HC Deb 24 March 1969 vol 780 cc1183-201

10.23 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie)

I beg to move, That the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved. This is a very complicated Scheme in some ways. It may take me a little time to explain it.

The Scheme is intended to continue, under the powers provided by Part V of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968, the present stabilisation payments to the bacon curing industry which up to now have been carried on under the authority of the Appropriation Acts. The intention is that for the duration of the present scheme there will be no major alteration from the system used at present; that is that a calculation is made of the average cost of the curer's raw material and of his curing costs, on the one hand, and the average amount he realises on the other. The stabilisation payments are intended to make up 90 per cent. of the difference.

The Scheme is drawn in general terms to leave Ministers some discretion on the exact rates of payment and, if that should prove necessary, of levies. It does, however, lay down the considerations that Ministers must take into account in making any payments or requiring any levies to be paid. There will really be only one immediate change in the procedure as a result of changing over to a statutory scheme. This is that the Minister will establish and keep a register of bacon curers. A bacon curer will not be eligible for payments until his name is entered on the register. I have noted the references to the Scheme in the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, but as they do not indicate in their report in what respect the use of the powers conferred by the Statute are unusual or that the drafting is defective, it is not possible to comment effectively on their report. But, as I have said, it seemed important to the Government not to restrict unduly the scope provided by the Statute, since it is impossible to foretell with absolute precision how the British bacon industry will develop. For example, throughput can change quite quickly, or there could be changes in methods of marketing.

I should say something of the history of the stabilisation arrangements. They began in December, 1966, in the form of Government loans to bacon curers. These were first-aid measures designed to meet the very critical situation which arose in the industry at that time when the increasing price of pig meat was making it very difficult to cure bacon at anything except a considerable loss. In April, 1967, the present system of payments and levies was introduced. It is important to recognise that the arrangements have from the first been on the basis that should there be a marked improvement in the position of bacon curers they would be required to pay the levy which would in time recoup the expenditure incurred on account of the stabilisation payments. This conception has been carried through into the Scheme which we are considering tonight.

It is essential to make clear that the arrangements continue to rest on the conception of a balance between payments and levies such as I have outlined. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Scheme make it clear that identical considerations apply to the payment of grants and the application of levies. However, so far as the immediate practical issues are concerned, the important aspect of the Scheme is the arrangement for stabilisation payments. These payments are not simply a subsidy for the bacon curing industry. They must be looked on as part of the general system of support for pig production. To the extent that they strengthen the position of bacon curers as buyers of pig meat they raise pig prices generally and lead to a reduction in the guarantee payments. Roughly 30 per cent. to 35 per cent. of pigs go to bacon and 65 per cent. to 70 per cent. go to the pork market, so it raises the whole market and leads to a reduction in the guarantee payment. Although the correlation is not exact, an increase in the stabilisation payments tends to be balanced by a reduction in the guarantee payments.

During the past year the Government have been considering the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Bacon Curing Industry set up by the E.D.C. Committee for Food Processing under the chairmanship of Mr. R. S. Worth. The Committee concluded that the stabilisation arrangements should be based on a simple formula but that they should be thoroughly reappraised at regular intervals and should be based on a study of the industry's costs. There have been consultations with the industry on these points, but a full reappraisal of all the factors is bound to be a difficult and time-consuming undertaking.

It is the policy of the Government to encourage the expansion of British bacon production based on the efficient use of resources, increased productivity and, very important, improved marketing. Now the way is clear under the revised Bacon Market Sharing Understanding recently negotiated for the curing industry to win a larger share of the United Kingdom market and the measures taken at the Annual Review should certainly ensure an increasing supply of the necessary pigs.

Mr. Speaker

I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to widen the debate. We are debating an Order. We are not debating the bacon industry.

Mr. Mackie

I quite agree, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I think that all this has a bearing on the matter——

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Gentleman widens the debate I shall allow other hon. Members to do the same.

Mr. Mackie

I appreciate that point, from past experience, Mr. Speaker.

