-£ claim on the foot-and-mouth outbreak?
§ The Prime MinisterThat has been discussed with him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It did not arise in the particular meeting referred to in the 256 Question. It is a difficult problem, and we are still looking into it. It was envisaged that the general farming community would contribute and that the Government would meet it £-for-£. When the general farming community provided so little money, we had the situation that farmers on the spot would put up the money on condition that for each £ they put up they would get a back. This raises the difficult question of control of public expenditure.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisWill my right hon. Friend say what would be the effect on food prices of accepting the Conservative Party's policy on import levies?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I do not think that it is necessary to waste time and money studying these proposals, but they were effectively dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a speech, I think in his constituency, a few weeks ago.
§ Mr. HeathWhen the Prime Minister talks of a prodigious rise in food prices as a result of the Opposition's agricultural policy, may I ask whether he realises that that is only one-third of the increase to which the Prime Minister and his colleagues are committed by application to enter the Common Market? Does he further realise that an increase of about 1 per cent. a year for three to five years is only one-sixth of the increase in the cost of living under this Government in 1968?
§ The Prime MinisterFirst, the right hon. Gentleman's calculations are so prodigiously wrong on every issue that comes before the House, as was shown last night by his quite "scatty" calculations about saving and the Budget.
On the more serious part of his question relating to entry into the Common Market, I have answered that before in answer to a supplementary. If we were to succeed in our application there would have to be fundamental changes in agricultural policy and prices. I do not think that we have made any secret of that. Exactly how much would be involved no one can begin to calculate, because the price review system is due to be recalculated by the Six this year. In these circumstances, we should have all the 257 advantages of the industrial effects, because of our industrial exports, but to go into this situation voluntarily, as the right hon. Gentleman does, seems sensational lunacy.
§ Mr. ThorpeWill the Prime Minister be a little more specific and helpful? In view of the Government's belated conversion to the idea of applying to join the European Common Market, are we to take it that they are opposed to the levy system operating in European agriculture at the moment and will accept it only grudgingly if they go into Europe?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman should listen to what I said and to what was said in the debate. I have said that if we join we accept the basis of the Common Market agricultural policy, but we have to negotiate a number of things arising out of it. First, they have to settle the price levels—and there is great pressure to bring them down, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, now that they are feeding butter to cows—and, secondly, we should have to settle the whole basis of the payments to the central fund from this country. We should be prepared to contemplate all that in return for the great industrial and technological advantages, but not to indulge in them in advance of joining the Common Market as an act of political masochism, such as the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) proposes.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes my right hon. Friend at last realise that there is no longer agreement between the two Front Benches about entering the Common Market? The observation of the Leader of the Opposition indicates that at last he sees the error of his ways. In those circumstances, would it not be proper to sink this grotesque and fantastic conception without trace?
§ The Prime MinisterI did not read that into the right hon. Gentleman's Question. The difference between us is that, while we all recognise, whether we favour the application to join the E.E.C. or not, that there will be a high agricultural price to be paid by this country, to be offset in other ways, economic and political, the view of the right hon. Member for Bexley, I think, is to start on a limited scale to accept the price of 258 joining the Common Market in advance of getting the advantages.
§ Mr. HeathDoes the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the advantages which he gets from a change-over to the levy system, with a very limited rise in prices, is a saving on the balance of payments of imports of £250 million a year, which he cannot get in any other way? This is the advantage of the system. At the same time, he also gives the Chancellor a saving in revenue, to give people incentives and help, through the social services, to those who need it.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, I do not accept those arguments and, although the farmers would have liked us to spend a good deal more of the taxpayers' money on the subsidies, they do not accept those arguments either. They totally reject the right hon. Gentleman's view in this matter. Although I am always impressed by the right hon. Gentleman's sincerity in promising to cut various forms of Government expenditure and to hand it all out to pensioners and others, I remember that, when they abolished food subsidies in 1951, the pensioners did not get any of it.