AGRICULTURE (FARM PRICE REVIEW) (Hansard, 17 March 1971)

HC Deb 17 March 1971 vol 813 cc1421-616 1421

§ 3.38 p.m.

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Farm Price Review. The White Paper is available in the Vote Office.
The increase in production costs since last year's Annual Review has been bigger than ever before, due partly to inflation and partly to higher imported raw material prices. Rising productivity cannot cover such cost increases. If we are to get the expansion we want in the future, they must be met partly through the price the consumer pays and partly in the Exchequer liability for direct support. Our commodity determinations this year provide in this way for costs to be fully met. So the gains secured through greater productivity will be available to the industry to help both income and investment.
1422 Before outlining the determinations, I must make it quite clear that they represent changes in the guarantees set a year ago. They therefore include the increases made in October, 1970. The main changes compared with the 1970 Review are increases of 12p per cwt. for wheat, 10p for barley and 5p for oats; 67½p per ton for potatoes and 77½p for sugar beet; £1.22½p per cwt. for cattle, 2½p per gallon for milk, 7p per score for pigs, 2.8p. per lb. for sheep together with ½p more for wool and continuation of the extra increases in the hill sheep subsidy. As announced at the time, the temporary increase in the fertiliser and lime subsidy made at the last review for one year only will end.
On eggs, we are moving to a free market and the guarantee will be reduced again this year. We are, however, raising minimum import prices significantly in the light of increased production costs. On milk we have proposed a big increase in the guarantee. Levy arrangements will in addition strengthen the price of milk for manufacture and so firm up the pool price. This is necessary in face of a very steep rise in costs. The retail price will have to go up by ½p in July in consequence. We have also taken into account the reduction in the standard quantity. In addition, we are offering substantially higher incentives to encourage still further the good progress made on brucellosis eradication. I am announcing today arrangements to start area eradication.
In conventional Review terms the total increase in the value of the guarantees is about £138 million over the levels determined in March last year. This includes the adjustments to the guarantees made last October.
These determinations have been made in the knowledge that we shall be changing the basic method of agricultural support. After intensive negotiations with overseas suppliers, we have now secured the necessary agreement to enable us to introduce interim levy schemes covering cereals, beef and veal, mutton and lamb and minor milk products from the beginning of July. I am circulating information about this in the OFFICIAL REPORT and making copies available in the Library now. Fuller details will be announced as soon as all the discussions 1423 are completed and the necessary Orders will be laid before Parliament. These schemes will introduce a much needed limitation on Exchequer liability. With the new policies, changes foreshadowed by the approach we have taken this year will be made in the concepts and procedures of the Annual Review.
The Review and the determinations must be seen against this background. Our decisions fully cover cost increases on major commodities. They aim to maintain a proper commodity balance and provide substantial extra resources for sheep. In the present economic situation it would have been wrong to go further than this. I am sure these decisions will restore confidence in the industry and enable it to move ahead both on output and productivity.

§ Mr. Cledwyn Hughes
The Minister will recognise that we shall need to have a full and thorough debate on the White Paper. Would he explain how it is that accurate details of the White Paper appeared in the weekend Press in advance of his statement today? On the statement which he has just made and on the White Paper, is he aware that this Review will be regarded as a "soak-the-housewife" Review, which does not deal with the fundamental problems of agriculture?
First, what is his evaluation of the total amounts of the award, excluding the £54 million adjustment in October? How much of it will fall on the consumer in respect of milk and sugar and how much on the Exchequer? Second, how were costs computed on this occasion? Was it done on exactly the same basis as last year's Review and the Reviews of past years? If not, what would be the figures over and above the figure of £141 million costs?
Third, his statement on import levies is very important and there are no details in the White Paper. Could he give the House some more details? What will this mean in terms of increased prices of beef, lamb and bread, for example? How much money does he expect from levies this year and how much in the next full year? How much does he calculate will go to old-age pensioners to compensate them for the increased cost of food?
1424 Last, as this is a Review in which recoupment falls short of costs, different from last year's Review—

§ Mr. Peter Mills
The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

§ Mr. Hughes
—can the Minister say whether the unions have agreed it? Do they believe that it will enable them to get the expansion to which he has referred?

