§ 3. Mr. Haselhurstasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now propose a further devaluation of the green pound.
§ Mr. HaselhurstIs it not vital for the safeguarding of the future of British agriculture that negotiations be speeded up to try to bring about an amelioration or an effective reduction in the monetary import subsidies? Does the right hon. 754 Gentleman agree that one of the most effective ways of promoting negotiations towards that end would be for the Government to propose a further devaluation of the green pound?
§ Mr. SilkinThere are about three things wrong with the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. First, Governments do not propose green pound devaluations. I am not being pedantic. It is for the Commission to propose green pound devaluations. The Commissioner has said in the course of the very many days of recent meetings of the Council that only in the most exceptional circumstances would he propose green pound devaluations, apart from price fixings.
Secondly, British agriculture, with the Budget concessions that Government after Government were asked to give for over 30 years and which the present Government have given—and bearing in mind the price negotiations and the 7½ per cent. devaluation—is in better shape to meet the challenges that it faces than it has been for many years.
§ Mr. Peter MillsReally?
§ Mr. SilkinThe hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has knowledge of the weather. That does not come within my Department.
§ Mr. CorbettWill my right hon. Friend resist invitations endlessly to take steps to increase the price of food? Is it not the case that the 7½ per cent. green pound devaluation that was forced on the Government by the Conservative Opposition and other parties will be responsible for far more price increases than the price settlement that was recently negotiated? Is it not true that the Conservative Opposition's policy of abolishing the green pound could cost British families, on average, an extra £50 a year on their food bills?
§ Mr. SilkinAs for price fixing, the 2.25 per cent. increase in average prices is the lowest since we joined the Community and represents an increase of one halfpenny in the pound on the retail food bill. The 7½ per cent. devaluation, even phased to protect the Community, worked out at a cost of about 1½p in the pound, about three times as much. The Opposition's most recent proposal was 755 that all MCAs should be equalised out. On the present wrong basis of accounting, that would lead to an increase of 10p in the pound.
§ Mr. PeytonRegardless of the partnership that the right hon. Gentleman may enjoy with his hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett), does he accept that his hon. Friend is not the best spokesman on the Opposition's agricultural policy? Am I not right in thinking that the French pressed for and were quite readily granted a special concession on the devaluation of the green franc in respect of pigmeat? Why did the right hon. Gentleman not do the same here, knowing, as he does, the special difficulties of our pig industry and the pigmeat processors?
§ Mr. SilkinThe French special concession followed the 7½ per cent. devaluation, especially for pigmeat, until August, that the United Kingdom was granted in January. I agree that part of its effect was deferred until after the price fixing. However, the concession to the French is more apparent than real. It involves the French having to catch up on every commodity within a given time—in other words, much what we did, but over a slightly longer period. Had we followed the French—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand me—we would have been committed to devaluing the green pound on every commodity up to whatever figure it might be, in 1979, not knowing what the circumstances might be at that time. That is what would have happened if we had followed the French. I do not think that that would have been a very good example to follow.