HC Deb 13 January 1971 vol 809 cc222-30

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clegg.]

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

I am grateful for this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to a very real problem which agriculture is facing at this moment through the cost of safety cabs and the lack of freedom farmers have to choose the type of safety cab they require, and to bring before the House the attitude of the manufacturers to this problem. Legislation was passed by this House to make compulsory the fitting of safety cabs to tractors, and, of course, safety is of paramount importance, and I hope that nothing I say tonight will detract from the importance of seeing that the toll of injury and death is reduced, but when we passed the legislation no one in this House, I am certain, thought that through the legislation there would be an increase of 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. in the cost of tractors.

The present position in agriculture is very serious. Costs are rising very fast. It is, therefore, all the more disgraceful and unfortunate that some manufacturers should take advantage of the legislation and increase the cost of tractors by up to, in one instance, £240, when it is quite possible to buy a safety cab for much less money—in the region of £80 to £90. Whatever manufacturers say in their own defence, I believe they are taking advantage of the present situation. I believe they saw a means of increasing their profits. I am speaking very frankly tonight. This is a mean and unpleasant exploitation of the agricultural industry. I have no hesitation in condemning one firm in giving the lead, and that is the Ford Motor Company, this large organisation which builds so many of our tractors. We in agriculture will not forget this action.

With all the complaints that farmers make about any Government that is in power, I wonder what they would have said if the Government had introduced legislation which resulted in an increased cost of £240 for each farmer. They would have screamed, and rightly so. Yet companies like Fords are doing exactly that. Some firms are being fair about this. John Dear and the manufacturers of the imported tractor Zetor have played fair.

Agriculture looks to the Minister for help. The Minister is aware of the problem. In a sense the tractor manufacturer have given the Minister the brush-off. When the Minister says that it is not much use having further discussions with the Tractor Manufacturers' Association, it seems to me that the association cares little either for the industry or for what the Minister says, and this is serious. I hope that the Minister will be able to say how he will help the industry with this problem.

What do we want? We simply want freedom to put on a tractor the cab of our choice. Yes, even a very expensive cab if the farmer desires this. Some manufacturers wish to install in cabs radios and even earmuffs. That is fair enough if some farmers wish to have them. Farmers have every right to install whatever they wish, but they equally have the right to have fitted a very simple safety cab or bar to comply with the law. Legislation has been brought in to make compulsory the fitting of safety belts on cars, but at least the car owner has the right to fit the sort of safety belt which suits his need.

One only has to read the Farmer and Stockbreeder and the Farmers' Weekly to see how annoyed farmers are with the way in which tractor manufacturers have taken advantage of this legislation. Farmers have the remedy of simply not buying Ford tractors until Fords take up a more reasonable and helpful attitude. This is the course which farmers could and should take in present circumstances.

The restrictive policy of the manufacturers has the effect of increasing the price of safety cabs and means that farmers cannot choose the type of safety cab they need. The owner-occupier who wants just a plain tractor is denied the right to have it. What about the transference of a cab to a new tractor in a year or two's time? Must the farmer always buy a new cab? What about the export of second-hand tractors? Many countries do not wish to have cabs on their tractors, and this could mean a possible loss in the export of secondhand tractors. It could also mean that tractors will no longer be exported to the United States. I have evidence to show that this is one of the reasons why the Ford Motor Company does not want the farmers to have the advantage of being able to choose the cab they require or like. Surely the Minister believes in competition and freedom of choice. If this is allowed, I believe it will enable the best possible designs to reach the market at the most economic price.

This is a serious problem and is a matter of principle. This is the reason I have brought the matter before the House tonight. I believe that the attitude of some manufacturers is "This will all blow over; it is a five or six weeks wonder and then those who are complaining probably will forget all about it." However, I do not think the agricultural industry will forget the attitude of certain tractor manufacturers in the present situation. I believe those manufacturers have been unfair, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that he has been able to make some progress in resolving the problem.