§ Mr. Prior
To take some of these questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."]—some of them in reverse order, I was trying to say. If I could deal with the right hon. Gentleman's last question first, the Review is not agreed. When the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether or not the National Farmers' Union thinks that it will restore confidence, it is interesting that he spoke in terms of having to restore confidence—

§ Mr. Cledwyn Hughes
On a point of order. I did not refer to the restoration of confidence: I referred to getting expansion.

§ Mr. Prior
I am sorry. Certainly, we will not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I got his words wrong, but in the last six years, since 1964, there has been virtual stagnation in agriculture, and if that does not constitute a loss of confidence, what does? The President of the National Farmers' Union says that this will be a measurable step towards restoring confidence, and with that I fully agree.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, including one about the import levies and their effect and what they are. I left them out of my original statement, because I did not want it to be too long, but I will now give the House the figures. The level of minimum import prices for cereals will be raised, on average, by £3.50 per ton from 1971 and £6 from August, 1972, to December, 1972. For fat cattle, the target indicator price will be £10.35 per cwt., for mutton and lamb there will be a rise in three stages from £9.33 per ton from 1st July to £28 per ton from 1st July, 1972. For the minor milk products, the range of minimum import prices will be set according to the product, varying 1425 from £135 per ton on condensed milk up to £351 per ton on fresh cream.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what effect these levies would have on retail prices this year. In the 12 months from July, 1971, when the introduction will be made, to July, 1972, the increase in retail prices on the cost of food index which we can expect from the introduction of these levy schemes will be approximately half of one per cent. if the right hon. Gentleman really thinks this is a "soak-the-housewife" Review, then nobody knows more about soaking the housewife than the Opposition. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman then asked me about the cost to the Exchequer of this Review. The Exchequer may have to meet rather more than half the cost of the measures that are being taken. In fact, the estimate of £47 million that has been made takes into consideration the October allowances.

§ Several Hon. Members rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Sir David Renton.

§ Mr. Cledwyn Hughes rose—

Hon. Members
Sit down.

§ Mr. Hughes
The Minister—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I called Sir David Renton. I will call the right hon. Gentleman next.

Hon. Members
Why?

§ Sir D. Renton
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give a great deal of hope to farmers for the expansion of their industry, hope which has been lacking for too long? To what extent has there been under-recoupment, and how will that under-recoupment be shared by consumers, taxpayers and farmers?

§ Mr. Prior
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for those remarks. The extent of under-recoupment this year on the cost figures accepted by both the Government and the N.F.U. as being the correct cost figures to take for the purposes of the Review is £3 million. However, we are now moving away from a period when a global figure for the cost increase, or for that matter a global figure for the award, really represents the true position of the industry. For example, we are this year treating eggs in 1426 a different manner and are helping on milk by means of minor milk products. There is no doubt that this Review will restore confidence to the industry, and I expect to see considerable expansion this year.

§ Mr. Cledwyn Hughes rose—

Hon. Members
Sit down.

§ Mr. Speaker
I said I would call the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.

§ Mr. Hughes
The right hon. Gentleman has totally failed to reply to my questions. First, how were the costs computed on this occasion, and were they computed differently from the last occasion? This is an important question. Secondly, what is the total global sum that will fall on the consumer under this Review?

§ Mr. Prior
The computation of costs has varied a little this year—[Interruption.]—but in accordance with the Statute. In fact, it has made little difference to the outcome.

§ Mr. Small
How much difference?

§ Mr. Prior
We cannot really tell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This is a very complicated cost computation and there are three different cost factors to be taken into account. There is the cost factor on all Review commodities, which comes to £141 million, as I have mentioned; there is the cost factor which falls outside the statutory Review commodities, which is that part of milk falling outside the standard quantity and those eggs which are not sold through packing stations, and that figure comes to about £165 million, but it is really a meaningless figure; and then there is the total for all commodities, which is £217 million. [Interruption.]
If I am being asked about the part that falls on to the Exchequer and the part that falls on to the consumer, then the answer is that £47 million falls on to the Exchequer and the balance, making up to the £138 million, falls on to the consumer.

Hon. Members
Resign.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Scandalous!

