Hill Livestock (Hansard, 27 February 1991)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry)
I beg to move, That the draft Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowance) (Amendment) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 13th February, be approved. The regulations apply to Great Britain and will bring into effect an increase in hill livestock compensatory allowances used in less-favoured areas. An identical order for Northern Ireland has already come into effect. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is present on the Government Front Bench.
The regulations concern 65,000 farmers, 52,000 of whom are in severely disadvantaged areas. The regulations would increase the rate for cattle in severely disadvantaged areas to £63.30, and for hardy breed ewes, which includes herdwicks, which have become famous as a breed in upland areas, would increase the rate to £8.75. Hardy breed ewes account for 58 per cent. of all ewes in less-favoured areas. For other ewes, the amount will increase to £4.90. In disadvantaged areas, which are slightly less difficult but still less-favoured, the rate for cattle will be £31.65 and for ewes it will be £2.45. That represents a 14 per cent. increase and a global amount of £17.5 million. It takes total public expenditure on hill livestock compensatory payments to £142 million.
I shall not rehearse the history of the payments, but I will concentrate on three or four matters that will interest hon. Members. We had some difficulties in bringing in the new proposals. The Agriculture Council agreed by qualified majority, with the United Kingdom voting against, amendments to the structural regulations in November 1989. Three of the amendments effectively concerned HLCAs. The first was the imposition of a limit of 1.4 per livestock units per hectare as a limit for payment, and a livestock unit is one cow or 6.66 recurring sheep. It also introduced a limit on full Community funding—25 per cent. in the case of Great Britain and 30 per cent. in the case of Northern Ireland—to 60 livestock units per holding, and half that amount was between 60 and 120. Finally, it permitted member states to lay down certain environmental conditions for the grants and for livestock compensatory amounts. The United Kingdom already imposes a limit of six ewes per hectare in severely disadvantaged areas and nine in disadvantaged areas, for environmental reasons to do with the intensity of grazing.
We were obliged by the Community regulations to apply the limit from the 1991 payment, but the payment in our legislation reflected 1990 numbers. In that sense it was retrospective and we had to be satisfied that the regulation concerned was directly applicable. Once that was settled, we were able to print the application forms and the guidance notes, and they went out to farmers in the week of 11 February. We have made special arrangements at the divisional offices and at the Guildford computer centre to process the applications. We can start making payments as soon as the instrument is passed in this House and in another place tomorrow. People are working weekends and overtime to process the applications as fast as we can.

§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)
The regulations come into force as the Minister said, but when will the payments be made? Will he state the time scale, because 1070 farmers are desperate to have the much-needed cash in their pockets? Will the allowances be paid by the end of March or before?

§ Mr. Curry
I was about to come on to that. How much we can pay depends on how many applications we receive. Farmers have to send back their applications. In England, we have received almost 1,300 claims from the midlands and western region and we have processed 41 per cent. of them. We have received 2,600 claims from the northern region and we have processed about 26 per cent. of them. From the south-west we have received about 650 applications and have processed about 23 per cent. Altogether, we aim to have about 55 per cent. of the total payments out by the end of March. We shall turn round the others as soon as they come into the offices. That is the key.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)
On the same point but in relation to Wales, when can we expect payments to farmers in Wales to be completed? As the Minister knows, farm incomes in Wales are in a particularly poor state.

§ Mr. Curry
The forms went out on 7 February. I cannot tell the hon. and learned Gentleman when payments will be completed, for the simple reason that that depends on farmers returning the application forms to us. They have all received their forms. As soon as they fill in the forms, we shall turn the applications round as rapidly as we possibly can. We recognise the cash flow problems, and our purpose is to get the payments out to farmers as fast as we possibly can. We have therefore put our offices on standby and they will work overtime and weekends if necessary in order to get the payments out to the farmers.
We have not increased the maximum amount payable per hectare, which is set at £62.48 in the severely disadvantaged areas and £46.86 in the disadvantaged areas. We have held that rate for two reasons. First, to have increased it would have benefited those with the highest stocking rates at the expense of the others, as the actual increase per head would have been lower. Secondly, we wished to have regard to the environmental implications of stocking rates.

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
One of my constituents reckons that he has lost about £2,000 through that rate being held. How long has the figure remained at £62.48? Is it not the case that the Minister could have put it up to a ceiling of £77.33? Even if one accepts the environmental principle, that could be preserved by index-linking the figure that he has chosen. That would at least allow some much-needed income to those who have seen a drop of £100 per head in the price of their cattle.

§ Mr. Curry
We faced a choice. We wanted to get the money to people who faced the most difficulty. We therefore chose to allocate the resources—which, as in all Government business, are finite—to producers in the highest hills and to increase the headage rate rather than the maximum payable per hectare. We shall of course review these matters in the autumn, as we do every year.
On the differential between the severely disadvantaged areas and the disadvantaged areas, we brought the disadvantaged areas into the scheme in 1985 and paid them at the half rate. We have maintained that differential, which reflects the severity of the natural handicaps. As I 1071 said, a review is due in the autumn and we shall reconsider that differential with an open mind. However, I am not willing to give any guarantees on it.
With those preliminary remarks, which I have deliberately kept limited so that the maximum number of hon. Members could participate, I commend the regulations to the House.

