AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION (Hansard, 20 March 1974)

§ Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)
I welcome this opportunity to speak about the problems of agriculture, and particularly milk producers in the South-West of England. Before doing so it is right that I should declare an interest as a farmer. I congratulate the hon. Member 1231 for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) on his appointment as Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The Vote refers to the implementation of agricultural price guarantees and sundry other services as well as payments to the Milk Marketing Board. It also refers to grants, loans and subscriptions to international organisations. I shall concentrate on milk, beef and pigs in the West Country.
Before Government Members say that the problems concerned with those commodities are not the Government's problems and ask why the previous Government did not do something about them, I make it clear that it is not so much the immediate problems in those commodities about which I am concerned but the Government's policies. They have already said that the industry will be faced with the creation of further problems. There is at present a real contradiction.
I welcome the aim of the new Government which is contained in the Queen's Speech—namely that there should be the maximum economic production of food by the farming and fishing industries". That is a good aim and something with which we can all agree. However, I hope that it is not simply a pious statement.
I am not encouraged by the agricultural record of the previous Labour Government. There was stagnation in some commodities and poor returns to many farmers. There was a 1 per cent. increase in production under the previous Labour Government as opposed to a 4 per cent. increase under the previous Conservative Government. Even now there is a contradiction between the desire for increased home production and the desire for a cheap food policy. Farmers must have a fair price if they are to provide the food the country needs, and the consumers must pay a fair price for it.
I turn now to some of the contradictions which have already emerged in the Government's policy. The Minister of State put forward the Labour Party's policy in the Farmers Weekly of 15th February, and some of it is already coming to fruition. He said, first, that low-cost producers outside the EEC must 1232 have access to Community markets so that consumers could take advantage of lower world prices.
Do the Government realise just what this does to the home producer in sapping his confidence? Heavily subsidised imports can wreck home production, as we have seen to our cost in the past. The Government must sort themselves out in these matters. The hon. Gentleman also called for an immediate standstill on price rises in the EEC, and the Foreign Secretary said the same thing yesterday. How can farmers increase home production if they cannot cover their costs? The hon. Gentleman also said that the pressure of these changes on small farmers would be met by deficiency payments. Are these to be only for small farmers? The bulk of production is by medium and large-scale farmers.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about subsidising concentrates to the milk producer, the pig producer and so on. We import £20 million worth of feeding stuffs a year. If the Government knock off £5 a ton by subsidisation, it means that a bill for £100 million has to be faced by the Exchequer. That cannot be what the Government intend to do about concentrates.
Already, therefore, there are serious contradictions between the Government's desire to increase home production to the maximum and their preventing farmers from recouping their costs. It is a very serious matter. The Farmer and Stockbreeder declared this week: Whatever the solution, the Labour Parts cannot have it both ways—higher production from confident farmers capable of paying their way and reduced demands both on the Treasury and on the housewife's purse. It is a serious matter that there should be such contradictions so soon after the Government came to office. The position of the sheep farmer is reasonably good and production is increasing. There is no problem with cereals or arable crops.

§ The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Norman Buchan)
I am in some slight confusion. I have no desire to stop the hon. Gentleman in full flight, especially at this hour of the night, but I should like to see the relevance of his remarks to Class V, Vote 5, Subhead H.

