AGRICULTURE (CEREALS GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) (Hansard, 27 June 1969)

§ Mr. Speaker
We come now to the second Order. I would point out to the House that reasonably brief speeches will help.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy)
I beg to move, That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 672), dated 7th May, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved. The provisions of the Order concern the arrangements for calculating and paying to growers deficiency payments on barley which were originally set out in the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) Order, 1964 when the standard quantity/target indicator price arrangements were first introduced.
The need for this amending Order arises from the changes in these arrangements following the determination of Ministers which were announced following the 1969 Annual Review. In the 1969 Annual Review White Paper, the Government set out the measures to be taken to give effect to its policy of encouraging a further expanson of cereal producton to the full extent technically possible and consistent with reasonable resource use and support cost.
Last year we removed a limiting factor on wheat production, by abolishing the standard quantity restriction, and in the Order now presented provision is made for the abolition of the standard quantity for barley. Provision is also made for the ending of the arrangement under which, when annual production of barley is below the standard quantity and the average realised price is below the target indicator price, the deficiency payment is abated within a range of production determined by Ministers. The similar arrangement for wheat was terminated last year. The current provisions relating to wheat, rye, oats and mixed cereals remain unchanged.
I commend the Order as a necessary step in the fulfilment of the Government's announced intention of promoting the expansion of cereals production, while maintaining necessary safeguards for the Exchequer.

§ Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)
Before I come to the Order, I wonder if I might raise a small point which concerns it and the Orders which we shall be dealing with later.
It has been extremely difficult to get information and guidance from the various trade bodies concerned since they have been unable to obtain advance copies of the draft Orders. I hope that I am not out of order in raising the matter—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in raising this point.

§ Mr. Mills
I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. It is only a small point and perhaps in future, before we debate similar Orders, arrangements will be made for the appropriate trade bodies to have copies so that they can study them and put their views to the Opposition.
We note the changes made by the Government in this Order concerning the removal of standard quantities and the abolition of certain arrangements in terms of guaranteed prices. Certainly we welcome the changes, especially those concerning the removal of standard quantities.
Times have changed. There is a completely different set of circumstances from those prevailing in June, 1964, when the original Order was made. Our country has certain balance of payments problems which make it necessary for us to produce more of our own barley and practise import substitution. This Order will help to do that.
It is interesting to recall what the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) said in 1964: We do not oppose these quantities. We have accepted standards of quantities in principle in view of the quid pro quo relating to the control of cereal imports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June, 1964; Vol. 697, c. 1075.] Now we have changed. We ourselves do not oppose these new conditions. These are changed circumstances. We believe that the Order is right and will be of benefit to the cereal grower. It will give him the confidence that he requires to go forward.
The position of the cereal farmer at present is very difficult. He has to cope with the serious problem of weather, 1920 which has had a disastrous effect on yields. Average yields are dropping. Disease has reared its ugly head and this has depressed yields. We have also had higher costs. This has made the position of the cereal farmer difficult in recent years. The Order represents a step in the right direction to enable the cereal farmer to regain his confidence and go ahead without finding that the end price is diluted the more he produces.
We need increased production of barley for a variety of reasons. The Order will help to obtain that increase. We need import substitution to replace some of our imported maize by barley for the feeding of cattle. There is also the problem of the introduction of new synthetic proteins which do not contain starch energy. This means that we must produce more barley to replace this loss, particularly if we are to control the import of proteins and replace them with new synthetic proteins. This is an important reason why there should be an increase in the production of barley, which we will get from the abolition of standard quantities.
The Government state in their aims for the cereal farmer: The Government aim for cereals is expansion to the full extent that is technically consistent with reasonable resource use and support cost. The previous expansion of the cereals acreage has fallen away in the last two years and will need to move forward again. I believe that the Order will, given reasonable weather and freedom from too much disease, enable us to move forward again in the changed circumstances.
My hon. Friends welcome the Order and believe that it is a step in the right direction. More needs to be done, but I must not develop that theme or I will find myself out of order. This step should restore to the cereal farmer a certain amount of confidence, and this is vital because his confidence has been sapped in recent years for the reasons I have given.

§ Mr. Hoy
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about the Order.
I had not had prior notice of the complaint that he made about the lack of documents. I wish that he had told me—we have been on speaking terms for a long time—because I might have 1921 been able to put the matter right. I assure him that I will look into the position.