Production Targets (Hansard, 17 February 1977)

§ 3. Mr. Ridley
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether Her Majesty's Government still adhere to the food production targets set out in the document "Food from Our Own Resources".

§ 22. Mr. Charles Morrison
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is still hoping that the agriculture industry will achieve a year-on-year growth of 2½ per ce0t. as expressed in the Government's White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".

§ 29. Mr. Neubert
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will outline progress made on implementation of the policies announced in "Food from Our Own Resources".

§ Mr. Strang
The Government's agricultural policy will continue to be one of expansion to achieve import-savings on the lines described in "Food from Our 681 Own Resources". Despite the set-backs suffered last year as a result of the weather, the agriculture industry is basically healthy and is capable of expanding its net product at an average rate of 2½ per cent. per annum. The commodity objectives described in the White Paper are still valid. Given normal weather, production should recover in 1977–78 and we should see progress towards the expansion aims described in the White Paper.

§ Mr. Ridley
As we are already 20 per cent. down on the production targets at the time of the White Paper, and as we have lost 2½ per cent. a year for two years, does the hon. Gentleman agree that he is running 25 per cent. behind production targets and that this does not inspire confidence anywhere? Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman did something to make the reality match the plans in the White Paper?

§ Mr. Strang
No, I reject that. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the White Paper set out, first, the Government's commitment to expansion—more importantly, commodities in which expansion was most in the national interest—and indicated an overall rate of expansion that we could hope to achieve by 1980, The White Paper could not predict the actual level of production in any particular year. I think that the hon. Gentleman is running out of excuses for criticising the Government when he resorts to blaming us for the weather.

§ Mr. Morrison
The hon. Gentleman has referred to expansion on the lines of the White Paper but he has not said whether he adheres precisely to the targets of the White Paper. Will he do so? Will he say how on earth those targets will be achieved given the decline in livestock numbers, the decline in real farm income and the decline in investment?

§ Mr. Strang
Once again, the hon. Gentleman has to face the facts. It is true that in a major commodity where we want expansion—namely, milk—there was a set-back last year. That set-back was due to the weather. If the hon. Gentleman reads the annual review White Paper this year, he will see that the decline in the dairy herd has been reversed. We must concentrate on productive agricultural capacity.

§ Mr. Watkinson
Does my hon. Friend accept that the prosperity of agriculture could be affected significantly if we were to change the system of taxation for all those in agriculture? Does he agree that a rolling programme system whereby good years could be taken with bad years would be more helpful than the present situation, in which farmers are forced to pay out tax when they can least afford it?

§ Mr. Strang
Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I am sure he is aware that in his first major speech to the Farmers Club after becoming Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food my right hon. Friend pointed out that he was having a very hard look at the matter with a view to trying to do something for the benefit of the agriculture industry.

§ Mr. Peyton
Is it not a fact that production has fallen by about 9 per cent. since the White Paper was issued whereas the White Paper indicated that a rise of about 23 per cent. should be possible? In other words, the Government have fallen very far behind. Perhaps it is coyness that causes the Minister of Agriculture to leave his hon. Friend to answer this Question.

§ Mr. Strang
No, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. First, there can be no argument—the industry recognises this—that the factor above all that influenced the level of production last year was the exceptional drought. Secondly, my right hon. Friend's package following the drought helped the industry. His decision to introduce a special subsidy for pig producers is ample evidence of his determination to encourage agricultural production in Britain.

§ Mr. Peyton
Will the hon. Gentleman accept that production is down by 23 per cent. whereas the White Paper indicated the hope of an increase?

§ Mr. Strang
Obviously this depends on the commodities to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring. We are not disputing that production last year was disappointing. We have made that clear in our White Paper. We are pointing out that the reason for that fall in production—everyone in the House knows this—was the exceptional drought.

§ Mr. Hardy
Is it not quite astonishing that the Opposition, who purport to be familiar with and aware of rural problems and the methods of farm production, see no relationship between production and the weather?

§ Mr. Strang
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is preposterous when we are reduced to a situation in which the Opposition Front Bench attacks the Government for a fall in production that is attributable to the drought.

§ Mr. Ridley
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the exceptionally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment, even if it does not rain.