§ Mr. Mills
I ask the hon. Gentleman to look at page 33 of the Supply Estimates. I am only too pleased to explain. He will see that a Supplementary Estimate is required in implementation of agricultural price guarantees and for sundry other services. On page 34 he will find provision for milk, excluding milk welfare schemes, eggs and potatoes. On page 36 he will see provision for sundry agricultural and food services including grants, loans, grants in aid and even subscriptions to international organisations, such as the Common Market, I take it. The Vote covers a wide range of subjects.
I come back to milk. The position in the past has been good, but costs have eaten into the margin of profit. The recent review has gone a long way towards helping the milk producer, but costs are still rising fast and there is a need for increased production.
The Minister is to have the privilege soon of visiting North Tawton in my constituency to open the largest cheese factory in Europe. The milk must be produced for conversion into cheese, and with costs rising so fast farmers must be recouped so that they can produce the necessary milk. I suggest that these costs should be reviewed a little more frequently than once a year. I tried to achieve this when the Conservative Party was in Government but I was not entirely successful.
There has been progress over the years with beef production. At present there is a problem of confidence caused by factors outside the Government's control. When there is an industrial dispute and three-day working, there is bound to be a drop in consumption which makes it difficult for farmers to sell their beef. Once confidence has been restored, beef will continue to be a profitable venture for the farming community.
Pig farmers have the most serious problems. A combination of high grain prices and consumer resistance has put the pig producer on the spot. He is in serious trouble and action must be taken. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in the previous Government was considering whether the monetary compensation of about £3 per pig could be 1234 removed. A reduction in this compensation would help considerably. I am sure that the Minister will pursue this matter keenly in Brussels this week.
I see a danger to consumers since farmers will take matters into their own hands and perhaps cut back production as the only way to get a fair return. I have heard that said in markets and other places. That would be a serious matter and not in the consumer's interest.
The rôle of agriculture is now more important than ever before. It is vital to the consumer, particularly the housewife, and it is vital in dealing with the balance of payments deficit. Every encouragement must be given for further expansion where it is needed. Certain sections are in difficulty, and it is not in the interests of the country that there should be a cut-back in production.
How does the Minister of Agriculture fit into all this? We must be fair. He cannot bear the responsibility for the present difficulties of the pig industry or the beef industry. He cannot be blamed for that.

§ Mr. Buchan
The hon. Gentleman says that one must be fair. I almost thought he would add that one must be fair "but firm".

§ Mr. Mills
No, I was not bringing that in. I thought that what I was saying might please the Minister of State. We must be fair, I said, and agree that the present difficulties in the pig industry and also, perhaps, in the beef industry are not the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. But the Minister may take it that he can and will be blamed if he does not look carefully at the problems of pig and beef producers and take what action he can in the circumstances.
It is imperative that something be done right away for the pig producer. As I said, the abolition of monetary compensatory amounts might be one way of going about it, or perhaps the introduction of a scheme for some cash per sow so that the number of sows at present being slaughtered is cut back.
There are contradictions in the Government's policies. What about what is happening in Brussels regarding the Common Market price review? I hope that the Government will reconsider their 1235 attitude of saying that they are not prepared to accept it, and I hope also that they will reconsider their statement that they are not prepared to allow the jumps in the transitional period to go ahead. That would be a serious step, which would certainly not help towards the necessary increased production.
The intervention system does put a bottom in the market. It certainly puts a bottom in the beef market, and it helps with milk as well. I suggest that, instead of putting the commodities into store, we could put the money into store and use that. It would be better to pay out some form of deficiency payments rather than put the meat into store. I believe that the Ministry was considering that a few weeks ago. It is an important consideration which the Minister could look into with advantage. We need the 10 per cent. increase in intervention on beef, but the important question is how to get that money back to the producer.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas)
I do not wish to be difficult, but we are debating milk——

§ Mr. Mills
Not only milk.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
—and perhaps eggs and potatoes.

§ Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)
It goes the whole way, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Mills
May I assist, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It is page 33 of the Supplementary Estimates: implementation of agricultural price guarantees and for sundry other services". It applies to a whole range of commodities, the provision now sought being £38,959,000.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the debate is governed by the subjects on page 34. That is the advice which I have.

§ Mr. Mills
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we should like this point cleared up. On page 36 there is a Supplementary Estimate for sundry agricultural and food services including grants, loans, grants in aid, certain subscriptions to international organisations". We are considering a whole range of matters covered by pages 33, 34 and 36. Is that correct?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. As I understand it, we are discussing the subheads on page 34. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is moving nearer to them.

§ Mr. Mills
Thank you for those kind words, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am nearly at the end of my speech. I still believe that while there are certain difficulties in some commodities, other sections of agriculture are doing well and flourishing. There is a great future for agriculture. We have problems, but expansion in many commodities is both possible and necessary. Surely it is in the interests of the consumer and the country as a whole to ensure that there is continued expansion of British agriculture.
I hope that the present Government will continue the work that we were doing and maintain the rate of production. This must be our aim. It is in the interests of all concerned to see that this happens.

