Agriculture (Costs) (Hansard, 11 February 1970)

§ 5 and 6. Mr. Scott-Hopkins
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is the estimated net farming income for 1969–70; and what was the actual farm income for 1968–69;

§ 13. Mr. Jopling
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will estimate the amount of increased costs borne by farmers during the last year.

§ 46. Mr. Chichester-Clark
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has formed of additional costs borne by farmers in Northern Ireland and the North-West region during the past 12 months.

§ Mr. Cledwyn Hughes
This information will become available when the White Paper is published following the completion of the 1970 Annual Review. These figures will be on a United Kingdom basis—estimates of cost change are not prepared for individual regions.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
Will not the Minister agree that there is absolutely no reason why he should not give these figures to the House now? There is no dispute about them and no secret. Why in heaven's name cannot we have them? Will he confirm that there has been an increase in costs of over £60 million in 1968 and that farm incomes, particularly in the East Midlands, have dropped disastrously over the past year?

§ Mr. Hughes
I cannot confirm or deny the figures, and I have given the reason why. As the hon. Member knows perfectly well having been a Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, this is the policy which he and his col- 1234 leagues observed for over 13 years. I appreciate the desire of hon. Members to be given the figures in advance of the White Paper. I think there are arguments for this, but since the annual review procedures were started over 20 years ago these figures have not been disclosed. I think it desirable that the review should be based on the latest possible figures, and those figures should be revised during the review discussions if necessary. However, hon. Members will know that I have been considering for some time whether the machinery of the review needs to be looked at very carefully.

§ Mr. Jopling
Will the Minister confirm that one of the reasons why farmers are in such difficulty now has been escalating costs in recent years? Does he agree that under the previous Government in its last five years costs were rising at an average of £17 million a year, but that over the first five years this Government have been in power they have been rising by £37 million a year?

§ Mr. Hughes
I apreciate that costs have risen over the years since the end of the war, but when hon. Members opposite were in power and had the opportunity to do something about them they recouped farmers on costs on only one occasion. We have done rather better than they did.

§ Mr. Maclennan
While acknowledging that my right hon. Friend is considering the machinery of the Price Review, and accepting that this is highly desirable, may I ask if he will bear in mind that hon. Members in all parts of the House are anxious to make as informed a contribution to the debate as possible, and that can be done only on the basis of knowledge of costs?

§ Mr. Hughes
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is something I appreciate. I have certainly taken very careful account of what the Select Committee on Agriculture said about this matter. That is why I think it important to look at the review machinery to see whether it can be revised and brought up to date. However, this needs very careful investigation, and I would not wish to see anything done prematurely.

§ Mr. Stodart
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, despite his caginess on this matter, that there has been leaked—I 1235 should say inspiredly leaked—into the Press the figure of over £60 million as the cost figure involved? If that is so, why should the House not be informed? If it is the cost, it is the very highest figure since 1951, and the previous two were both under a Labour Government. Is it the intention of the Labour Government to try to strive for the highest figure of increased costs possible?

§ Mr. Hughes
We are anxious to work on the latest figures and, therefore, I am not prepared at this point to give a figure for costs. I recognise that they will be high. One of the reasons why they are high is that a wage award has been made to agricultural workers. We have done very well about this, and I am not ashamed of it.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

§ 9. Mr. Peter Mills
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the increased cost to the agricultural industry of recent increases on road haulage rates.

§ Mr. Mackie
I estimate that the cost to agriculture in a full year of the increases in road haulage rates recorded since the last Annual Review is likely to be about £7 million.

§ Mr. Mills
Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realise the iniquitous burden that his Government have placed on the road haulage industry and that this is reflected back on agriculture? Will he inform the Treasury that if it places burdens on one section of industry, it must help to recoup agriculture when it has to bear the burden?

§ Mr. Mackie
If the hon. Gentleman thinks about what he is saying, he will recognise that quite a lot of the increase in the road haulage industry is due to safety measures. I see the hon. Gentleman speciously waving his hand, but this happens to be the case. I am sure that he would not suggest that we would place a burden on an industry unless it were necessary.

§ Mr. Spriggs
Does the Ministry know whether the main trouble with the industry is the amount of inefficiency or 1236 whether costs are rising to the extent referred to by hon. Members opposite? Is my hon. Friend aware that I have in my hand evidence from the St. Helens Branch of the National Farmers Union showing that haulage costs to the industry have risen by 33 per cent. per ton?

§ Mr. Mackie
I should be pleased to look at the evidence my hon. Friend produces. I cannot answer him off the cuff.

§ Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine
Has the hon. Gentleman taken into consideration, in addition to the cost of transport, the costs which have to be added for modernisation to farm buildings to get the larger vehicles in and out?

§ Mr. Mackie
This is one of the costs we may have to consider. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

§ 10. Mr. Peter Mills
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the increased cost to the agricultural industry of recent increases in the wage rates of agricultural engineers, plumbers and electricians.

§ Mr. Mackie
The effects on farm costs of those increases cannot be separately distinguished.

§ Mr. Mills
Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realise that to get any repairs done on a farm now costs about 30s. an hour, mostly due to the effect of S.E.T.? Is he not ashamed of the rise in costs to agriculture, and will he do something about it in the next Price Review?

§ Mr. Mackie
As has been repeatedly emphasised, these costs are all taken into account in the Annual Review. I do not think that any of the costs charged in the ancillary industries are in any way excessive.