EEC (AGRICULTURAL PRICES) (Hansard, 16 January 1975)

§ The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart)
I beg to move, That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/3358/74, R/3470/74, and R/3408/74.

§ Mr. Speaker
I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan).

§ Mr. John Lee (Birmingham, Handsworth)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there some way in which the Chair can protect the House at this hour? Although it is true that we knew that these matters would arise and that three orders were to be taken together in a one and a half hour debate, is it not really a ridiculous situation when about 230 pages of memoranda, spreading over three orders and incorporating 15 different proposals, some of them having bearing on taxation and some having implications for United Kingdom law—some of which, according to their wording, being uncertain as to whether they do—and all of them, therefore, matters of considerable complexity, are limited to a one and a half hour debate? One of these documents is a report on the EEC agricultural policy for the year. Another embodies certain specific proposals. Surely it is possible for the House to be protected against all this stuff being consolidated together and railroaded through in the course of one and half hours. One is used to putting up with a good deal that is being done on behalf of the Common Market, but surely this is going a little too far.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that yesterday the notice on the Order Paper asked us to take note only of Commission Document No. R/3358/74, which is very voluminous? On today's Order Paper we are asked to take note of two additional documents. This means in effect that hon. Members have had only since 10 o'clock this morning when the Vote Office opened to procure these two documents and the notes of guidance, which are of more 820 than 60 pages. These are obviously very complex documents.
It seems grossly unfair that hon. Members who have a very busy life during the day—[Interruption]—some of us do—should have only about 12 hours in which to do their normal duties and to absorb the information in these documents in such a way that they are able to bring to bear intelligent and useful comments.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government through you, following the precedent set earlier when a motion appeared on the Order Paper without prior notice—relating to the financing of Opposition parties—to withdraw the two orders, Nos. R/3470/74 and R/3408/74, and give us more time to consider them? The Government should put them on the Order Paper at some future date. This is not an unreasonable request. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to draw this matter to the attention of the Government and to support this request.

§ Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short)
Perhaps I can help the House on this point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put down Document No. 3358, but the Scrutiny Committee then suggested to me that we might put the other two documents down for discussion at the same time.

§ Mr. Lee
Are we bound by that?

§ Mr. Short
No we are not bound by that, but the House has elected a Scrutiny Committee to advise on this and it is suggested that we debate the three documents together.

§ Mr. John P. Mackintosh (Berwick and East Lothian)
As a member of the Scrutiny Committee may I point out that the two further orders do not require legislation. They are supplementary information relevant to tonight's debate and it seems sensible to the Committee to list them. If this kind of pressure arises, presumably they will not be listed and information which is important to those interested in the matter would not be available. I hope that the Committee's problem will be appreciated in this situation.

§ Mr. Lee
What my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian 821 (Mr. Mackintosh) said may be of some assistance. Nevertheless, the fact is that we are here having to mix up specific legislative proposals, some of which I should have thought would each merit individual debates of the length we are allocating to the whole lot together. It makes an interesting contrast to the situation on the Finance Bill where we spent a whole day reaching Clause 14 with two further days next week and perhaps more to come. There was a long debate on one amendment yet here we are telescoping all these matters into one debate and discussing the general principles too. How can we give proper justice to this situation? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter and stop treating the House like a sausage machine for Common Market legislation?

§ Mr. Speaker
All these matters have been raised as points of order. Perhaps fortunately for the Chair, they are not points of order.

§ Mr. Peart
Our debate this evening on the European Commission's proposals for the common agricultural prices for 1975–76 is very well timed. I was in Brussels this week and I shall be there again on Monday and Tuesday of the coming week. We therefore know broadly the views of other member States. The Council now intends, if at all possible, to reach decisions on the Commission's proposals at its meeting next week.
I shall listen most carefully to the speeches tonight. As hon. Members know I was the first Minister to appear before the Scrutiny Committee and I participated twice there, and similar regulations have been discussed on a previous occasion. Naturally I am anxious to inform colleagues about matters which are important and so I should like to outline our main views and objectives in the negotiations in Brussels. However, the House will recognise that I would not wish to be drawn too far in discussing our final position on some of the negotiating issues. A Minister has to judge issues sometimes on the spot when negotiating and I know that my colleagues and others would not want to shackle a Minister who is involved in very difficult negotiations in Brussels.
The Commission's proposals cover a wide range of products from milk to sunflower 822 seed. Some proposals are complex. They are set out in full in the 190-page document presented by the Commission. This has been made available to the House, together with an explanatory memorandum provided by my Ministry. I do not think that it would be sensible for me this evening to go through all the items in the Commission's documents. Instead I will try to pick out the main features as I see them. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who was with me in Brussels will reply to the debate. I know that many hon. Members would like to make contributions and I shall try to make my speech much shorter than the one I made in the last debate.
First there is the question of the criteria for prices. The Commission makes clear that its price proposals are based on the costs and output of modern efficient farms and take account of the expected supply and demand for each product. We attach importance to this. In my speech to the Council on 18th June on our renegotiation objectives I asked for this approach in determining support prices. It is the best insurance over a period of time that the price changes will be fair to consumers as well as to producers. The Commission has provided full supporting information in its report on the agricultural situation in the Community, in Document R/3408/74.
I now come to the size of price increases proposed. Secondly, the Commission proposes that Community farm prices for 1975–76 should be increased on average by between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. I should emphasise that this does not imply that consumer prices will rise by this amount. Some common prices, such as the withdrawal prices for some horticultural products, are deliberately set well below market prices. Others, such as the intervention prices for the main cereals, have also recently been below the level of market prices. In addition, in the United Kingdom we are not yet applying most of the common prices at the full Community levels. Our prices for many products are determined by supply and demand in the commercial markets or by our guaranteed prices.
Thirdly—

§ Mr. John Biffen (Oswestry)
rose—

§ Mr. Peart
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish the three main points. I may be coming to a point that I suspect he is interested in, as he raised it on a previous occasion.
Thirdly, the Commission proposes some changes in the representative rates of the currency of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the Benelux countries. The effect of the Commission's present proposals would be that, instead of receiving price increases averaging 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. German farmers would receive price increases of about 4 per cent., Benelux farmers would receive about 7 per cent., and French farmers would receive about 13 per cent., expressed in their own currency. The Commission does not propose any change in the United Kingdom or Irish green pounds, since some changes were made last October.