§ Mr. Peter Emery (Honiton)
This is the first time that I have had the pleasure of speaking when you have occupied the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that there will be many such occasions. I wish you all the best, indeed to goodness, from the whole of the House, and trust that you will continue to enjoy that position for many years.
I wish to refer to Class V, Vote 5 and the subheads dealing with milk. The Minister will realise the major problems which Devon's milk producers have faced in the past 18 months. He will be aware, too, that while they would always wish to see a little extra, the award made in the last review went a long way to meeting some of their cash flow problems and dealing with the debts they had had to incur to remain in business. It also set out a fairly promising future for them.
Milk producers are concerned about the massive increases in the cost of foodstuffs and would like an assurance from the Government Front Bench that they will give the same sort of guarantees as were given for the next 12 months by my right hon. Friend when he was Minister of Agriculture.
My farmers in Honiton are greatly concerned that, when the Government talk of providing fair prices for the housewife by way of subsidies, this will be 1237 done at the expense of the British farmer. Even hon. Members opposite would surely be unable to support this. It must be wrong for the entire nation.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) upon his great success in his new constituency and upon raising the position of the pig farmer.
If action had not been taken on milk, we would have seen a very large contraction—

§ Mr. Buchan
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have tried to draw attention to this before. I have the relevant document before me, and I suggest that pigs are not included under Subhead H.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It is clear that we are discussing Class V, Vote 5, Subhead H, and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) will have a job to find pigs under that heading.

§ Mr. Emery
This whole debate is on the Supplementary Estimates, Classes I—XI. I believe that it is the right of any back bencher to raise any matter covered by those Estimates. We are regulating the debate in order that certain Ministers may be available to respond to the topics that we raise—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Honiton. He has served as a Minister, and he will be well acquainted with our ways. My advice when I took the Chair was that the agreement, which is an honourable one, was that this topic related to Subhead H. I am sure that I can rely on the hon. Gentleman's cooperation.

§ Mr. Emery
I am glad to have it confirmed that we are discussing the totality of the Estimates.
In making a reference to pig production, I was drawing a comparison with the position of milk producers. Apparently the Government are so worried about this that they are not willing to discuss it. If that is the way that they intend to deal with matters of this kind, we shall have to consider them more fully.
1238 I was drawing attention to the way that the action by the previous administration to assist milk producers under this subhead had stopped a flood of people leaving the dairy industry, and I was illustrating to the hon. Gentleman that this was what was happening at the moment in the pig industry. In the West Country, more than 2,500 producers have left pig production in the past year. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has seen the figures produced by the NFU. What does he intend to do about the situation? Farmers in my constituency want to know.
Farmers have seen what another Government would do about milk, under this subhead, and we want to see where the expenditure could be used for any area. Will it be used for pigs? Will it be used to help the production of tomatoes under glass? This, again, is an area where people are massively concerned. Under this subhead, aid could be given. Farmers see aid being given to their competitors in Holland, France and Germany because of the huge increase in fuel costs. Our horticultural producers want to know where they stand. Are the Government considering an allowance under this subhead to this area of agriculture? The agricultural community would like to know.
I pose three fair and specific questions to the Minister of State. One sees the aid that has been given under this subhead. There can be no doubt about it. Therefore, the first question is: what are the Government going to do for the pig breeder and farmer?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I must point out that it is impossible to find any reference to pigs in the Estimate. I am sure that the lion. Gentleman will new co-operate.

§ Mr. Emery
I am delighted to cooperate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to go against your wishes. However, I must point out that, whilst I have been relating my remarks to milk, there are comparisons with what is happening regarding pigs. It is right that milk should form the centre of the discussion, but, as we have a Minister to respond to the debate I thought it right to raise this other matter. If you wish, I shall pretend not to have spoken, so long as I have your assurance that I may be called at 1239 5.30, or some appropriate time, and if the Minister will return I shall turn to another subhead. It is for his convenience that I do not try to raise the matter on more than one occasion.
Class V, Vote 5, Subhead H, "Expenditure", refers to the present provision of £65 million, and the extra revised provision shows an increase of £40 million. I am not trying to be difficult. I am referring to action under this subhead. The Government are not prepared to admit that it is possible to take action under this subhead. Therefore, I wish to ask three simple and clear questions. First, are they going to do anything for the pig producer under this kind of action? Secondly, are they going to do anything for the producer of tomatoes under glass?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. There is a limit. The hon. Gentleman has got very near to the limit. I must ask him to accede to what I have reasonably requested.

§ Mr. Emery
I am trying desperately to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had hoped to stop by now. May I go over the whole of my argument again?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Not if the hon. Gentleman is going back to pigs.