It is essential that the whole curing industry should be properly organised so as to be able to take full advantage of their opportunities. The Worth Committee, whilst recommending the further continuance of the stabilisation arrangements, expresses the hope that these arrangements should be so adjusted as to encourage re-organisation and to discourage the inefficient use of resources. To help in achieving this and in securing the expansion objectives the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has agreed to make an independent examination of the structure of the industry and to consider with individual companies whether any improvements might be effected. At the same time the Corporation will study the effect of the present stabilisation arrangements or of possible alternative forms of support, on the performance of the curing industry. This is being done, with the agreement of the curers.

In the meantime, the Scheme before the House relates only to bacon produced up to 30th September. I know that a decision on a longer-term basis is urgently required, however, and the industry is naturally anxious to see the road ahead as clearly and as soon as possible. That is no less our own wish as soon as we can be sure that the whole industry is as strongly based as possible to advance. The I.R.C. has agreed to work as quickly as possible and to keep in touch as necessary with the officials of my Department.

The Government are prepared to consider any recommendations, interim or final, made to them by the Corporation. I feel confident that the industry too will give the I.R.C. the full measure of cooperation necessary so that its investigations can be speedily completed. In this way we shall be able to take further decisions on the arrangements at the earliest possible date.

But, should it be necessary, the Government would propose to lay before Parliament a scheme extending the existing arrangements for a further short period sufficient to cover the Corporation's final recommendations.

There seems to the Government to be no doubt of the importance of the stabilisation arrangements and that therefore they should be continued. Equally, it is obviously sensible to await the results of the investigations now in hand before laying a scheme of a more permanent nature before the House.

Therefore, I commend the Scheme for the approval of the House.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Byrant Godman Irvine (Rye)

I should like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary three questions, and I am delighted to see the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is also here to listen to the debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary has just referred to a possible further short period by which he might have to extend the Scheme. I am sure that he and the Minister must be aware that nobody can plan pig production on a series of short periods. So the first question one must ask is why the Scheme relates only to bacon produced before 30th September, 1969. That will not be much use to pig producers in this country, and certainly bacon curers will not be able to provide contracts of any significance if that is as far as they can see ahead.

Moreover, in accordance with Section 51(3) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968, an affirmative Resolution is needed. I hope that we shall not be here on 30th September. If we are not to be here then, any amendment or extension of the Scheme should for our convenience be laid before the House by the end of July, and there would have to be some consideration of the matter some weeks before that. Therefore, it seems to me that we are really only talking about a possible extension of the present Scheme for four months, which is not very long. Then the hon. Gentleman says that he might have to extend the Scheme for a further short period.

Paragraph 1 of the Scheme says that it is to apply for 18 months, which seems inconsistent with the provision that bacon must be produced before 30th September if the Scheme is to apply to it.

The second point with which I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to deal arises from the crisis that my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) spoke about in an Adjournment debate on 1st December, 1966, when the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary had the duty of replying. That there was a crisis was surely accepted by the fact that the Minister put before the House on 12th April, 1967 the basis of the Scheme with which we are now dealing. The Minister said two things on that occasion about which I want to ask the hon. Gentleman. First, the right hon. Gentleman said: These arrangements will be reviewed each year, when consideration will be given to the operation of the scheme in relation to bacon curing, and the pig-meat industry generally, and whether any changes may be required."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 201.] That was a clear undertaking that the arrangements would be reviewed each year, and even if there were room for misunderstanding it was explained in the Press hand-out of the same day, in paragraph 127: The arrangements set out above will be reviewed each year, when consideration will be given to the operation of the scheme in relation to bacon curing, and the pigmeat industry, and whether any changes may be required. There seems to have been, therefore, a clear undertaking on 12th April, 1967, that there would be a review each year.