§ Mr. Biffen
The Commission said that there would be an increase of 9 per cent. in average Community prices. That clearly reflects varying rates of increase for various agricultural commodities. If we relate that to the national United Kingdom situation, where the balance of various agricultural commodities will be rather different from the totality of the Community, what is the figure purely in respect of the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Peart
I cannot say that until we discuss each individual product. It varies. It would be foolish of me at this stage, as I am still in the middle of negotiations, to try to give a specific figure. The Community figure is the one the hon. Gentleman has quoted. We have examined the effect of this on our position, but I would rather not give a figure tonight. I shall be only too pleased to give information to the House before I go to Brussels if I can.

§ Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)
The National Farmers' Union has suggested that the figure is 15 per cent. for this country. Does the right hon. Gentleman dissent from that?

§ Mr. Peart
I will not be drawn on that. As I have said, the Community prices should be increased on average by between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. [Interruption.] I am just giving a general assessment. I shall deal with each commodity. I have just returned from 824 Brussels. I have gone as far as I can go, but I should be delighted to give the House the fullest information. Hon. Members know that I have always reported to the House. I must go back to Brussels next week, and I think that hon. Members should allow me a little latitude.
Finally, the Commission has put forward two structural proposals. It seeks a decision in the price discussions on the implementation of the Mountainous and Less Favoured Areas Directive. It has also put forward a draft regulation on aid to young farmers, but, following discussion in the Council of Ministers, this may be deferred for further consideration. I know that some hon. Members have also expressed interest in the dairy herd conversion scheme, under which payments are made to milk producers who change under certain conditions from milk to beef production. The Commission proposed that the scheme should continue in 1975. We do not consider it to be appropriate at present and would wish to see it ended or at least suspended in 1975. I can tell the House that at its last meeting the Council of Ministers shared our view.
As the price proposals are the central part of the package—and I accept that—I should like to describe rather more fully what the Commission has in mind for some major commodities. The House may wish to bear in mind that there is continuing inflation in the Community and that some of these prices would not take effect for many months. They should still be in operation in the second half of 1975. For example, the new pig price would cover the period from November 1975 to October 1976.
I begin with the vegetable products. For cereals the Commission is proposing increases in the target prices of between 8 and 12 per cent. with the introduction of a single target price for maize and barley. There has recently been a slight weakening of wheat and barley prices in the United Kingdom, which will be welcome to livestock farmers. Our best estimate, however, is that, if the Commission's proposals were accepted, intervention purchases in the United Kingdom in 1975–76 would be unlikely.
For sugar the Commission recognises that the problem has been shortage of supply. It therefore proposes a higher 825 than average price increase of 16 per cent. for the minimum beet and intervention prices. Half the increase would be made on 1st February and half on 1st July. Sugar is one of the few products for which the United Kingdom is operating the full Community prices. The full benefit of the proposed price increase would therefore go to United Kingdom sugar beet producers.
For wine and tobacco, which are expensive régimes, the Commission proposes lower than average increases. For fresh fruit and vegetables the Commission has put forward an increase of 9 per cent. for apples and pears and 11 per cent. for other products, with a possibility of a further increase of 10 per cent. On withdrawal prices for glasshouse growers it also promises to make a further proposal later about the structure of the glasshouse sector.
On livestock products the Commission has had to pay particular attention to the difficulties of the Community's beef régime and to potential surpluses of butter or skimmed milk powder. For milk the Commission has proposed an increase of 6 per cent. in the target price from 1st February, with a further 4 per cent. in September. The Community's milk year would be brought forward and would begin on 1st February. There would also be a number of changes in subsidies. The coverage of the animal feed subsidy would be slightly widened. The price range within which this subsidy can be set would be raised. The maximum rate of the general consumer subsidy on butter would be raised but the contribution from Community funds would be unchanged.
On beef the Commission has made some steps—that is all that I say at this stage—in the direction which the United Kingdom has favoured in earlier discussions. The suggestion that member States would be able to decide at the beginning of the year whether or not to operate permanent intervention is at least a step in the right direction. While proposing an increase of 7 per cent. in the guide price, the Commission also envisages that the intervention price levels would not rise by the same percentage. The Commission also proposes headage payments, financed by the Community, of 30 units of account on adult male cattle. 826 On pigmeat the Commission wishes to see an increase of 11 per cent. in the basic price.
I think that I have described the more important proposals fully. I should like to indicate our approach to some of the main issues.

§ Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)
Perhaps the Minister will clear up a point on the intervention system. In all these matters is the Community insisting on the intervention system or is there any leeway to go over to the guarantee system?

§ Mr. Peart
We have only had two days since my opening speech at the Community. In the first discussion that took place on beef and the general position we merely deployed our arguments. I deployed my position and my criticisms of permanent intervention as a means of support. I have always stressed that position. I accepted some small amount of support buying. It is operating in some other commodities in the United Kingdom apart from beef. We have had the opening skirmish. The main negotiations will take place next week. I have a feeling that it will take some time before we finally get round to the real issues which are important to the United Kingdom.
In price-fixing discussions we must keep a balance as between the needs of our producers and our consumers. I have stressed this over and over again. The need for price increases must be demonstrated. We have also to make sure that the food is produced. 1974 was a difficult year for some farmers and growers. [Interruption.] It was a difficult year throughout the Community and in countries outside it. The imbalance between the livestock and arable sector has been serious. It is perhaps an understatement to say that 1974 was a difficult year for farmers.
There were large increases in costs. Certainly for some livestock producers, market returns did not keep pace. In this country we have had to introduce a number of special measures of aid. There are strong arguments for giving producers the assurance of adequate support and avoiding, as far as possible, ad hoc measures.
We believe also that these discussions on common prices may provide some 827 room for progress towards our renegotiation objectives. Thus on beef, we believe there is an opportunity now for the Community to have a régime which would allow members to move away, if they wish, from dependence on intervention buying.