§ Mr. Emery
I am trying to make it clear that a considerable amount of taxpayers' money has been voted under a specific subhead which has been used for one purpose only at this stage. It is within the Government's power to use that money in other areas.
The logic of my argument is that the Government have taken this action. They have been able to provide a guarantee for the milk producer for the ensuing period.

§ Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)
Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend. Tremendous clarity of distinction is being drawn between the pig producer and the milk producer. Some people are doing both. They are the same animal, so to speak. The action that is taken on milk can decide whether some people continue in agriculture and the action that is taken on pigs can decide whether others stay in dairy farming. That may help to resolve the matter and show that we can discuss the whole subject.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is very helpful. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. However, we are not going to discuss pigs at the moment under this subhead. We must confine ourselves to what the normal rules of the House require.

§ Mr. King
With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may not have made myself sufficiently clear. We are talking about milk production in the West Country. That is totally relevant and in order. I am a West Country Member and some of my constituents are engaged in both milk and pig production. Their incomes are produced jointly from the two sources. Their ability to remain in business is finely balanced at the moment. This is a serious subject. The livelihoods of many small farmers who have put all their savings into this activity are involved. They have a small dairy herd and some pigs. They are dependent upon the income from those two activities. If either of the activities crumbles, both are threatened. If sufficient action is not taken on pigs, milk production will be reduced. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this must be relevant.

§ Mr. Emery
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out what to me is so basically obvious about the smallholdings in the West Country that it seemed to be a statement of the obvious.

§ Mr. Buchan
The hon. Gentleman is not as intelligent as that.

§ Mr. Emery
The hon. Gentleman may not appreciate the difficulties confronting smallholders, particularly in the West Country. His humour and laughter on this occasion——

§ Mr. Buchan
I was not laughing.

§ Mr. Emery
—will not be appreciated by the small farmers.

§ Mr. Buchan
I was not laughing.

§ Mr. Emery
Whether or not the hon. Gentleman likes my saying so, the fact is that he was laughing. If he says that he was laughing at something else, that is another matter.

§ Mr. Buchan
It is not true.

§ Mr. Emery
The hon. Gentleman should not say that, because three of my hon. Friends were looking at him, and he was roaring with laughter. It 1241 may be that he was laughing at some private joke. The hon. Gentleman does not like the facts. [Interruption.] I do not expect the Minister of State to comment from a seated position.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. It is due to the time of the morning, I believe. Interruptions from a sedentary position are not welcome, and they are of no help.

§ Mr. Emery
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to require your protection.
I come back to the situation that I have been trying to underline. It is obvious that hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench do not like this probing. Small farmers in the West Country are tied up with milk production and many other aspects of farming. Unless the Government and the Minister understand that and are willing to put their minds to it—and that is what the debate is all about—farmers in my constituency will be desperately worried.
Therefore, as I said about six minutes ago, I conclude by asking the Government to help the small farmer. I should have thought that the Government would want to help farming. What are the Government thinking of doing to help the smallholder who is concerned about pigs, milk, horticulture and feeding stuffs? There is no doubt that the price of feeding stuffs on international markets has risen.
During the election campaign many Socialist candidates swept aside as irrelevant the fact that prices in overseas markets were rising. The Minister does not agree, but I could produce reports of speeches showing that to be so. The Minister now has responsibility for dealing with this matter, which is of major concern to farming. What are the hon. Gentleman and the Government going to do about the price of basic feeding stuffs? These affect the whole issue—not only milk, but beef and, dare I mention it, pigs.
May we have from the Minister tonight a statement that will help our farmers in the West Country? If the hon. Gentleman makes a clear statement, farmers throughout the country will understand what the Government's policy is. If the Government give the 1242 farmers a fair deal—and that will mean increased prices, whether we like it or not—that will be excellent. But if farmers are again required to subsidise cheap food the Government will create a terrible problem in the farming community in the months ahead.

§ Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)
We on this side greatly appreciate your presence in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that at this unholy hour you have had some farmyard mysteries to resolve, but we welcome you sincerely. This is the first time I have had the pleasure of speaking under your eagle eye. I shall speak briefly, which I hope will commend me to your favour in future. I hope that the fact that I am brief will encourage the Minister of State, whom I also welcome to his new post, not to wonder too much about whether I am within the scope of the Estimates but to talk seriously about agriculture.
I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) in raising this acutely serious subject. Two of my hon. Friends have spoken for the noble county of Devon; I speak for Somerset, in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), who, because they wish to speak later on another subject, cannot take part in this part of the debate. But their acute concern about agriculture is not diminished. We have similar constituencies, with many dairy farmers and others, including pig farmers.
I do not want to speak in a party political sense. I have considerable sympathy with the Minister of State. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West, who has held office in the same Ministry, will agree that no Minister could enter that Ministry at a more difficult time. The situation is volatile, but is not one of unrelieved gloom. It is almost more unhealthy: feast and famine. Grain farmers have done very well, some making greater profits than ever before, but livestock producers are embarrassed.
The divergences in the past year have encouraged basic changes in agriculture. People have switched from a pattern that they may have followed for a lifetime. 1243 The plough has been seen at work in fields where one would never have expected to see it. Traditional dairy areas are being ploughed up because of the financial incentives of grain production. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton has said that last week in Taunton market the number of sows going for slaughter was three times the normal figure.
In these circumstances speedy action is vital. The Minister of State is unlikely to be able to make firm statements tonight. I know that the House is waiting anxiously to hear from his right hon. Friend what action will be possible following his visit to Brussels, particularly on the beef and pig situation. There is need for urgent action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West mentioned confidence. The agricultural community is uneasy. Farmers have for years accepted cycles—variations from year to year: a bad year, a disappointing year, a better year. They have not previously experienced the sort of years they are now experiencing—one or two years of remarkably good results and now a year of very bad results.
This is the prospect. They do not now have the confidence to say "We will sweat this out. We are used to cycles. It is just the same old up and down. This year is a bad year." They are saying "It is disastrous" and, especially with high interest rates on any loans they may have from banks, they are not able to take the rough with the smooth. They are saying "We must get out now."
There seemed to be a balance of power in the new Government. There seemed to be a division, with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection covering food prices. So there is a conflict. Every Government recognise the difficult problem of balancing the interests of the producer and those of the consumer. However, when the appointments were announced it appeared that matters were balanced and that the two interests would be represented at Cabinet level.
Many of my hon. Friends were acutely worried when they heard the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announce what the brief was to 1244 the man who was thought to be the champion of the food producers. It appeared that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries had suddenly been given the brief of the price watchdog and had been sent to Brussels, not to champion the producers' interests but to look after the consumers' interests. This is a dilemma for any Government.
What will worry farmers in my constituency and throughout the West Country is that the dice are loaded against them and that there are two members of the Cabinet who are interested principally in the consumer and not in the producer.
As I said earlier, the Minister of State has inherited a very difficult situation. If in this difficult situation confidence crumbles further, although right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side may by various action be able to hold down prices and prevent producers from getting a fair return, it will be very much a Pyrrhic victory. Supplies will dry up, producers will cease to produce and—I was about to say that the Government would sow a wind and reap a whirlwind. They may not reap anything, because there will not be anything to reap. Worries about prices will then go out of the window. The worries will be about supplies. Prices will soar and right hon. and hon. Members opposite will have reaped the results of their policies.
Therefore, in a serious national situation, and I hope in a non-controversial sense, so far as possible, I urge upon the Minister of State the worries that my constituents and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends have. The need for action is urgent on the problems facing agriculture, particularly the milk producers in the West Country. It is particularly important too that such action be taken in a way that will assure producers that their interests will be watched continually.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West that it is ludicrous in a volatile situation to continue to think that it is possible to predict totally and accurately what the situation will be for the whole of the following year.
We must create a situation in which regular reviews are made, so that matters may be kept under control—and not because the farmers are necessarily looking for more money. In certain circumstances 1245 the Government may be able to save money. If there were a decline in feeding stuff prices, economies could be made in Government expenditure. But there must be this provision, so that farmers can have confidence that in a difficult situation their interests will receive proper consideration and we can ensure that food production continues to expand, not in a meteoric or feverish way but in a steady and positive way, which will provide the best assurance not only for farmers' incomes but for stability of prices in the shops.