The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he agrees that a review would be necessary at some stage. But in 1967 the basis on which these payments were made was the figures for 1965. It was known then that this was only a temporary arrangement, and many people in the industry thought that the figures were, as one member of the industry said, "as mean as possible". If they were as mean as possible in 1967, they surely should have been reviewed long before this.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Worth Report, two paragraphs of which I wish to quote because they outline the basis on which these figures were worked out. Paragraph 255 says: The stabilisation arrangements have so far been talked about in terms of payment per cwt. of bacon. We have however also thought it useful to consider what has been the total impact on profitability of Wiltshire bacon production during the 6 months April to September 1967 for the industry in Great Britain. By comparing total sales values of Wiltshire tank sides of £9.2 million … plus the estimated value of offal realisations and the estimates of curing costs given in Appendix A, with cost of pigmeat, and using the stabilisation arrangement formula, it appears that even the lowest cost curer would have suffered a net shortfall in spite of stabilisation payments. Paragraph 252 says: On a basis of present payments and the costing information which we have, not even the most efficient curer of Wiltshire sides can be earning an adequate return on capital at the present moment. The Worth Committee was set up to look at the position of the industry and it is quite clear that not even the efficient curers were making an adequate return on capital and that even the lowest cost curers would have suffered a net shortfall. In these circumstances, a delay of two years from the time when these figures were worked out means that the Minister is not applying his mind to the problem. How does the hon. Gentleman think it possible for a bacon curer to work in that sort of atmosphere? What contracts will a curer be able to negotiate with any certainty as to what the future would hold? In these circumstances does the Minister really want any expansion in the industry?

The third point that I want to put to the Minister is that when the then Minister made the statement on 12th April, 1967, he went on to say: … the Government considers that there is need for an examination of the structure and operation of the industry, which the Economic Development Committee for the Food Processing Industry has agreed to undertake."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1967; Vol. 744, c. 201.] That was the Worth Committee and I have already quoted from that Report.

It is clear that the Minister has done nothing about the stabilisation payments, but what has he done about the Worth Report? He has had that report since December, 1967, a matter of 15 months, and he was asked immediately by the curers for urgent consideration of the report, because the new contracts started in April, 1968. No such urgent consideration was given to the matter, and it was not until December, 1968, that the suggestion was made that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation should be asked to have another look at it. What is the point of having the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to have a look at something which has already been investigated by the Worth Committee?

It was suggested that the figures produced by the industry were inadequate, but the Minister had already said that he was to examine the position of the industry each year and he has had two years in which to examine the figures, so it seems that he should have had time to do so well before this

Paragraph 46 of this year's Review White Paper, with which the Minister is familiar, referring to stabilisation payments, says: They will go on unchanged at first into 1969/70 until more detailed consideration can be given to the best ways for the industry to improve its productivity and marketing so as to supply more of the total demand for bacon. This is in line with the recommendations of the Worth Committee that any longer-term stabilisation arrangements should be linked to the encouragement of improved organisation. When the Parliamentary Secretary was saying that the stabilisation arrangements would have to be adjusted to encourage reorganisation and so on, he did not mention that the beginning of paragraph 211 of the Worth Report says: We believe that structural reorganisation is in the interests of the industry and we see no need for government direction or assistance beyond that which is already given through the stabilisation arrangements, which we hope will be so adjusted as to encourage reorganisation and to discourage the inefficient use of resources. The Worth Committee has already said that it sees no need for Government direction or assistance beyond what the industry already has. That is a recommendation which the Minister has had for 15 months and on which no action has been taken except that we are now told that there is to be another investigation.

I seriously ask the Minister what is the point of this further investigation? The time has come when the annual review which was promised in April, 1967, should have long ago taken place. What is the point of asking for an Order for extending this only for a period of what seems effectively to be four months?

The way in which the Minister has managed the Scheme gives no confidence to the industry. It is clear that he does not have his heart in expansion and that he does not believe that this is a good way to set about saving imports. This is an industry in which imports could be saved if he showed the industry that he really believed that it could do it and that it could have confidence in him. For this reason the Minister has a lot to explain to the industry before we allow him to have this Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Speaker

In this debate the Minister can explain only this particular Scheme to the industry.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

This Instrument is made under Section 38, among other Sections, of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968. Section 38 enables the Minister to make a scheme for stabilising payments and for levy payments. If I understand the position correctly, if the return from the sale of bacon is not sufficient to cover the cost of production there will be a stabilising scheme, while if it is more than sufficient to cover the cost of production there will be levy payments.