§ Mr. Lee
rose—

§ Mr. Peart
I will gladly give way, but I am trying to be helpful and this is very technical information. I do not want to monopolise the discussion because I suspect many hon. Members will want to speak. Hon. Members know my views because I have deployed them previously. I believe that support buying as a measure of last resort is something that might be accepted. This is a matter of negotiation.
For member States which take this view, an alternative and effective means of support is essential. I have made clear that we would like to see some form of variable premium, such as I secured for this country at the November Council. This would be widely welcomed by United Kingdom cattle producers, who would have an assured return. Consumers would also benefit substantially because in times of surplus prices would be free to fall to the fairly low support buying level. We recognise that some arrangement would be needed so that the cost to Community or national funds was not open-ended.
In general, we shall try to seek a balance between our interest in low consumer prices and the need for sufficient incentives for producers. For sugar, although the best price increase proposed is greater than average, we think that it is fully justified. For cereals, we recognise the cost increases which cereal producers in the Community have faced but must have regard to the interest of our livestock producers in the cost of feed.
With milk and milk products, some small increase in the Community's target price for milk may be justified. We support the Commission's proposal that any increase should be spread over two stages. The stock of butter in the Community is now low. We must continue to guard against the reappearance of a surplus. The Commission has rightly recognised the need to strengthen the link between 828 milk producers and their markets. We are continuing to explore other ways of achieving restraint on potential surpluses.
As for the Commission's monetary and structural proposals, we think it right that the Community should contribute to the support and development of agriculture in the hills. We would therefore like to see progress on the implementation of the Mountainous and Less Favoured Areas Directive. We are doubtful about including the proposed aid for young farmers in the price package. This proposal needs further study and we would prefer to defer a decision on it until later. We have made clear that we do not favour a further change in sterling's representative rate so soon after last October's change.
It will not be easy for the Council of Ministers to reach agreement on this large and very complicated package. We need to be flexible. We should not rule out for some producers the possibility of direct aid rather than total reliance on end prices. That is one reason why I attach importance to securing a new and better régime for beef.
In the on-going business of the Community we have already made progress towards the adjustment of the operation of the common agricultural policy. I hope that we shall continue to do so in the consideration of this price package and that the price changes will be fair to both producers and consumers.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
Mr. Scott-Hopkins.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not appropriate for the amendment to be moved now?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
In due course, when the hon. Member catches my eye, that amendment will be moved, but at this juncture it is more appropriate that the Opposition should be able to reply to the Minister. Mr. Scott-Hopkins.

§ Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)
I agree with the Minister that the debate has been well-timed. He has come back from Brussels where he was this week engaged in preliminary negotiations, and I have come back today 829 from Luxembourg where we have been debating the document that is before us tonight. I heard the President of the Council of Ministers, the Irish Minister of Agriculture and the Commissioner explain in detail the proposals contained in the document. Both wish to restore confidence to the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that he is in for difficult negotiations next week. He may, indeed, not be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion and may have to continue the negotiations at a later date. I hope that he and his colleagues will be able to conclude the negotiations before the beginning of February because much hinges upon that date.
The right hon. Gentleman gave the House the main details of the Commission's proposals. I will only highlight one or two of the important matters. It is essential to understand the basis on which the proposals are made. For the first time, rightly, the Commission is taking a two-year not a four-year basis of costs and prices, instead of a one-year basis as we do. The Commission has taken 1973 and 1974 and on that basis has come forward with the proposal for the 9.7 per cent. average increase throughout the Community.
There is some dispute over the Commission's figures and those of the farming organisations here and throughout Europe, but after today's debate in the European Parliament it looks as though that disagreement between the two sides will be resolved at a meeting in the near future.
Costs have increased greatly, and my view is that the increases in costs in 1974 have not been sufficiently weighted in the various proposals which have come forward. Equal weight has been given to the cost increases in 1973, and in addition the 1974 price increases have been set against the cost increases. Nevertheless, the increase will be 9.7 per cent. on average throughout the Community.
I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not as willing as he might have been to say what he thought would be the increase for the United Kingdom. I am not inhibited in quite the same way. The figure given to me by the Commissioner this afternoon for the the average increase in the United Kingdom is just over 12 per cent. if after the 830 negotiations the proposals are adopted exactly as they stand in the document. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is considerable scope for negotiation, and of course, here one is only talking about the starting figure, which at the moment, on the Commission's estimate for the United Kingdom, is just over 12 per cent.

§ Mr. Lee
The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to tell us what the Commission says our prices should increase by. By how much does the hon. Gentleman think, even on the most optimistic basis, that could be mitigated?

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
I was stating what the nearest estimate is as the proposals stand, but it is impossible for me to give any firm conclusion, since the negotiations are still only in their preliminary stage. In any case, I do not take part in the negotiations, so it would be useless for me to give a figure.
But one or two factors have emerged. For instance, two areas vitally concerned are the meat and milk sections of the livestock sector of our industry, which has been going through a very difficult time. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that he only envisages a very small increase for the dairy farmer and is satisfied with having it in two bites—on 1st February and in September, at six and four per cent. respectively. I am surprised that he is prepared to accept that, because it was my view and the view of colleagues at the European Parliament today that it would not be sufficient—and not only for our farmers—bearing in mind that we have in effect, already borrowed from these two increases by the price increases given in October and November last year. We have, in practice, borrowed them from the increase which is still to be negotiated.
If we stick to the 6 per cent. from 1st February and the 4 per cent. in September, there might well be no room for manœuvre by the right hon. Gentleman when our own price review comes. If we could link the two together, however, although it would mean increased cost to the FEOGA funds of 120 million units of account, it would be advantageous to us.
In discussing the beef sector, I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little coy about the proposals and what he accepted at the last negotiations, which took place 831 before Christmas—a standing intervention at 87 per cent. of the guide prices. Over and above that, he was authorised, rightly, to bring in a variable payment to our beef farmers for the clean cattle which were to be put through the market.
I gathered from the speeches of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and of the Commissioner for Agriculture today that there is movement as far as they are concerned in the acceptance of this idea that we should not rest alone on the intervention mechanism—the price mechanism, in other words—to support beef and other livestock farmers in the coming years. They are thinking—and these proposals virtually say so—of a more flexible approach outside the price mechanism.

§ Mr. Marten
What does my hon. Friend think they have in mind?

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
I think they have in mind a type of variable payment over and above what is known as the standing intervention. The right hon. Gentleman rejected mandatory intervention and optional intervention at 91 per cent. and 93 per cent. of the guideline price. He accepted standing intervention, which is 87 per cent. of the guideline price.

§ Mr. Peart
In the case of the new negotiations, at this stage I have accepted nothing.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
I was referring to the negotiations in which the Minister took part before Christmas last year, when standing intervention was accepted. That is the situation now.