§ The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Norman Buchan)
We can be pleased tonight that one hon. Member has redeemed the honour of the West Country by making a serious speech on what is a serious problem. I thank him for that, because the circus that we saw before did not reflect the mood of the House or the realities and difficulties of the situation that we are facing. I am pleased that one serious speech has been made.
I did not expect a serious speech from the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) but I expected a more serious approach from the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). He should realise that we who work together for the agriculture industry do not knock each other or use the kind of comment that he made tonight. In this matter we have known each other for many years. The hon. Member has known my dedication to the industry and my work for it. I did not expect much more than we got—a circus performance—but I was pleased that one Member made an excellent and thoughtful speech on some of the basic problems that we have to resolve.

§ Mr. Mills
I am astounded at what the Minister has said. I made it clear from the beginning that I congratulated him. I said that we could not blame the present Minister of Agriculture. Exactly in what respect does the hon. Member think that mine was an unfair speech?

§ Mr. Buchan
I did not say anything about that. I am talking about the hon. Member's co-operation in what I believe was a breach of the conventions of the House, if not of the rules. No one who has been in the House this evening will 1246 disagree that we have not had the discussion about milk production which we were supposed to have. We have, however, produced one speech that was thought-provoking and to which we must pay attention.
I shall try to deal not with the subject that we were supposed to discuss—I thought that the hon. Member for Devon, West was interested in the milk industry but he chose not to be concerned in probing its problems—but with some of the wider problems affecting the agriculture industry, to which the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred.
First, I want to deal with one or two points and implications raised by the hon. Member for Devon, West. I congratulate him on the change of title of his constituency, from Torrington to Devon, West. I do not know whether the change will help his seat. I hope that he will not lend himself further to the kind of behaviour we have had tonight.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bridgwater that no Minister of Agriculture has come to power in a more difficult situation. That being so, it seems rather glib of the hon. Member for Devon, West to blame the present situation facing the nation, in terms of pigs, upon a Government who have been in office only two weeks. He excuses the argument on the ground that he was concerned not with what has happened but with the future policies of the Government, as if events from last August until now had been caused by the future policies of the Government. Since last August I have been asking in speech after speech for action regarding livestock producers. Other hon. Members said in general that we should not wait for the price review, but I was saying this in particular during what was a grave situation and I was suggesting ways of dealing with that situation without waiting for the review.
It is a bit much for hon. Members to say that they are not concerned about the policies which have given rise to the present situation in the industry and that they are concerned only with the future policy of the Government. The slaughtering of cows in calf meant the future depletion of the herd, and a 1247 massive injection of money was needed. The previous Government left the situation too long before dealing with it. They could have saved money and the herd had they acted earlier. It is a bit rich to say such things as hon. Members say to us now.
As we come into office I am also faced with a similar situation regarding pigs. I hope that what some hon. Members have said tonight will not have done anything further to shake confidence in the industry. I deplore the attitude of some hon. Members because of how it may affect that confidence. I hope that there will not be more slaughtering of pigs.
I am anxious to improve confidence in the industry, but it is not possible tonight to give any firm promises or policy statements. Discussions are being held on Thursday and Friday between my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture and other Agriculture Ministers in the Common Market. Let us remember that it was the Opposition, with assistance from some other hon. Members, who took us into the Common Market. The Opposition cannot put the blame on us simply because we want to hold up our policies for a few days.
One of the grave problems facing agriculture is the imbalance which has struck the industry. The ploughing up of land used for livestock has upset the natural pattern. We have discussed the matter in relation to the break crop and the spread of monoculture.
Interest rates are now such that it is no longer a case of taking the rough with the smooth. Some people are saying that they want to get out of the industry. In view of high interest rates, they are asking what return they are getting for their investment. If confidence is shaken, further doubts arise. For instance, pig producers will say that they cannot continue to produce at a loss.
The Government have to look at all the problems facing the industry. During the past two weeks I have met representatives of probably every major organisation concerned with livestock, the dairy trade, the meat trade and farmers' unions. Representatives of organisations in Ulster have been among those I have met. Agriculture plays a bigger rôle in Ulster's economy than it does in this country.
1248 There is no contradiction in our policy between the desire for a fair return for the farmer and a fair deal for the housewife. It is simply not true to say that the only way of getting a return to the farmer is by high end prices.
I think that the hon. Member for Devon, West and the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), would argue that that way—the market way—is the right way to do it. But it can be done in other ways. There could be a crude subsidy or we could adopt the kind of intelligent agricultural policy which secures support and a proper farm income return without necessarily having high prices. That is the system we worked in this country for 20 years, a system which transformed our agriculture from the depression of the 1930s to the present position. I see that the Chairman of the 1922 Committee agrees.
The hon. Member for Devon, West said that he was not worried about intervention, which puts a bottom on the market. He was really asking "Why not bring in a guarantee and deficiency payments system?". I think he used the term "deficiency payment".
We are saying that there are other methods of dealing with the situation besides leaving it to the market. There is no reason to say that there is an argument between two Ministries and that there is a contradiction between statements I have made before and during the election and now. If one says that there are other means of supporting agriculture besides having high prices paid by the consumer, the contradiction goes. We have to devise methods of giving farm support without merely leaving it to the end price. Therefore, that argument goes.
What remains? There is the Common Market problem. We cannot make a statement on pigs, milk or livestock tonight, as those who asked the questions know. But I do not think that a lack of concern for the British farmer is shown when we say that our remit for the discussion on Thursday and Friday is to prevent further price increases for the consumer in Britain. Our intention is to achieve a settlement which will not have a direct effect on prices for the consumer in the shops. That is objectionable only 1249 to those who see the only means of supporting farming as being a 10 per cent. beef price increase. If we accept that there are other methods, that argument falls. Therefore, the situation is not as hon. Members have described it tonight.
The suggestion that we have become a Government for consumers only and not for producers, is not warranted. I can understand the reasoning behind the argument, but naturally I would rather the suggestion were not made. I hope that it is not developed, because I do not want to lose the strong connection that has always existed between the industry, the individual farmer and this great Department of State, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
It is not only a consumer problem. We see farming as another major industry like other industries. It is the supremely important industry of this country. Precisely because we are a major industrial and trading nation, and because of changes in the world, the development of our agriculture must have high priority. We see the matter as an industrial problem, a problem of the industry as well as of the consumer. It is of no value to the farmer to have him permanently in opposition to the consumers. That is no good to him.
If the farmer is placed in a position in which he can make progress only by continually fighting for higher prices, he is brought into conflict with the consumer. It is that conflict to which we are opposed. We believe that such a conflict will not help the long-term interests of the farming community, hence the reason for my statement on 15th February. Hon. Members should buy a copy of the Labour Party's agricultural policy document. It is very cheap. It spells out the position in better English than that which is used in my interview and in even more detail.