§ Mr. Evelyn King
To put the matter in proportion following the niggling criticism that we have had so far from hon. Gentlemen opposite, may I ask my right 1427 hon. Friend if it is not a fact that there are few Englishmen who work so hard for so little reward and so conscientiously as the farmer and farm-worker? As they are merely to receive back what they would otherwise lose, are they not setting a shining example to other sections of industry?

§ Mr. Prior
Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.

§ Mr. Loughlin
I bet you are.

§ Mr. Prior
Productivity in agriculture—this is a compliment to both farmers and farm workers—has been rising at an annual rate of about 6 per cent. If other industries could match that we would not be in the mess we are now in. But the other factor—

§ Mr. Loughlin
What are the Government doing for old-age pensioners?

§ Mr. Prior
I was about to say—

§ Mr. Loughlin
What about the old-age pensioners?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) must not shout at the Minister from a sedentary position.

§ Mr. Loughlin rose—

Hon. Members
Sit down.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I appeal for a little calm.

§ Mr. Loughlin
This is absolutely shocking.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Resign.

§ Mr. Prior
Since the war we have had very sharp increases in costs in two years, 1951 and 1970. If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to complain about the level of increases in prices, they should take full responsibility for what has happened; and if housewives are having to pay more for food this year they know who to blame. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Twister!

§ Mr. John Morris
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has had only a minor proportion of the money needed for the Price Review from the Treasury, that he has failed in that respect and 1428 that the bulk of the Review will be financed by the housewife? Does he think the figure he has given, one-half of 1 per cent., will be the actual increase in prices to the housewife, or is it just a pig in a poke?

§ Mr. Prior
The increase in prices to the housewife, which is very limited indeed, is made up of two parts, the one-half of 1 per cent. which will come as a result of the levies that are being imposed from July onwards—that is, one-half of 1 per cent. in one year from that time onwards on the cost of food index—and to that must be added the increase in the price of milk which will come in July, which will be three-quarters of 1 per cent. on the cost of food index. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite have memories which are shorter than I thought. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] They must know that last year they did exactly the same thing in their Price Review. For what are they blaming me this year? Food prices have risen sharply in the last year and the effect of the levy policy will not be to add further to those increases.

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated for recognising in this Review the very severe plight that beset many arable areas of the country as a result of three bad years of weather? Would he agree that for any former Minister of Agriculture to play the demagogue with the consumer in the way the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) has done today is an absolute disgrace?

§ Mr. Prior
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I will try to put the perspective between the housewife and the taxpayer exactly right. I think I quoted rather misleading figures to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] The cost between the consumer and the Exchequer this year will be borne more or less half and half between the two sides.

§ Mr. Hooson
Will not the efficiency or effectiveness of this Price Review, even for the farmers, depend largely upon the Government's ability to control the ever-escalating costs of production and, if they do not succeed in doing that, the farmers will not be recouped in any event? Second, as this is once again an unagreed 1429 Review, is it not time that there was a review of the Review procedures so that there could be a reference to independent arbitration when there is no agreement?

§ Mr. Prior
I do not think that we want to go to an independent arbitration, but I think that the time has come when the Review procedures do need looking at, particularly now that we are moving away from the old system and moving much more towards the levy system.

§ Mr. Maude
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of consumers in this country would rather have an expanding industry producing quality British food than the half-bankrupt industry which the rabble opposite produced?

§ Mr. Prior
The increases in costs this year are the highest ever. The industry needs these costs before it can possibly earn extra money for itself. It must have extra productivity to get anything out of it at all. To talk in global sums of £138 million is totally misleading. This is not to say for a moment that the industry itself will have been given £138 million. It will have to come from higher productivity; it will have to come from better prices over the coming year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Higher prices."]—higher prices within the guarantee. If the industry is to succeed and prosper, the greatest beneficiary will be the British housewife.

§ Mr. Mackie
Although grateful for small mercies personally, may I put this to the Minister? Naturally, I have had to make my calculations quickly, but, taking into account the £10 million which we are losing on the fertiliser and lime subsidies, that is, minus £13 million, and the mythical minus shown at the bottom of page 5 of the White Paper, on which the Minister would not put a figure, is not this Review, therefore, worse than the last two Reviews, and how does that tie up with the comment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) on the last two Reviews, that they were totally inadequate?