Mr. Pearl
Temporarily.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
Temporarily—until the negotiations are concluded. Until those negotiations are concluded that is the situation, which seems to find general acceptance by the Commissioner and the Commission. However, I understand from colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman that the Council of Ministers has a more flexible approach towards a variable payment.

§ Mr. Michael Shaw (Scarborough)
Premium?

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
Premium, if my hon. Friend wishes. I was careful not to put any tag on it.
832 This system is an advance which operates to the advantage of our livestock producers in the beef and dairy sectors.
I was glad that the Minister said that he wished to suspend from 1st July 1975 the existing scheme for farmers to change from milk to beef, although it is the view of the Commission that it is cheaper to run this scheme than to buy intervention milk and milk products and pay the storage costs. I support the Minister's view that it is right to suspend the scheme this year.
Turning to horticulture, I was told today that between 1st March and 1st July the Commissioner would put forward to the Minister extra proposals concerning first general aid to be given to glasshouse growers and a proposal regarding energy in respect of the increased price of oil, two subjects about which anxiety is felt by many growers. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues to accept those proposals, although I do not expect he will have much difficulty in doing so.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman turned down the idea of a very small amount of aid for the farmers of under 40 years of age. A proposal was made for a special scheme, under the auspices of Directive 159, under which they should receive a certain assistance. That is a section of the farming population which could well do with such help. It would be very good for them to receive funds, small though they may be, from FEOGA. I regret that, before the negotiations have got off the ground, the Minister seems to think that the scheme is unacceptable.
I hope that the outline of these proposals—the balance between the grain and livestock and the milk and beef sectors—is broadly acceptable. It will be necessary to negotiate increases in some sectors. For example, I do not think it is right to separate the price increases proposed to put the milk and sugar beet increases into two sections. I think it would be preferable that they should be lumped into one increase in February. Broadly I think that the 12 per cent. average price increase is about right with notable exceptions, as it will cause no more than a 0.66 per cent. rise in the cost of living.
833 I hope that the proposals of the Commission, which the Minister has put before the House, will be generally acceptable, as a basis for negotiation.

§ Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)
I beg to move at the end of the Question to add 'but declines to approve proposals for Regulations still subject to possible and unforeseeable alteration by the Council of Ministers before enactment, which would raise even further the price of a number of major foodstuffs, including milk, butter, pigmeat and beef, and which accepts the principle of permanent intervention buying of beef by member states including the United Kingdom'. I make one preliminary point. It is difficult for hon. Members of this House, when they are attempting to amend motions by the Government, to find next day that the motions they seek to amend have been themselves amended overnight. Two additional sets of documents have been added to the motion to which hon. Members have already put down an amendment—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) will no doubt have an opportunity to make his own speech in due time.
I am not arguing whether the Government's action materially affects the situation, but it may do. However, it is a gross abuse of the procedures of this House. I blame no one individual for that. I think that it is the position in which this House finds itself that is the difficulty.
I get no great pleasure when I hear a Minister unable to give an estimate of costs, and then another hon. Member comes back from the European Parliament to give the House an estimate which he has gained from a commissioner. There is no pleasure in that for any of us.

§ Mr. Peart
I hope that my hon. Friend is not referring to me. I was frank with the House. I cannot reveal price figures when I am negotiating.

§ Mr. Buchan
I understand. My right hon. Friend is a very good fellow, but he is over-sensitive. I said that no individual was to be blamed—unless it be those who brought us into the Market.
I thought that the most chilling comment in this House today was uttered by 834 my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. In recognising our difficulties in coping with directives and the rest from the Community, he said that other Parliaments in Western Europe were in an even worse position. It is a terrifying situation. If Ministers are coming from other countries with less guidance from their home Parliaments and Assemblies than ours are getting, it is a sad day for democracy not only in Britain but in the other countries of Western Europe. I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House recognises this, because he has referred again and again to the effect that this enforced method of dealing with European legislation has upon the democratic procedures of this House. If the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian has listened to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, he will have heard this on almost every occasion that my right hon. Friend has had to explain the loss of sovereignty and to express his regrets about it.
So we have the position where we have to discuss the whole of the future year in agriculture in 1½ hours on a Thursday night, and we all know how important Thursday nights are to hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, with the possible exceptions of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian and myself.
The Government have put down a motion to "take note", and I have moved a reasoned amendment to it. There seems to be an objection to regarding it as a reasoned amendment, although I do not accept that a reasoned amendment is necessarily always a negativing amendment. But if there is objection, let the Government explain why they want the House to take note rather than to approve. The only reason can be that they do not approve, otherwise they would say that they approve. So let us take the gloss provided by the amendment as an explanation of the Government's attitude, and let them accept the amendment.
Some months ago, when I was sitting alongside my right hon. Friend, he faced an Opposition motion of censure. In the dying seconds of the debate, he neatly side-stepped the issue by accepting the motion. I waited patiently to hear him do the same this evening. Unfortunately, 835 I waited in vain. But I hope that he will accept the amendment, for several reasons.
There is a tendency in Brussels, which is exemplified by the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there is even less control over the Council of Ministers than we have, to recognise that any proposal which is not challenged in this House carries the endorsement of this House. Surely the amendment would strengthen the hands of our Ministers, who clearly do not like the common agricultural policy and are fighting against its worst excesses. I would have hoped that they would accept it for that reason.
The amendment is in three parts—like Gaul, which has not always been helpful in these matters in recent years. The first is a constitutional point. It is difficult for the House of Commons to approve regulations and draft proposals when, next week, they may emerge from discussions between people in another place, who are badly mandated by their Parliament, in a totally different form. Alterations are not only possible but unforeseeable.
Two possible deals are obvious—on sugar and beef. In the long watches of the night, when, if I understand the French Press Agency properly, Ministers sometimes take bets in champagne as to what will emerge at the end—

§ Mr. Peart
What?