Mr. John Mackie

indicated assent

Mr. Page

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's confirmation.

These payments will be made or taken in accordance with Section 38(1) of the 1968 Act … in such circumstances as may be determined under the scheme … ". Having set up the scheme, the Minister must determine the circumstances under which he makes or takes the payments respectively. They will not be decided by the toss of a coin. He must consider the arguments, and the Act intended that he should do so. He must also state the circumstances that he takes into account in reaching his decision as to whether to make stabilising or levy payments, and how much they should be. The Act not only intended him to do that, but it states in Section 38(1): … he may … make a scheme … in such circumstances as may be determined under the scheme … ". Meanwhile, Section 38(3) sets out nine matters which may be specified in the scheme, matters such as the rates of payment, the keeping of records and so on. The first matter mentioned in that subsection is rates, and we read: … Any such scheme may— (a) specify the considerations to which regard is to be had in determining the circumstances in which any stabilising payments or levy payments are to be made … The Instrument partially specifies those considerations, and I stress "specifies" because, according to the Oxford Dictionary, the word means … the mention of something fully or in detail, definitely or explicitly, categorically or particularly. Nobody would say that paragraphs 8, 9 or 10 of the Instrument set out the considerations fully or in detail, definitely or particularly. Indeed, they are in no way fully specified. It specifies only partially the considerations.

We read in paragraph 9 of the Scheme: … having regard to the prices of pigmeat, of bacon and of offal, any fatstock guarantee payment which is payable and any other considerations which appear to them"— that is, the Ministers to be relevant … Those matters are obviously not specified from the point of view of the considerations involved, nor do they determine the circumstances when the payments are to be made.

The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments called this matter to the attention of the Department, and in the Memorandum supplied to the Committee—I now quote from the Sixth Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments—the Department clearly agreed that there were other considerations than those set out in the Scheme.

I read from the end of paragraph 9 of the Memorandum: … the situation of the industry as a whole, with its firms of different sizes and degrees of efficiency producing various sorts of bacon and marketing them in several ways. It is with this complex judgment that paragraphs 8 and 9 of the scheme are concerned. Paragraph 11 speaks of the consideration of the demands from the fresh pork and manufactured pigmeat products markets"— the imports—and paragraph 12 states: Regard is also had at present to information relevant to the costs of the industry, e.g. wage increases, materials prices. Changes in the structure of the industry, size of firm and factory, stage and method of marketing can also affect its financial situation. Most important, there appears at the beginning of paragraph 12 of the Memorandum this statement: The existing stabilising arrangements … take account of these various factors in a 'formula' which indicates the situation of the industry, but does not precisely measure it. Parts of the formula are included in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the scheme. I repeat that parts of the formula are included in paragraphs 8 and 9 which I have quoted. It is, therefore, clearly admitted by the Department that the considerations by which the Ministers are to be governed are not set out in these paragraphs. They are only partly set out in them. That is not what the Act required the Ministers to do. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 do not specify the considerations. They specify only some of the considerations.

The argument in the Ministry's Memorandum as an excuse for this is that the Scheme may specify the considerations, not that it must or shall specify them. It is said that the Minister need not specify any considerations at all and, therefore, if he specifies any, he need specify only some. That is not what the Section of the Act states. It states that these payments must be made, in such circumstances as may be determined under the scheme". It is most misleading if some and not all of the considerations are specified in the Scheme. The Act does not say that any scheme may specify some of the considerations and not others. The Ministry's argument seems to me to be like changing a witness's oath to "the truth but not the whole truth".

No one can argue that to say that the Ministers will have regard to any considerations which appear to them to be relevant would be to specify those considerations or to determine the circumstances. The Ministers have not done what they were empowered to do by Section 38(3) of the Act and they have not done what they were directed to do by Section 31(1). By usurping to themselves the right to decide outside the Scheme which considerations may be relevant, they have made what the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments called an unusual use of the powers given to them by the Act.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)

I want my hon. Friend to explain paragraph 2 of the Scheme. The words which puzzle me are, if such part of the carcase has been cured by salting or by pickling or by any similar process so as to alter the character of the meat, but does not include pickled pork". I understand that a pig is potentially pork or bacon. If some part of it is either pickled or cured with salt, I suppose that it can be either bacon or pickled pork. I do not know much about it, but this paragraph strikes me as peculiar, and I hope that my hon.

