§ 8. Mr. Evansasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the cut in farmgate prices of cereals which would be necessary to secure a diminution in the overall level of production of cereals within the European Economic Community.
§ Mr. GummerLower prices will, over time, lead to lower production than would otherwise have occurred, but as I an unable to predict either the weather or the speed of technological change, I cannot predict accurately what amount of price reduction will be necessary to produce a given amount of production.
§ Mr. EvansPutting that answer on one side, does the Minister agree that substantial cuts in producers' prices would not only damage farmers' incomes but would have a devastating effect on rural employment and the rural economy, which have already been badly damaged by the actions of the Government over the past five years? Would it not be more intelligent to have a more sensible, balanced package of measures which would include some measure of quotas, which would be beneficial to farmers of marginal land?
§ Mr. GummerNo system of quotas or anything else will be sensible if one does not take into account the fact that weather changes from year to year and that the speed of technological change alters the amount of excess with which one has to deal. The hon. Gentleman cannot just ignore those two basic facts. For that reason, he will know that we are working for a package that will meet those needs. The hon. Gentleman cannot get out of the situation that the proposal that he has put forward would not be acceptable to any part of the industry.
§ Mr. Bill WalkerWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when looking at the production of wheat and cereals, that in Scotland feed wheat is commercially grown there and that we are not in a state of surplus? In fact we are substantially short of a surplus. This factor has to be borne in mind, because it affects many other issues.
§ Mr. GummerWe have to look at the surpluses in the Community as a whole in all commodities. It would not be possible to maintain a system under which we went on increasing the surpluses in the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, in the rest of the European Community until such time as every part was self-sufficient. But my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the arrangements that we make must take into account the particular problems of Scotland and the growth of wheat in Scotland.
§ Mr. JohnI thought that it was only the Department of the Environment with which the right hon. Gentleman quarrelled, but now he is quarrelling with the Minister of Agriculture. As the Minister has told us repeatedly that surpluses are to be controlled by cutting farmgate prices, how on earth are we to take that seriously if he cannot even estimate what cut is necessary to bring down production?
§ Mr. GummerThe hon. Gentleman, who leads for the Opposition, must accept that last year's harvest, in both quantity and quality, was very much affected by the weather, as was the previous year's harvest. The question that was tabled asked whether I would predict what price would result in a given amount of production. Any Minister who did that would be damned foolish.
§ Mr. LeighIf it is considered impossible to obtain a consensus in Europe on the level of price restraint deemed necessary to curb over-production, and if it is considered necessary to add a policy of set-aside to price restraint, does my right hon. Friend agree that compulsory set-aside should be resisted, as it would favour the less productive cereal-growing areas, and that a suitable way forward 336 might be voluntary set-aside coupled with price restraint and tax incentives to encourage farmers to move into alternative crops, such as forestry?
§ Mr. GummerIn our discussions with the Council of Ministers my right hon. Friend made it clear that one of the matters that we should like to have looked at very carefully was the principle of voluntary set-aside. I am sure that much, if not all, of what my hon. Friend has said is right.