§ Mr. Buchan
If my right hon. Friend would read the Agence Presse d'Europe dispatch of 22nd October, he would understand my reference.
The possible and unforeseeable alteration if a deal is made may be very serious; it may affect the decision of hon. Members who had accepted the "take note" motion in good faith. There are indications that this may happen. Clearly my right hon. Friends are fighting hard in Brussels on both these difficult questions.
The second part of the amendment is the practical one, that we are dealing with the prices of our foodstuffs and the returns to our farmers for the next 12 months. This debate is even more important than any we might have on the annual price review. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) 836 hoped that something might happen to give us a little leeway in the annual price review. Once these things are discussed in Brussels next week or the week after, there will not be much leeway for our own national aids to be developed.
The third part of the amendment is a most important matter of principle. Some have regarded it as a moral principle: certainly it is highly important. This is the whole question of the intervention buying of beef. I do not believe that we have yet started seriously on a fundamental renegotiation of the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend has done well in fighting hard for certain ameliorative measures, but we have yet to achieve the fundamental renegotiation outlined in the manifesto. Incidentally, I thought that we might have seen more members of the Manifesto Group here tonight. I take it from the presence of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian that they intend to vote, presumably for the amendment.
There is an important matter of principle here involving our manifesto decisions. I do not believe, as I said, that we have yet embarked on this part of the negotiations, but in one major matter, my right hon. Friend—

§ Mr. Peart
May I—

§ Mr. Buchan
My right hon. Friend should not jump up quite so soon: I am about to say something nice about him. In the first week or two of negotiations, he said: "We will not have intervention." That was the one great step. So it was with immense sadness that, in November, we learned that we were accepting the principle of intervention. Would my right hon. Friend like to intervene now, because I shall be developing this point.

§ Mr. Peart
I only wanted to say that I fought the election on the manifesto, just as my hon. Friend did. Talking about intervention, it said—

§ Mr. Buchan
Which one is this?

§ Mr. Peart
The October one and the February one. Both of them: I am consistent. The manifesto states: Labour insists that there must be a new approach, with a clear emphasis on national aids, and that we must be able to provide suitable guarantees to our farmers". I do not depart from that.

§ Mr. Buchanan
I agree with every word of that. The October manifesto referred back to the February manifesto, which referred to the programme for Britain, listing a number of points which would be involved in the renegotiation. Whenever I went to the Ministry, I took a dozen copies with me and every time I met a civil servant who had not read the document I presented him with a copy. I hope that the practice is continuing in the Ministry in my absence.
We were told in November that we had gained that which we had sought for so long—a deficiency payments structure. In return we accepted a temporary measure of intervention, but we were told that it would not matter because the price was too low for anybody to bother to intervene. The price was so low that I was highly suspicious. I could not imagine the Common Market introducing it without having an ulterior motive. I was right. I understand that 14 tons is the amount of beef which has gone into intervention.
The distinguished agricultural correspondent of the Scotsman—a paper which is a strong friend of the Common Market—under the heading Mr. Peart will have a hard struggle to keep the scheme", said: He"— the Minister— may now be hoist on his own premium as his fellow Ministers in the Council may insist he has accepted the principle of intervention which from February until November of last year he refused to do, and should now accept it completely. The U.K. answer is likely to be that if the Brussels Commission proposals … for a new beef regime are accepted, the EEC could have a beef 'mountain' of about 800,000 tons by the end of this year. If Britain is forced to accept intervention buying, that is, beef will be bought by EEC funds and put in cold storage … they alone could have a beef 'mountain' of 190,000 tons at the end of 1975". As other commentators have said, the problem is that the principle of intervention has been given, and once we give away a principle it is 10 times more difficult to hold the line.
838 It is therefore important that the amendment should be passed. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister wants to resist intervention buying. I think that he wants to introduce a deficiency payments scheme. The Financial Times also thinks that—I am very catholic in my reading. It states: For the UK, Dr. Gavin Strang, Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, stressed … the great importance which the Government attached to its beef proposals. He said that even if the Community as a whole did not adopt the variable premiums option, Britain itself must be allowed to. Mr. Pierre Lardinois … quarrelled with the British figures. … The Danes attacked the very principle of paying farmers direct premiums". Country after country has attacked that principle. We shall be in difficulty unless we can strengthen the Minister's hand.
The second important item to which I refer is cereals. The great problem which British agriculture has faced since this country entered the EEC is the considerable imbalance between high priced cereals and low priced livestock. Now an opening has occurred. We are told that we are doing well because we are in the Common Market. We have been told that the Common Market has helped to keep prices low. That is true, because of the world supply and demand situation, in the last year or two. Therefore, why does it not drop the levy system?
The Financial Times states: The British request for cheaper access to the North American hard wheat would be against Community competition rules, according to Mr. Lardinois. He declared that the UK had enjoyed the benefits of cereal imports from the rest of the EEC at below world prices for some time. He felt it was unreasonable for Britain to ask for this concession just because world prices were now showing signs of easing. We are now in the Market. The manifesto stated that we must have unlimited access to cheap world foodstuffs. The Common Market Commissioners say "No". That is the final reason why the motion must be accepted. If it is not accepted, I must ask for a vote of this House to strengthen my right hon. Friend's hand in his discussions.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
Before calling the next speaker, I remind the House that the time is limited and that this debate is due to finish at 11.46 p.m.

§ Mr. Peter Mills (Devon, West)
I shall be brief and will speak fairly fast.
Again, I declare an interest as a farmer. I welcome the debate, because these are important issues. As a member of the Select Committee on Secondary Legislation I had a part in bringing these matters to the House. These proposals are important and should be discussed here. I regret that we are unable to debate them at greater length.
I pay tribute to Sir Henry Plumb who has been made the president of COPA. I think that the House should welcome his appointment as a real step forward.
I am prepared to take note of these documents, but I do not accept their implications. Serious matters are involved. I hope that the Minister will note that some of us are prepared to take note of the documents, but that we are not prepared to accept all that is in them.
Document No. R/3470/74 relates to the conversion of dairy cow herds to meat production. I am not prepared to accept that scheme. I have never encouraged any farmer to convert from milk to beef. Why? Because that would create a grave distortion in the whole pattern of our agricultural production. We have a shortage of milk and excess of beef production in this country. Therefore, it is ludicrous to encourage farmers to move out of milk and into beef production. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not continue with that scheme.
I should like to give the Community a little advice—not that it will listen to me. However, if the Community were to put its own house in order regarding milk production—for example, if it had a Milk Marketing Board which encouraged the consumption of liquid milk—its farmers would not be so keen to produce milk only for the manufacture of butter and other products. If the Community were to put its own house in order, it would not need this scheme. I feel very strongly on this subject.
Turning to Document No. R/3358/74, again I take note of the Commission's proposals, but frankly they are not acceptable to me. They are not in the interests of the consumer, which is vital. The simple fact is that if we want food, we must ensure that the farmers' 840 increased costs are covered. If not, we shall not get the food produced.
What are the facts. Over the last two years the cost of feeds for farm animals has risen by 82 per cent., fertiliser by 70 per cent., minimum wages by 70 per cent.—and that is not enough—and the cost of machinery has risen by 39 per cent. Bank base rate has risen by 60 per cent., and the cost of buildings has risen by 54 per cent. What has the farmer got in return? The price of fat cattle is down by 6 per cent., milk is up by 29 per cent., and wheat is up by 69 per cent. One can appreciate, therefore, that the increase in prices that the British farmer has received does not cover the increased costs. This is a simple fact of life. If the consumers in this country want food production, these increased costs must be covered.
Let us look at the proposals. A 9 per cent overall increase is suggested by the Commission. The overall costs increase was 20.9 per cent. in 1974. Therefore, we have a serious problem here. We shall have a reduction in food production unless these costs are covered. It is important, therefore, that we go for at least a 15 per cent. overall increase in the end price for producers. It is not necessary to give as much as the Commission want on beef, but I believe that the prices of the other commodities certainly need to be increased to make an overall increase of 15 per cent.
Following those few remarks, I should like to remind the Minister that I for one take note of the proposals and I shall not vote against them, but much of the content of the proposals is wrong. I hope that the Minister will take note of at least what I am saying.