Friend will explain it.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)

I support the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine). It is a tragedy that the Scheme is necessary at all. What has made it necessary is the poor economic state of the bacon curing industry.

I endorse what has been said already. I hope that we shall have information on how the reorganisation of the industry is going, so that Schemes like this are no longer necessary. All of us in the House—certainly all of us on this side—want to see the industry stand on its own feet, without having to rely on Government support.

We shall never have the situation right in the bacon industry, and it will continue to be necessary to introduce schemes of this kind, unless we give the bacon curing firms sufficient turnover of pigs. This is one of the critical points. The firms cannot put themselves into a proper economic position without a sufficient turnover, and I do not believe that what the Government have offered in the Price Review——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I knew that it was coming. The hon. Gentleman must come back to the Scheme.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Yes, Mr. Speaker. If our curers are given a sufficient turnover of pigs, schemes of this kind will not be necessary, because they will make sufficient from sales of bacon——

Mr. Speaker

Order. All those possibilities cannot be discussed now. The Scheme is before us. The hon. Gentleman may oppose it or vote against it, but he may not suggest anything else.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

With your words of admonition ringing in his ears, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken the point that, unless the Government provide the right incentive to the producers, the curers cannot be put in a proper economic position, either.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

We have had a valuable though short debate on the Scheme. It is right that we should debate it, for this is an important import-saving industry. Moreover, public money is involved. My hon. Friends have raised some pertinent questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) asked why there is not to be a review each year, after a clear undertaking to that effect, a question which demands a plain answer from the Parliamentary Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made a point going to the basis of the Scheme when he said that it would not be necessary if the industry could stand on its own feet. We all look forward to the day when it does.

No one can deny that the industry has had its problems, hence the need for the Scheme. Over the years, there has been a shortage of pigs, there has been the wrong sort of raw material, there has been fierce competition from abroad, and there has been overcapacity in the industry. Costs have risen enormously in transport and taxation. All this has meant that the industry cannot produce bacon at an economic price. This has been a formidable load for the industry to bear, and the Government must take their share of the burden. The farming community have not, I believe, produced the right sort of pigs which are suitable for the bacon curers.

All this has meant the need for this bacon stabilisation arrangement, and we welcome it as necessary in the circumstances. The bacon curers have a point, a very important one, which my hon. Friend emphasised, that it is necessary to have a longer period of stabilisation. The industry certainly cannot plan ahead unless there is. I hope the Minister will answer that question, because the industry is waiting to know. It wants an answer tonight.

Perhaps on some of the questions I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if I am allowed to, the Minister may care to write to me, and so to let us know——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member has a disarming way of suggesting that he is now about to go out of order.

Mr. Mills

I had a terrible feeling. Mr. Speaker, that I was.

However, we welcome this Scheme, but I would, if I may, put one or two pertinent questions which were asked by the Worth Committee. It seems strange that the Minister should have decided to have another inquiry and to have it through the I.R.C. It is extraordinary that he does not carry out the suggestions made by the Worth Committee. Surely it is not necessary to go on and on having committees. This stabilising Scheme was to help to get the industry out of the very serious position in which it was in 1966, but surely also the Scheme was expected progressively to increase the efficiency of the firms concerned.

Is this so? What evidence has the Minister of this fact? Some firms, of course, large and small, have made very great efforts and are to be congratulated. But what about the industry as a whole? Can the Minister give any clue as to the present position the industry is in? What rationalisation has taken place? Can the Minister say when the problem will be solved, because we see in the Scheme that levies can be instituted, when money can be returned, and we should like to know whether this is a possibility, or whether, perhaps, it may never be possible. There are several questions on which the Minister can help us before we pass the Scheme, by telling what exactly is the state of the industry at present.