§ Mr. Prior
It is certainly not worse than the last two Reviews; in many respects it is better. It does not give overfull recoupment, as the last Review 1430 did—with that I agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, but the costs this year are £141 million, which is double what they were last year, and we know who takes responsibility for that.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker
Could my right hon. Friend tell us what new arrangements there will be for minimum import prices for eggs and egg products, and whether the economies of the industry have been taken into account? Second, does he propose minimum import prices for poultry meat?

§ Mr. Prior
For eggs, the minimum import prices are being raised from the end of this month by about 3 new pence per dozen. I have no proposals at the moment on minimum import prices for poultry meat; nor would I expect to bring them in for some months, at least pending a satisfactory outcome of our poultry health problem.

§ Mrs. Joyce Butler
How can the Minister be so complacent when he must know that the 1¼d. a pint on milk and the other increases which must follow on meat and other essential foods will hit hardest the pensioners and low-income families who are already having a great struggle to buy adequate nutrition? As Minister of Food, does not the right hon. Gentleman have an overriding responsibility to protect the consumer, instead of using the consumer to balance his budget?

§ Mr. Prior
I have an overriding responsibility to try to keep the taxes on food as low as is reasonable, commensurate with my other responsibilities as Minister of Agriculture. What I am doing is saving the taxpayers' money so that more money can be spent either on taxation relief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or on social security benefits such as the family income supplement.

§ Mr. Kimball
Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the National Farmers' Unions may say about this Price Review now, any balanced judgment on the Review must await budgetary decisions on the selective employment tax and the impact of capital taxation on the industry?
Second, why are the increases in the brucellosis incentive scheme necessary? Are they agreed with the National Farmers' Unions, and how long will eradication take?

1431

§ Mr. Prior
The brucellosis incentive scheme is a great step forward. Although the present scheme is being very successful, we want to move over to area eradication as soon as we can, and we therefore need to build up a large reservoir of brucellosis-free stock. The incentives go up from 37s. 6d. for a beef cow to £5, and for a gallon of milk from just over one old penny a gallon to just under two old pennies a gallon. I regard this as a great step forward for brucellosis eradication.

§ Mr. Alfred Morris
Reverting to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), will not this Price Review mean much earlier increases in social benefits for the elderly and other people on fixed incomes? It was rather difficult to hear what the right hon. Gentleman did say, but has he not gratuitously increased the cost of living? Does he realise that he must not now seek to blame other people for this, as has been his custom? Finally, will he break down the increases in costs in much more detail?

§ Mr. Prior
If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read our election manifesto, which he obviously did not, he would have seen that we made perfectly clear that, over a period of years, we were to move over to a levy system as the means of support for British agriculture, that this would lead to some increases in food prices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, that is so—and that we should protect those who need help by giving extra help to them. That is what we shall do.

§ Mr. Peter Mills
Will my right hon. Friend take it that he is to be congratulated for strengthening agriculture and, therefore, protecting the consumer from being at the mercy of imports from abroad, and that the consequence of a weak British agriculture would be that the costs would be dictated to the consumers themselves?

§ Mr. Prior
The interim levy scheme which we shall introduce in July is a great step forward for British agriculture which, I am sure, the whole House will wish to see.

§ Mr. Deakins
Will the right hon. Gentle man confirm that the figure of cost increases comparable with the £60 million 1432 in the Annual Review White Paper of 1970 is not the £141 million mentioned in this year's White Paper but the £165 million which he mentioned in a throwaway remark, so that this is, in fact, an under-recoupment of about £27 million?

§ Mr. Prior
No, Sir; I do not confirm that because it is not the fact.

§ Mr. John Wells
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new cereal import levy system will not put up the price of imports to farmers, and will he, further, confirm that the more expensive part of the housewife's weekly budget comes in horticultural items which are not subject to this Review, so that all the zoo-like behaviour we have witnessed from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is a load of codswallop?

§ Mr. Prior
There is nothing like synthetic indignation for rousing the Opposition. The impact of minimum import prices for cereals will not affect farmers' inputs either this year, or so far as I can see next year, subject to the prevailing level of world prices.