I hope that in future a simple safety cab or bar will be produced which will comply with the legislation and which will not be too expensive. I hope that we will receive from the Minister a full reply.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison (Devizes)

I am delighted to take this opportunity to support the able speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). I consider that the action of the tractor manufacturers is utterly inexplicable and out of character. The manufacture of tractors is an important part of British industry. It is an industry which is constantly seeking to improve its product. It is forward looking, it is aware of the changing needs of its customers, and is constantly trying to find out what its customers require. It has a fine export record and has done a great deal of its own free will to improve the safety of tractors. It is in the forefront of British industry. But, in the end, its profit and success depend now, as always, on a large and satisfied home market. It is the British farmers who under-write and nurture the tractor manufacturers. Yet now it is these tractor manufacturers who, by their mean and petty action, have chosen to bite the hands that feed them.

Let nobody think that their insistence on selling their own cabs is inexpensive. My hon. Friend has quoted the example of the Ford Motor Company. I would remind the House of a reply which I received from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to a Question that I put down on 8th December last. I asked what estimate the Minister of Agriculture had made of the increases in cost to farmers as a result of the introduction of tractor safety cabs. The reply was: No estimate is possible of the precise immediate increase in costs to farmers, but the additional capital costs of purchasing tractors with safety frames might be of the order of £3 million at current prices in a full year. The important part is this: If manufacturers were to continue to refuse to supply tractors unless they are fitted with their own cabs, a further £2 million in a full year might be involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 62.] That further £2 million is the degree of exploitation which the tractor manufacturers are setting upon the farming industry. There is no excuse for this extra burden. After all, it is the dealer or agent, and not the manufacturer, who is responsible under Regulations for fitting cabs.

Nor can the manufacturers claim that manufacture for export is aided or simplified by their action, because I believe that tractors for export, even if ordered with cabs, are sent abroad with the cabs unattached, to save shipping costs. Why, then, have manufacturers taken the action that they have over cabs?

There is only one conclusion that one can draw: they are using these Regulations for a purpose for which they were not designed—to feather their own nests. In so doing, they are doing an injustice to farmers, in particular to independent cab manufacturers, and they are doing considerable harm to their own good name and reputation. I trust that, if they are not prepared to untarnish their own record, the Government will be able to do it for them.

11.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart)

My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) has made this subject peculiarly his own. This no doubt stems from the occasion when he welcomed the tractor cab Regulations on behalf of the Opposition. He is also well known as one who is interested in fighting tenaciously for the freedom of individuals in many spheres.

There is nothing that I would contradict or refute in what my hon. Friends have said in describing this sorry saga. As the House knows, I had a meeting with representatives of the tractor manufacturers on 10th November, 1970. We explored this question in depth and at length, but my views and theirs appeared to be as far apart at the end of the discussions as they were when we began.

Since then there have been Questions asked and answered in this House, followed by a full and frank account of things tonight. Within the last few days I have discussed the matter with officers of the unions representing the agricultural workers, and I should like to place on record the understanding which they have shown of this situation, and of the helpful suggestions which they have put to me. I have also asked for and received the views of the National Farmers' Unions of England and Scotland, and these have been equally helpful.

I do not want, and neither do my right hon. Friends, to be compelled to ask the House to change the Regulations. For one thing we supported them when they were introduced, and their basic aim which is that no farm worker shall drive a tractor without an approved cab or frame has our wholehearted support.

I propose, therefore, to invite the tractor manufacturers, now that they have been made aware of the views which have been expressed here and elsewhere, to discuss the matter again with my right hon. Friend and myself. If they will allow their dealers to fit to their tractors a frame or a cab of the type, quality and price which the buyer of the tractor wants—and let me repeat that all types of frames or cabs must carry the approval of my right hon. Friends through the agency of their safety inspectors, before they can be marketed—then we shall not require to take up the time of the House with amending legislation. If, however, they insist on maintaining their present attitude, then we shall be obliged to do so.

More people are killed on farms, when tractors without safety frames turn over, than from any other single cause. But all experience, both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, proves that a properly constructed and fitted safety cab or frame reduces the risk of death or serious injury almost to zero. It is, therefore, a matter for serious concern that so much difficulty has arisen since the Regulations came into force.