§ Mr. Tom King
The Minister has an interesting theory about a possible conflict. Does he believe that Marks and Spencer is permanently in conflict with its customers?

§ Mr. Buchan
No, that is not the point. If Marks and Spencer had to go to the Government for permission to put up the price of its food because it was the firm's only means of survival, or if it 1250 had to put up the price of its clothes, that would possibly cause a conflict.
We all know that agriculture is too important to be left only to the producers. The Government are involved. We are involved whether we like it or not. We have not suggested that we should step aside. If the Government are involved and the only method of negotiation left to the farmer is to demand higher and higher prices, that will constitute a permanent conflict between the needs and interests of the farmer and those of the consumer. That is why we say that we must seek harmony. That is why we say we are not simply a party for the consumers. We are also concerned about the industry.
If we were to develop a situation which resulted in shortages, a conflict would arise. It is precisely because we recognise that situation that we say that the farmer must have a fair return. It is because we wish to avoid conflict between the farmer and the consumer that we established the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. I shall spell out later today the rôle of that Department in food matters. Food prices and the retail problem will belong to that Department. I shall not go into the details, but there is no divergence and no conflict. On the contrary, there is now a balance which the country has needed for some time. The two Departments are working together extremely closely, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will testify.
I have dealt with some of the serious points which have been raised. I reject a number of the criticisms which have been expressed. We have inherited a difficult situation. The hon. Member for Honiton, who turned the House into a bear house, must accept from me that the situation is difficult. There has never been a worse situation than the one we have inherited. However, with a method and with the means, the intention and the will to develop the interests both of the consumer and of the industry, we shall succeed.
Hon. Members will know that I cannot make any promises or make any decisions of any kind tonight. I think that the hon. Member for Bridgwater will recognise that situation. I am not 1251 sure what the purpose of the exercise was at the end of the day, but at least it led to an exchange of agricultural philosophy which at three o'clock in the morning is no bad thing for our souls. One hopes that it has done no harm to the industry.