§ Mr. Strang
Has not the overriding aim of this review been to reduce the Treasury commitment and not to promote agricultural expansion? Has not the Minister tried to conceal an inadequate award by fiddling the cost figures so that the award will not put into the industry the money needed for new investment and higher wages for farm workers?

§ Mr. Prior
That is not the view of the National Farmers' Union and nor is it my view. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that I am doing too much and at the same time that I am not doing enough.

§ Mr. Charles Morrison
What will be the effect of the Review on net farm income? What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the effect on the receipts of average farms?

§ Mr. Prior
It is impossible to say what effect it will have on net farm income, because it depends so much on the movement of costs and the movement of productivity in the coming year, but certainly I expect an increase in net farm income. Receipts on the average type of farm will depend on the commodity produced and the efficiency and costs concerned, and I should not like to put a 1433 figure to that, but the result of the review will certainly be more than a full re-coupment of increased costs, which will allow something for increased investment or increased net income.

§ Mr. Ross
Am I not right in thinking that an important element in the Review and an, increased cost which the Minister is placing on agriculture is his abolition of the free advisory services, which does not exactly meet our need for agricultural expansion? Can the Minister now congratulate himself on an incredible achievement—not being able to satisfy the farmers that he has been fair to them, and at the same time shocking British housewives?

§ Mr. Peter Mills
Rubbish!

§ Mr. Prior
The advisory services remain free. It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman that he should try to distort the position as he has. He always tries to distort things and that is exactly what he has done in his reference to the increase to the housewife. He knows perfectly well that the increase which I have announced today will be but a fraction of the increases which his Government imposed.

§ Mr. Farr
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing two of our election promises with the introduction of the levy scheme and taking what I regard as a big step towards import substitution? Will he pass the word to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he can do something about S.E.T., which has greatly inflated costs this year to farmers and housewives?

§ Mr. Prior
It has definitely inflated farmers' costs and housewives' costs over the years, but we do not hear much about that from the Opposition. I believe that this Review will have a major effect on farm expansion. I hope that it will save imports, and that it will set the industry on the right course for the next few years. It compares very sharply with what happened between 1964 and 1970 when production was virtually stagnant and when incomes in real terms were falling over the whole period.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees
Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why these figures were made available outside the 1434 House before being made available here today?

§ Mr. Prior
They were not.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order. The Minister has just said that the figures were not made available outside the House first. I tabled a Question on Monday and the answer gave exactly the figures which are given in this announcement today. Is the Minister entitled to make a statement which is obviously not true? I have the two statements in my hand. What he said must be an untruth and the Minister should withdraw it.

§ Mr. Prior
Further to that point of order.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Prior
I have nothing to withdraw.

§ Mr. Lewis
The figures were available.

§ Mr. Prior
The figures were not made available.

§ Mr. Lewis rose—

§ Mr. Prior
Let me answer. I have had this matter examined. There is always speculation in advance of a Price Review. I am prepared, in looking at the way in which we conduct these Reviews in future years, to see whether this sort of speculation can be cut down, because I recognise its importance. However, it is totally untrue to say that, any information was given.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
Is it not a fact that if my right hon. Friend had done his sums as right hon. Gentlemen opposite did theirs the £30 million efficiency factor would have been included and instead of there being no recoupment there would have been a positive contribution? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend guard against importers getting round minimum import prices by paying more than the market rate for another commodity sold in conjunction with that which is subject to the minimum import price?

§ Mr. Prior
The minimum import price scheme will take a lot of sorting out and we will bear in mind what my hon. Friend said. I do not want to place too much emphasis on the figure of £30 million for the so-called efficiency factor, because I have never believed that it was a fair figure to take. However, in this Review, accepting that we are treating eggs and 1435 milk specially, we do more than recoup on full costs, and we leave the efficiency factor with the industry.

§ Mr. William Hamilton
Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about the report in the Daily Telegraph? The figures are not just speculation; they are exactly the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has announced today. He ought to have an inquiry into the matter.
Will he answer the question which he deliberately refused to answer and give a detailed breakdown of the way in which he assesses that the cost to a housewife will be ½ per cent. on the food index? Will he also say quite shortly what the pensioner will get out of this Review?