Great strides, I believe, have been made since 1966. The British bacon scheme must be encouraged for the sake of quality and all that that means. I hope that the industry will move even faster. I have here a number of further questions, but I have a feeling that to ask them may be out of order, so I will leave them on one side, but I hope I may be allowed to add that this industry of bacon curing has many problems and that, therefore, this Scheme is necessary. I personally think that one of the biggest problems is that of competition from abroad, some of which is grossly unfair. Therefore, the industry has this load to bear and, therefore, it is right that we should help. I repeat that many firms have made great efforts and great strides and are to be congratulated. Certain firms, I believe, possibly are still dragging their feet and need to look into their affairs so that they may become viable and economic again. I hope that this Scheme will benefit the industry, which has been faced with the very great challenge of the new bacon sharing scheme, and I wish it every success.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie

With the leave of the House, I will do my best to answer the many points raised. As the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said, although this has been a short debate, a tremendous amount of ground has been covered in it. Mr. Speaker, you have tried, fairly successfully, to keep hon. Members in order. I hope that you will do the same with me, in order to keep matters as short as possible.

The hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) asked, "Why only to 30th September?" He spoke about the Scheme being brought forward only to the end of this Session because a new scheme would have to be laid before then. But this Scheme was laid on 27th February, and is being debated only tonight. It could be laid at the end of September, and debated when we meet again. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that I gave the reason for a six-month Scheme in the last part of my opening remarks.

The hon. Gentleman went on to say that a crisis had developed in the industry, and that the Minister had taken the 1965 figures as the basis, brought in a Scheme for 1967, and that we are now in 1969. He said that this was very mean. We all know the way that Government spending is described as mean. I would ask him to look at some of the profits which have been made by firms. Speaking off the cuff, I can say that I know of one which, during the crisis year, had a loss of £34,000. That was converted in the following year, 1967, to a profit of £17,000. This year, it made a profit of £34,000. That does not sound as though we have been mean.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at what is happening in the industry, he will see that there has been a tremendous expansion. There is a factory just outside the constituency of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), for example, which is up to its capacity of 7,000 pigs a week, and is now expanding. I think that the hon. Member for Rye should be careful about what he says.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine

rose—

Mr. Mackie

No, I will not give way. I am going through the hon. Gentleman's speech point by point, and I have a great many matters to deal with before I finish.

On the question of delay since the publication of the Worth Report, hon. Members will recall that it was published by the National Economic Development Office in March, 1968. The main purpose of the inquiry was not, as is sometimes suggested, an examination of Government policy but of the structure and operations of the United Kingdom bacon curing industry. The Committee's Report covered the stabilisation arrangements also, but the Government's concern has necessarily been with the Committee's recommendations as a whole, including that of the need for structural reorganisation.

Our consideration of the various issues on which the Report made recommendations has had to be equally wide-ranging. In particular, we had to be sure that everything possible had been done to secure the industry's structural efficiency before taking any decision about stabilisation arrangements in the longer term. We must also ensure that we have adequate information from the whole industry, especially costing information, to satisfy ourselves that any payments made to the industry are justified and equitable.

We have discussed with the industry various aspects of the stabilisation arrangements, and looked in some detail at costings which the industry provided for us. The inescapable conclusion of that work on costing was that the data concerned, which related only to that part of the industry engaged in Wiltshire side production, was inadequate for our purposes. More widely based and more thorough information was necessary.

The time since the publication of the Worth Report has seen a great deal of attention being given to the questions it raised, including the future of the Bacon Market Sharing Understanding. Those questions cannot all be settled as quickly as we would like. What is important is that we should secure a soundly based curing industry.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine

rose—

Mr. Mackie

No, I will not give way I am replying as fully as I can.

Mr. Godman Irvine

On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wished to intervene purely to say something to the hon. Gentleman on a matter concerning my personal conduct.

Mr. Speaker

I cannot compel a Minister to give way. It is usually done.

Mr. Godman Irvine

All I wanted to say to the Parliamentary Secretary was that I was in my seat and heard every word he said. I only went to the door for a moment to hand out some notes.