§ Mr. John P. Mackintosh (Berwick and East Lothian)
In regard to the point of order on which I spoke earlier in the debate, I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) and others have raised as objections in the debate the fact that two extra documents were added by the Scrutiny Committee to the document on prices which we are now considering. The position of the Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday afternoon was that it had received two further documents, one of which was purely explanatory. This one was purely a review, an 841 information account, of agriculture in the Community over the past year. The question was, would it be helpful to hon. Members tonight to have their attention drawn to this particular point? There is no question of hon. Members tonight being asked to approve a massive item of legislation. Are those who object seriously suggesting that the Scrutiny Committee should not draw to the attention of the House what is purely an explanatory document designed to help hon. Members in their treatment of the question? It is rather a spurious point which has been made.

§ Mr. Buchan
rose—

§ Mr. Mackintosh
The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. The point is that this is a helpful document and the question was whether it should be drawn to the attention of hon. Members. That is all that we are doing. It is the task of the Scrutiny Committee to add in documents which are useful to Members.

§ Mr. Lee
Answer the motion.

§ Mr. Mackintosh
I am turning to the particular issue before the House.
As hon. Members know, what we are considering is an overall proposal by the Commission to raise prices in Europe by an average of about 9 per cent. In this country it is estimated that this would mean that an increase of about 12 per cent. will be produced. Looking at the overall interests of consumers, farmers and taxpayers—the three crucial elements—the question we must ask ourselves is by how much would we in this country have increased the prices of these agricultural products had we been indulging in a price review for this country alone outside the EEC; that is, if today we had our own price review as we had before 1973. The mix would be different. We might well have had a different mix. But we should have had the same fundamental interests when we faced soaring costs for our farmers. We should not, at least, drive a number of them bankrupt and ruin our own agricultural industry, just as we have conceded price increases for many other industries for the same reason.
It is totally unfair to suggest that were we out of the Common Market there would be no increases in the basic prices to cover the essential costs of the farming 842 industry. We are interested in the consumer but not in bankrupting an essential element of our agricultural industry—our domestic producers of foodstuffs,
Turning to the particular mix on this question, my point is that farmers have had a very difficult year in livestock. Perhaps the cereal price increase proposed is too big for this country. I take a middle view about milk. Disagreeing with the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), I think that the livestock increase is a little too small, because producers are in a very difficult position.
I shall be very interested when my right hon. Friend the Minister comes to deal with sheep, which are completely outside the Common Market and for which there is no regulation and we have to have our own individual price review. What will he do about the guarantee price on sheep? Will he not increase it?
Looking at marginal farms and working farmers in my constituency, I find that a 10p rise on sheep is needed if these men are to be kept in business. That is a fundamental fact of the situation.
It is interesting to compare this with the situation inside the Common Market on livestock which is only a reflection on a wider scale of the problems of farming we are seeing in this country today. There is a great deal of exaggeration on the part of anti-marketeers who seem to deny the need for any increase in agricultural prices. The Minister is putting up a very good struggle for a change in the beef régime in the EEC. I should like to see a target price and a variable premium on beef to bring prices for the producer up to the target price. This variable premium would alter depending on the market price as opposed to the fixed premium system in use at the present time. On this question, we must recognise two things. First, this system might be more expensive to Britain across the exchanges than the present one. That is a point that hon. Members have not always considered. The second is that many countries find it very difficult to work such a variable levy on a purely administrative basis. This is a complex and costly method of support for agriculture. The cost of administering it is enormous. The virtues of a guaranteed price system are not absolute and I do not understand the almost theological 843 basis of the opposition to intervention buying. It is true that it does not work if the market is saturated. It only works if there is a marginal area supply of the market and that is why we must change the structure of agricultural support and for that reason I welcome the Minister's attitude in his fight for some change in the beef régime in Europe.
I now turn to the final issue which has been raised, that is the sovereignty of this Parliament. This is the first time in nine years in the House that I have been able to debate the determination of agricultural prices before they have been settled. I can remember being hauled up as a delinquent back-bench MP before my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) who, as a junior Minister said—"You cannot come talking to me about the prices of various products before the annual price review is settled with the NFU. I am not allowed to discuss this with you, and you know that you are not allowed to speak about it and that Parliament is not allowed to debate it." Now I am told that the fact that we can have this preliminary debate is a great deprivation of Parliament's sovereignty when I can now put my case to the Minister and tell him that I want 10p on sheep and the basic price of beef to rise from £17 to £22 or £23 per live hundredweight. I can tell him that before the negotiations begin, and for that I am very pleased—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I do not want any more of this humbug that we have lost sovereignty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] This is a direct gain of freedom for back benchers. We have never been able to debate this matter before the review has been determined and I am delighted to have this opportunity of supporting my right hon. Friend the Minister.

§ Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)
I have been looking carefully at proposal No. 40 and I find that it is a proposal to pay units of account varying between 1,000 and 400 per annum to farmers under 40 years of age. This is a gross discrimination against farmers in the Community and for the first time we have a document which discriminates on grounds of age. Hon. Members should 844 bear in mind that a farmer of 40 still has 25 years to go before he reaches retirement.
Furthermore, proposals 32 and 34 provide for the move from dairy herds and the production of milk to the production of beef. We have been doing this over the past few years and it has been causing the most serious problems in the marketing of beef. It has increased the number of beef cattle on the market and lowered prices to farmers, but the prices paid by the housewife have not fallen in that period. It has contributed largely in many parts of the country to the present difficulties of beef farmers.
We also find within it the introduction of a flat-rate headage premium on adult male animals for slaughter—a new departure for British farming. Any sort of subsidy on beef was always paid to all cattle, regardless of sex. I suppose that we must now order cows to produce only male calves, a most difficult thing to ask of them.
Furthermore, it is stated that intervention has not by itself maintained producers' prices. I am the first to agree, but the money put into headage payments over the past 12 months was thrown into a bottomless pit. It did practically no good to the producer, and even less to the housewife. There is little show of a downward trend in the price of beef to the housewife in the past year. That is what the amendment is about. Those hon. Members who support the amendment are complaining that the proposals will not decrease prices but rather increase them.
Not only will the proposals increase prices to the housewife in the shop, but on past showing they will be of no benefit to the farmer, and it is with the farming community that I am principally concerned.

§ Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland)
We have had a useful and unusual debate. I regret that, as is inevitable in these debates after 10 o'clock, we do not have more time. One rarely speaks in such a debate without having to moan about not having more time.
However, this has been a unique opportunity for the House to discuss the proposals presented by the Commission to 845 the Council of Ministers. It is a good precedent. I endorse what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said. I well remember when years ago he and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) sat on the Select Committee on Agriculture, which was so early wound up by the present Minister. We made inquiries into the workings of the Price Review and recommended that the House should be able to discuss the proposals before they were presented as decisions.

§ Mr. Peart
I was the first Minister to attend a Select Committee of that kind. The hon. Gentleman knows that it was accepted that the committee would be for an experimental period. It was necessary later to introduce other Select Committees, which I did. In a speech in the House I said that there would be a time when we would have to recreate some of the older committees.

§ Mr. Jopling
I am short of time—

§ Mr. Peart
And short of memory.

§ Mr. Jopling
My memory does not fail me. The recommendation of that Committee of seven years or so ago, that we should debate these matters, has come to fruition tonight. That shows that the recommendation was right, that we were on the right lines and should have been allowed to continue our work, which was carried out so successfully.
The debate has clearly shown the shortcomings of the documents we are discussing. I hope that what has been said tonight will be taken by the Minister as a warning shot about the impact of some of the price rises suggested by the Commission, if the Minister does not fight for necessary improvements in some of them.
The debate has been a useful exercise. There are difficult negotiations ahead, and I hope that it will have strengthened the Minister's hand in them.
My hon. Friend told us that the up-to-the-minute news from Luxembourg was that M. Lardinois had said that the purpose of these proposals was to increase farm prices by 12 per cent. I have a good deal of sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). At a time when this country faces major balance of payments problems, it is essential that during 846 the next year the agriculture industry should be able to recoup the increased costs that have been imposed upon it.
The Minister's duty when he deals with these proposals and with the domestic price review that will follow is to make sure that the production of farm produce in this country is increased. We cannot have the situation that price increases proposed by the Commission do not cover increased costs, because if we do it will mean, as surely as anything could, that we shall suffer from shortages of food in the years to come.
I was glad to hear a number of my hon. Friends say that there would be little objection to the Government's agreeing to the suspension of the scheme to encourage milk farmers to move into beef production. I doubt whether there will be much opposition from the Conservative benches if the Minister ultimately agrees to that.
Now I turn to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I thought that he displayed the most extraordinary attitude both in the drafting of the amendment and in the way in which he moved it. I am astonished that anyone who ever held office in the Ministry of Agriculture should have made the speech that he did and drafted an amendment in these terms.
The hon. Gentleman says in the amendment that he is opposed to the proposed rises in the prices of foodstuffs, including milk, butter, pigmeat and beef. How blind can he be? How unbelievably stupid can he be, after his experience at the Ministry of Agriculture? The hon. Gentleman must know that if we want home-grown food—which above all we do—we must provide the incentive to farmers to make sure that it is produced. The amendment would mean that there would not be the food on shopkeepers' shelves in a year or two.

§ Mr. Buchan
As always there is a simple explanation to an extraordinary statement. Has it never struck the hon. Gentleman, despite all his years in this House, that there is an alternative method of supporting farmers, in addition to the end price? That is what we are struggling for in Brussels, to have a support system other than an end price. That is the simple explanation.

§ Mr. Jopling
For a number of years, many of us on the Conservative benches have argued for a system of deficiency payments and guaranteed prices as the long-term method of getting increased expansion in the agriculture industry. I was astonished to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West.

§ Mr. Mackintosh
rose—

§ Mr. Jopling
I am sorry, but I must allow time for the Minister to reply to the debate.
I am totally opposed, as I am sure my hon. Friends on this side of the House are, to what is contained in the amendment. This seems to be a squabble between the Government and the lunatic fringe on the Left wing of the Labour Party, and I could not advise my hon. Friends to get involved in this rather squalid squabble.
I am not opposed to taking note of these documents. We have fired a warning shot across the Minister's bows. He knows that many of us feel he has to do better than this in many instances. I hope he will understand that.
The Minister knows that he has a great deal of work to do, and it will be difficult. We would not dream of voting against taking note, although we feel that in some instances these price increases are not enough. I hope that the Minister knows, however, that if he fails, we reserve the right to vote against these price rises later when we see the final outcome.

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Strang.

§ Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise with you the question of the amount of time which you have allowed back-bench Members to have in this debate. I have checked the timings. By the time the debate has finished, Front Bench speakers will have taken 50 minutes, leaving only 40 minutes for back-bench speakers. The back-bench Members who have spoken, including the mover of the amendment, have been very good indeed. They have restricted their speeches. I think that the inordinate length of time that the Front Benches have taken is a negation of democracy and certainly in this instance is very much resented by back-bench Members of the House.