Given the maximum possible freedom of choice, I am certain that the farming community would willingly have accepted the tractor cab Regulations; recognising—as I am sure most farmers do—the paramount importance of protecting not only the lives of their employees, but their own lives and those of members of their families. Unfortunately, this freedom of choice hardly exists.

Although firms outside the tractor manufacturing industry make a variety of cabs which have been approved by both Agriculture Departments for the most popular models of tractor, the principal tractor manufacturers in Great Britain either require their dealers or agents to fit only a cab of which they themselves approve or they supply to their dealers only tractors with a cab of their own already fitted.

But the independent manufacturers of cabs and frames can offer a much wider choice to the consumer in terms of his preferences—for example, whether he wants something that can easily be taken off and replaced—and his pocket. I doubt if many people in the industry would disagree with me when I say that Mr. Alex Duncan of Kincardineshire probably knows more about safety frames and cabs than anyone. It is ridiculous that his contribution to safety, and that of people like him who are his competitors, should be limited in any way, when this particular development has got such a long way still to go. The snags concerning sound problems have been mentioned. My right hon. Friends and I are bound to be seriously concerned about the effects of this situation on safety.

If our Regulations are to be fully effective they must be accepted by those to whom they apply. No one, least of all in the farming community, would quarrel with our objective—that of seeing that a tractor is safe when it leaves the dealer or the agent—but, equally, no one will be satisfied with a Regulation which obliges him to accept the manufacturers' and not his own choice of what he wants.

So long as this is the position, I believe that the Regulations will be doing far less than they should to promote safety because they will deter farmers from investing their often scarce capital in new tractors. Instead, they will go for good second-hand models, which need not, under the Regulations, have new cabs fitted to them.

On 8th December last, I told the House that my right hon. Friends were proposing to examine the Regulations to see whether they could be amended in a way that would maintain competition. This we have now done. I want to make it quite clear that we rejected out of hand the possibility that the Regulations should be totally withdrawn. I also want to say that I have informed all those with whom I have discussed this matter of our determination that, in the event of our being obliged to amend the Regulations, we shall make every effort to see that the law, as it would then be, is enforced against any farmer who is found breaking it; and I have been assured of the full co-operation of the various organisations involved.

My right hon. Friends and I very much hope that the tractor manufacturers will, even now, think again. Their present policies have been rejected by their customers as unfairly restricting their freedom of choice to get what they want at the price they want to pay.

My hon. Friend has referred to the Answer I gave him about the cost as between frames and cabs. We cannot sit by and be silent witnesses to costs being forced up in this way at a time when costs are already rising so alarmingly in the face of the farming community.

The views of the manufacturers have been rejected by the Government as discouraging farmers from buying new and safe tractors. I cannot believe that the manufacturers find this isolation enjoyable, and I hope that they will see that it is in their own, and everyone else's interest, to end it. I can assure them that I am only too anxious to meet them in order to work out how we can improve freedom of choice and increase competition. This is the course that I should much prefer to the alternative of having to amend the Regulations in the only way possible if our objectives are to be secured; namely, by removing from Regulation No. 4 the provision which makes it an offence to sell a tractor … unless it is properly fitted with a safety cab. But I can assure the manufacturers that this is a remedy which we are ready to pursue, albeit with reluctance.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

If my hon. Friend should be looking again at Regulation No. 4, will he consider the problem of the orchards and particularly the hop garden user who is using a tractor entirely on level or nearly level ground, in which case the Regulation is merely an unnecessary extra cost?

Mr. Stodart

My hon. Friend will be aware that in the case of hop gardens there is already an escape Regulation—

Mr. Wells

And orchards.

Mr. Stodart

—and I am perfectly ready to examine other parts of the Regulations at the same time.

As I have said, we have discussed the matter with the farming unions and with the unions which represent the workers. On the part of each we have found a very ready appreciation of the difficulties and a ready understanding of the reasons that might force us to take the only remedy open to us. But, as I have indicated, the remedy is a pretty drastic one.

Therefore, I hope that the manufacturers will believe me when I say: "I shall be very ready to meet you at any time."

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.