§ Mr. Prior
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should take the view that I am not speaking truthfully when I say that the figures were not given; they were not given and nor are those which have appeared accurate. I have studied the published figures very carefully: for example, the sheep figure is not accurate.
The cost of food index will go up by ¾ per cent. as a result of the increase in the price of milk. There will be an increase in the cost of food index of ½per cent. after the interim levy schemes come into operation from 1st July onwards. These schemes will be introduced gradually over the following 12 months.

§ Mr. Kaufman
On a point of order. I should be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which is causing difficulty to hon. Members on both sides of the House both at Question time and during supplementary questions on Ministerial statements. Today, for example, the Minister of Agriculture has placed responsibility for various Government actions on the Labour Government, which left office nine months ago. Yesterday and on preceding days, the Prime Minister placed responsibility on the Labour Government, which left office nine months ago, for the present cost of living and for the present unemployment. It would be of great assistance to hon. Members if you could ascertain, and possibly have posted in the "No" Division Lobby, the date as from which the present Government accept responsibility for the government of the country.

1436

§ Mr. Speaker
I suspect that the hon. Member knew that that was not a point of order at all. The Chair has no responsibility for what hon. Members on either side say. It has no responsibility for the answers.

§ Mr. Loughlin
On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will accept that when a disparaging remark is made against an hon. Member of the House in a standing position to you, Mr. Speaker, as was made by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) in respect of myself, then the hon. Member who is so charged has a reasonable right to reply. I do not want to reply on this occasion, Mr. Speaker. I do not ask to reply on this occasion.

An Hon. Member
Sit down, then.

§ Mr. Loughlin
In defence of the rest of the House, may I draw your attention to this, Mr. Speaker, and ask that in future when a remark of that kind is made about an hon. Member he will at least be given the opportunity of replying?

§ Mr. Speaker
With regard to that point of order, if I had heard a disparaging remark which I thought was out of order I certainly would have dealt with it. I am afraid that we cannot debate these matters further now.

§ Mr. John Wells
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like unreservedly to withdraw the remark which I made. I referred to the zoo-like behaviour of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), and I feel that that is unfair to the animals.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order.

§ Mr. Wellbeloved
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you could help me over a difficulty. The Minister has announced a new tax, a meat tax. There is considerable speculation in the country as to exactly what this will mean. He has not embodied any details within the Review published today, which is available to Members and to the public. He has merely laid some papers in the Library. There will be speculation as to whether the meat tax will be based upon a target indicator price backed by a seasonal system of coefficients, or whether the meat tax will be a minimum import price backed by 100 per cent. levies. The papers containing this information are no 1437 doubt available in the Library. Am I at liberty, as a Member with access to those papers, to acquire them from the Library and make them public to the housewives outside who are deeply concerned about this vicious meat tax which is being imposed by this doctrinaire Government?

§ Mr. Prior
Further to that point of order, if it were a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman will wait to see what is circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT and the papers in the Library, he will find that the OFFICIAL REPORT will contain approximate details of the scheme as it is at present before it is laid before the House, where it will have to be debated, and that will give him the information he requires.

§ Mr. Speaker
I really must protect the business of the House.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order which, with respect, I think that you should deal with. As you know, you are the protector of the back benchers of the House. As you know, the House has been guillotined and has had restrictions imposed upon its Members with regard to business which is to come up shortly. I have in my hands the proof that the Minister has asked you for permission to make a long statement, in the knowledge that there would be many supplementary questions, and for the last 40 minutes the House has been deprived of getting on with the debate on a limited time Motion, when the statement which the Minister has made could have been made tomorrow without interfering with our business, because the Minister knows and I know that the information did not have to be given today.
You surely have the right, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether it is convenient and right for the time of the House to be taken up when there is more urgent business to be dealt with and when the Minister could easily have been told that as full details of his statement were published on Monday there was no urgency for him to make the statement today. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you could quite easily have said to the Minister that, as full details have not only been published in the Press but were tabled in Questions on Monday and Tuesday of this week containing the exact statements 1438 contained in the report, the Minister should make his statement on Thursday, or when the guillotine is not operative.