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not really a matter for me. Should it be suggested, however, that I should accept a proposition "That the Question be now put", I will, of course, take account of what the hon. Member has said.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang)
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) will agree that the one person who will not take an inordinate time in this debate is myself. In the time which remains, I shall try to deal with some of the points which have been raised.
My right hon. Friend the Minister said at the start of the debate that he was looking forward to hearing the views that Members would express. We have certainly heard tonight a considerable diversity of views, and I know that my right hon. Friend will reflect seriously on everything that has been said.
I must, however, emphasise, albeit briefly, that we are in the middle of negotiations on this matter. Just as when a trade union official goes into negotiations to try to get a £20-a-week increase for his members, he does not spell out in advance any fall-back position, I am sure that my hon. Friends will not expect me to spell out in this debate either the absolute conclusions which we intend to achieve or fall-back positions. What is important is that objectives which the Government intend to pursue and the results which they come out with at the end of the day.
I should like to take up the question of prices. Some hon. Members want higher prices and others want lower prices. The point was made at an early stage by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and others that the Government should give an estimate of the increase in prices in the United Kingdom. I shall merely try to illustrate to them just how difficult this is by pointing out, for example, that in the case of cereals we do not know what the price will be in six months' time because, as the hon. Member knows, the world market price of cereals is higher than the guide price. Similarly with milk, we can agree with the guide price, but what is important is our own position and what the United Kingdom guaranteed price will be.
849 Having said that, I accept that these increases in guide prices will have an effect on the United Kingdom prices, and at the end of the day what matters is the result which my right hon. Friend comes out with in the negotiations. May I, however, make one or two brief points, particularly concerning—

§ Mr. Biffen
I appreciate the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. Can he suggest, however, how Commissioner Lardinois was able to over-come these obstacles and give the figure which he did to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins)?

§ Mr. Strang
The confusion is that hon. Members basically want to know the effect that these prices will have on the United Kingdom, and in particular my hon. Friends are concerned about the effect that the prices will have on the consumer. We cannot give these prices.
I want to emphasise this point about prices. The situation vis-à-vis the relationship between EEC and world prices has been transformed immeasurably since we entered the Market in 1972. These are facts which we must face. We must accept their implications. It is not simply in the case of sugar that we have had a spectacular change in relationship between EEC and world prices. In cereals also we have a situation that in 1972—[AN HON. MEMBER: "It is changing."] But it has to move a long way before we get back to the position where EEC prices of cereals are 50 per cent. higher than world prices. At present they are 60 per cent. of the world price. I do not want to spend a lot of time arguing about the general level of prices. I want to come to the specific points that have been made on intervention. I think that my hon. Friends will agree that that is the nub of the argument.
I reaffirm our total opposition to traditional intervention as practised by the Community. It is true, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) acknowledged, that the EEC's proposals go some way in our direction. They give us the right to opt out of intervention. It is true that they introduce on a permanent basis flat rate head-age payments for cattle. But they do not go nearly far enough. The main 850 objective of my right hon. Friend will be to secure a situation in which we shall have the option to opt out of permanent intervention and to make the variable premium a permanent feature of our beef régime.
When we are talking about intervention, let us not forget that over the years we have accepted the principle of support buying or intervention in this country. For example, we have an effectively managed potato market. My hon. Friends know as well as I do that we bought potatoes off the market by support buying in 1971. At that time we spent a substantial amount of money on support buying. Half of the potatoes went to animals and the other half were destroyed.
What we are now discussing in terms of beef is just the same as the situation after the great fiasco of 1961 when we had to accept that we must put some limit on Exchequer liability—namely, the liability on public funds. If we get a permanent variable premium or a permanent deficiency payment we must have some means of putting a limit on the liability to public funds. We have not ruled out limited support buying as a last resort. That is what we are talking about. Let us be clear about that.
I am sure that my hon. Friends do not mean to suggest that we shall have 190,000 tons of beef in intervention in the United Kingdom. There is no question of that happening. It is a bit much to go from 14 tons to 190,000 tons. Let us remember that in the present situation, with temporary intervention, only a freak 14 tons of beef have been taken into intervention in Northern Ireland.,
I now turn to the amendment. What I am trying to get through to my hon. Friends—I say that in the kindest possible way—is that we agree with their objectives. But I want them to understand why we cannot accept the amendment. I shall give three reasons and I deal with the least important first.
First, because my hon. Friends say that by and large they cannot approve the package, it does not make sense for us to throw it out. We are in the middle of negotiating it.
Secondly, the amendment takes the line—this was a point that was picked 851 up, and not unfairly, by the Opposition—that we are opposed to all increases in the price of foodstuffs. With inflation running at its present rate how can we suggest that we can produce food in this country without having some increase in farm prices?
Thirdly, and most important, the amendment does not ask us to secure the option to implement a variable premium with support buying or anything else but to secure a situation in which all the other member States will adopt our system. We cannot reasonably undertake to come home with that result. What we are trying to achieve—I am sure that the bulk of my hon. Friends will agree on this—is the option whereby any country, including Britain, can introduce the variable premium system and the system of guaranteed prices which we had

§ Mr. Speaker
Debate to be resumed what day?

§ The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Walter Harrison)
Not named, Sir.

§ Mr. Buchan
rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is one of the most important discretions given to the Chair. I have decided to accept this motion tonight. It must not be regarded as a precedent. The Chair regards each of these matters in the circumstances as they arise.

§ Mr. Ian Mikardo (Bethnal Green and Bow)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully ask your guidance on what is the status of the motion as it now stands? The Question not having been put, does the motion remain on the Order Paper until it is brought forward, or has it died?

§ Mr. Speaker
I am told, having taken advice in the limited time available, that it is what is described as a "dropped order".

Division No. 60.]	AYES	[11.45 p.m.
Atkinson, Norman	Lamond, James	Snape, Peter
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Spearing, Nigel
Bidwell, Sydney	Lee, John	Stallard, A. W.
Biffen, John	McCusker, H.	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Body, Richard	Madden, Max	Stoddart, David
Bradford, Rev Robert	Marten, Neil	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Buchan, Norman	Mendelson, John	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Cryer, Bob	Mikardo, Ian	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Thompson, George
English, Michael	Moate, Roger	Watt, Hamish
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)	Molloy, William	Weetch, Ken
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Molyneaux, James	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Gould, Bryan	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Wigley, Dafydd
Henderson, Douglas	Prescott, John	Wise, Mrs Audrey
Hooley, Frank	Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Hutchison, Michael Clark	Richardson, Miss Jo	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Roderick, Caerwyn	Mr. Russell Kerr and
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Ross, William (Londonderry)	Mr. Martin Flannery.
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Sedgemore, Brian
Kinnock Neil	Skinner, Dennis

NOES
	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
	Mr. J. D. Dormand and
	Mr. James A. Dunn.