§ 20. Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will advance the date of the next Price Review in view of the present serious condition of the agricultural industry.
§ Mr. Cledwyn HughesThe Annual Review began last week.
§ Mr. LewisThat reply shows the value of putting down a Parliamentary Question. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is involved in the Annual Price Review, when considering what he should pay the farmers will he bear in mind past losses as well as trying to improve their prospects for the coming year so that they will recoup some of the losses made in the last year?
§ Mr. HughesI understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making but he will appreciate which factors are taken into account in the Annual Review. All matters such as investment, costs and income are discussed in full.
§ Mr. StodartWill the right hon. Gentleman give some consideration to the convenience of the House, and inform us whether he is able to confirm again what I believe to have been an inspired leak, that he proposes to make his statement on 18th March?
§ Mr. HughesI am anxious to make the statement as soon as I can. It 1243 depends on the progress of the review. We are now in mid-stream in our talks with the unions. I cannot make a specific statement but I hope that I shall be able to make a statement not later than 18th March.
§ 28 and 29. Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) in view of the fact that as agricultural net incomes have not increased between 1957–58 and 1968–69, whereas total personal incomes have risen by over 50 per cent. during the same period, whether he is satisfied that successive price reviews have provided proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested in the industry; and whether he will take steps to improve the situation in the forthcoming price review;
§ (2) in view of the fact that during the past 10 years farming productivity has risen at a rate of more than twice the national average, and that this rise has not been reflected in successive price reviews, if he will arrange for it to be recouped in future.
§ Mr. Cledwyn HughesThe Government will decide what action to take in the light of its conclusions from the Annual Review now in progress.
§ Sir J. Langford-HoltWould the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a great disparity between agricultural incomes and other incomes throughout the country?
§ Mr. HughesI note that in his Question the hon. Gentleman has very fairly referred to the years when right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for the annual review. He was right to do so, because successive Governments over the last ten years have made determinations which, even though costs were not recouped in full, the Government considered fully adequate in the circumstances. It is worth bearing in mind that in the last 20 years the review award has recouped costs in full and left farmers with the whole of their efficiency gain only twice, in 1964, an election year, and in 1967.
§ Mr. SnowIs my right hon. Friend aware that while all of us want farmers to have decent incomes, nobody in agri- 1244 culture, and certainly no worker, looks to the Tory Party as the defender of agricultural interests?
§ Mr. HughesI realise, as the House realises, that farmers and agricultural workers are long-headed enough to be able to appreciate the difference between the record of the Conservative Party and ours.
§ Mr. StodartIs not the right hon. Gentleman treading on very dangerous ground in answering this Question at all? Has he not been served with a writ, and is not the matter sub judice?
§ Mr. HughesI do not think that I have contravened the sub judice rule.