§ Mr. Speaker
Unfortunately, the Chair has no such powers. It has no power to control the business of the House. It can try to keen what hon. Members say within order. But I have no responsibility at all for statements, what is in them, nor, indeed, whether they are made at a particular time or not. Mr. Secretary Campbell.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just had a very important statement which, understandably, has run for a very much longer period than most statements do. It has been very nearly an hour. That being so, despite the absence of the Leader of the House—the Patronage Secretary is present and no doubt is able to break silence if he wishes—in view of the importance of the statement that we have just heard and the undoubted importance of the business which is to follow, namely the Industrial Relations Bill, I wonder whether any approach or suggestion has been made to you that we might extend our business to a later hour in order to have further time.

§ Mr. Concannon
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I agree with the Leader of the Liberal Party in what he has just said, it is worth noting that the Liberal Party has never stayed to vote on the Bill after 12 o'clock.

§ Mr. Speaker
That shows the dangers of getting involved in these matters. I must point out to the House that quite a lot of the time has been taken up by noise of one sort or another and a certain number of points of order. We must get on. Mr. Secretary Campbell.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
On a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that I should be out of order were I to say that the Minister had told a lie, so I do not say that. But as he has committed a terminological inexactitude, I give notice that I shall try to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the mistake in the facts that he has given.

§ Following is the information: With effect from 1st July the new minimum import price and levy arrangements will reflect those now in force, but the present "co-operating country" and "country levy" provisions are being discontinued and the new 1439 system will be based on variable general levies assessed on the difference between lowest representative offering prices and the relevant minimum import prices. The range of products covered will continue as at present and will include all the cereals and cereal-based products normally traded (other than rye and rice). Maize intended for industrial uses will be allowed levy-free entry. Denatured wheat, flour not suitable for human consumption and malting barley of high diastatic quality will have separate minimum import prices. The present level of minimum import prices will be increased, in average terms by £3.50 per ton starting in July, 1971, and continuing for the year August 1971 to July 1972; and for the period August, 1972 to December, 1972 by an amount which for the crop year 1972–73 as a whole would be £6 per ton on average above present levels. The level of minimum import prices thereafter will be the subject of later determination. The minimum import prices will rise seasonally throughout the year from August to July in order to encourage orderly marketing. The total range of the variations will be £3. The forward period for which contracts may be registered will continue at 3 months and announcements of prospective rates of levy will be made accordingly. With effect from the first week in July (beginning on 5th July, 1971) imports of fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal and of fat cattle will be subject to a system of general variable levies to support minimum import prices, on a weekly basis, for the various main categories of imports other than from the Irish Republic. These minimum import prices will be related to an annual target indicator price for fat cattle in the United Kingdom market, which for 1971–72 will be £10.35 (207s. 0d.) per live cwt. Levies will be chargeable if for any week the average market price of fat cattle in the United Kingdom falls below the target indicator price for that week. Levies will be payable at the time of import or withdrawal from bonded warehouse. With effect from 1st July, 1971, imports, other than from the Irish Republic, of fresh, chilled and frozen mutton and lamb will be subject to import duties at specific rates. For bone-in mutton carcases the rate will be half that for other mutton and lamb, for which the rates will be £9.33 per ton from 1st July to 31st December, 1971, £18.67 per ton from 1st January, 1972 to 30th June, 1972, and £28.00 per ton from 1st July, 1972. Special arrangements to apply to imports of fat cattle, beef and veal, and mutton and lamb from the Irish Republic are currently under discussion with the Government of the Republic. These arrangements will be linked to changes in the United Kingdom Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, which are outlined in the White Paper "Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees 1971" published today. With effect from 1st July, 1971 minimum import price arrangements, enforced where necessary by levies, will be introduced for milk 1440 products other than butter and cheese. They will be set at these levels:

	£ a ton
fresh cream	351
canned cream	249
skimmed milk powder	157
whole milk powder	273
condensed milk	135

Arrangements are also being made to ensure that the prices of imported chocalate milk crumb and animal feedingstuffs containing milk solids will not be out of line with the prevailing prices for milk products. Special arrangements consistent with the objectives of the scheme have been agreed in principle with the countries concerned in respect of imports from the Irish Republic, of whole milk powder from New Zealand and Australia and of canned cream from Denmark. Further discussions on the details and operation of the scheme will be held with domestic interests and with some overseas suppliers in the immediate future.