Mr. Mackie

I am sorry if I accused the hon. Member of any discourtesy. I just wondered if he had heard my last few words and invited him to read HANSARD, which seemed a reasonable request.

I should hate to cross swords on complicated legal matters with the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) who raised the question of the word "specify". Recently, upstairs, I said to an hon. Member of the Opposition that he had said that we should supply an Oxford Dictionary to each of our veterinary officers. The hon. Member for Crosby read out what the Oxford Dictionary said about the word "specify". Section 38(1)(a) of the Act states that the Scheme may specify. That is only permissive. Section 38(3)(a) and (b) permit the Minister to determine the circumstances "under" the scheme, but not "in" the scheme. I hope the hon. Member will accept my advice to read HANSARD.

Mr. Graham Page

In the Memorandum, the Department clearly sets out the considerations which the Minister will take into account. It says that there is a formula which the Minister will take into account. Why not set it out in the Order, as the Act requires?

Mr. Mackie

I will tell the hon. Gentleman the formula. Take the price of raw material; subtract any Government subsidy and any bits and pieces which do not make into bacon, like hoof and head, and subtract from the price for offal and the London provision exchange price for bacon. Of the difference between this and 41s. per cwt. the curer gets 90 per cent.

Mr. Graham Page

He knows that. We know it now, but anybody reading the Scheme will not and the Act requires it to be put into the Scheme.

Mr. Mackie

I do not think that it does. It would be impossible to do it. There are so many things that one could not possibly specify them all.

The question of pickled pork was raised. I understand that the definition of bacon and ham excludes slightly pickled pig meat, which is recognised as a separate article and is not generally considered to be bacon or ham. The hon. Gentleman who raised it will have to be content with that.

I could not agree more with the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that we want to see a situation in which this Scheme would not be necessary, but he knows as well as I do how the pig industry operates. We know the competition and the size of the market for pigs. There is no suggestion that we will not carry on the Scheme until it is not necessary.

On the supply of pigs, I suggest that the hon. Member reads the Minister's statement on the Price Review.

The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) asked why we should continue with the Scheme. We must, until it becomes unnecessary. I cannot see us being able to do without the Scheme in the near future. The hon. Member asked what was the state of the industry. I think that it is good—and I quoted two examples, one of expansion to the full number of pigs and another in which the profit had been doubled over the last two years. There is nothing wrong with the industry.

One question which I have not so far answered is why we need to ask the I.R.C. to conduct an investigation. The I.R.C. is an independent body, skilled in structural reorganisation. As has been said, there has been a report on the industry, but it did not go into detail. Before longer-term arrangements are made, we must be sure that the industry is organised as efficiently as possible. The I.R.C. is an independent body able to see whether that is so.

Mr. Peter Mills

The Worth Committee went into the matter in great detail and brought forward all sorts of conclusions. It seems to me a complete waste of time to bring another Committee into the matter if the Government do not act on what was proposed by the first Committee.

Mr. Mackie

To a certain extent we have been acting on the recommendations of the Worth Committee. But the hon. Member knows that Governments do not accept Committee reports in every detail. Indeed, in some respects the Worth Committee wanted it both ways May I quote an example? The Committee said, Some thought should be given to the incorporation of more comprehensive information in the stabilisation arrangement formula". But a later sentence reads, Nevertheless it is very doubtful, however, whether greater sophistication would lead to a more accurate result and we see substantial merit in a simple formula. How would the hon. Member act on two sentences such as that?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

rose—

Mr. Mackie

I did not notice the hon. Member present during the earlier part of the debate, but I will give way to him.

Mr. Griffiths

I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene and apologise for not having been here all the time. He will remember coming to my constituency to open a bacon factory. Those who heard his speech on that occasion will pay particular attention to what he says tonight. He has told the House that the Scheme will go on until it becomes unnecessary. Will he give an idea of the time scale which he has in mind?

Mr. Mackie

No. I am sorry, but I could not possibly indicate that.

With that very brief reply to the latest intervention, I ask the House to accept the Scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Bacon Curing Industry Stabilisation Scheme 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th February, be approved.

    c1201
  1. SUSPENSION OF SITTING 29 words