§ Dr. David Clark (South Shields)
We welcome the fact that we are having this debate on hill livestock compensatory allowances, and we realise why the Government have allowed us to have it. We appreciate that they are in some difficulty in the upland constituency of Ribble Valley and that they feel that by blowing their trumpet tonight and extolling the virtues of their payments, they may be given some credit in that part of the world.
We welcome the debate for a much deeper reason. It allows us an opportunity to highlight the plight of the upland farmer, who is the most pressurised of farmers—and most farmers are pressurised under this Government. The Minister has made great play of the increases in payments this year. We applaud those increases. It would be churlish not to do so, but it is right to put on record the fact that they do not make up in real terms for the four years when the Government froze HLCAs. The payment that farmers get after this increase will be less in real terms than they got four years ago. Those are the years when the damage was done to upland farming and when the income of upland farmers took the greatest strain.
According to the Government's own figures, the income of upland livestock farmers dropped by a dramatic 60 per cent. between 1988 and 1990. That is too large a fall for any farmer to absorb. Income falls can be absorbed for a year or so by delaying maintenance payments, but that can go on only so long. In the upland areas it has gone on far too long. Farmers in such areas rely heavily on HLCA payments, and the difficulties are beginning to show.
The Minister almost anticipated the questions that would be pressed on him from the Opposition. Why was there a delay in payment this year? The Minister gave us a lot of baloney about European this and European that, but he knows that that is simply not on. In last year's statement, looking ahead to 1991, the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food said: This will be our review, on our terms, about our hill problems, and we will not automatically carry through the views that have been approved by the European Community contrary to our wishes."—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 160.] Why the delay? The Minister made it clear that he would be master in his own house and that he would decide what was what. Now, the Under-Secretary of State tells us that the delay is all because of Europe. There has been a history of delay in payments. When the right hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale was Minister, he used to make the announcement in November or December each year, so that farmers knew where they were from the beginning of the incoming year. Under the present Minister, the announcement was made on 30 January last year, and this year it was made on 11 February.
I could not understand the significance of 11 February until I discovered that, on 12 February, the Minister was to address the annual general meeting of the National 1072 Farmers Union. That was perhaps a happy coincidence, but the farmers in the uplands must be glad that at least the NFU has an annual general meeting.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
It is only a small point, but did the hon. Gentleman mean Morecambe and Lunesdale or Westmorland?

§ Dr. Clark
I meant the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), the previous Minister of Agriculture but one.
This is yet another example of the Minister playing a game of petty politics. He ought to treat upland farmers more seriously.
Normally, the forms are sent out at the end of December and farmers start to receive payments about the end of January. As the Minister has admitted, this year the forms were held back and were not sent out until the middle of February. As we have heard, if farmers are lucky, they will get some payment by the end of March. The Ministry gave no warning to farmers about the delay. Indeed, it was left to Opposition Members to raise the issue persistently to try to find out what was happening. Why were the forms not sent out to farmers earlier? The information required to calculate the payment is based on the details of farms as recorded on 1 January, so why the delay?
The Minister represents many upland farmers and I know that he appreciates the hardship that they face, so why was it not possible to issue part of the HLCA at the end of January and the rest later? There is a precedent for that. In the November before HLCA payments were issued in 1986, the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, issued the following statement: I am well aware that, following the exceptionally bad weather earlier this year, many farmers in the Less Favoured Areas are facing cash-flow problems. To help this, I am preparing to introduce special procedures for the 1986 HLCA payments under which all claimants will receive about 75 per cent. of their claim very shortly after submitting their application, with the balance being paid as soon as possible after 1st April 1986". That was a sensible decision, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated the cash flow problems of 1986. If the Minister does not already know it, his farmers will tell him that, because of the Government's economic policies, farmers today, especially those in the uplands, have similar cash flow problems. Why has the Minister not treated them as sympathetically as they were treated in 1986?
Earlier today, I followed the Minister to the forest of Bowland and I had the great pleasure of meeting a farmer, Mr. Dinsdale, of Cuttock Clough farm. He has 130 hectares of difficult marginal land that goes up to the top of the trough of Bowland. On it he has 300 hardy ewes and 20 suckler cows. He is typical of many upland farmers throughout the United Kingdom. It is vital that they stay in business.
In common with many farmers in my hon. Friends' constituencies, Mr. Dinsdale has diversified to increase his resources. He has a caravan park and a clay pigeon shoot, but he is struggling to make even them pay. This year he will get a subsidy of £8.75 per ewe; last year it was £7.50. Last year he got £1,800 for his wool, but this year he will be lucky to get £1,100. As the Australian and New Zealand wool boards are pulling away from their guaranteed prices, that figure could be even lower. Mr. Dinsdale will get only between £14 and £17 for each of his ewes because, 1073 as the Minister will be aware, the hardy breed ewes are small and usually have only one lamb at a time. Last year, such ewes fetched £34. The year before they fetched £54. This year Mr. Dinsdale will be lucky to get £17 per ewe. This year alone, Mr. Dinsdale's income will be cut by £6,000, yet the Minister will compensate with a payment of £375 extra for his sheep.

§ Mr. Cash
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Dr. Clark
I hope that this intervention is more relevant than the previous one.

§ Mr. Cash
The hon. Gentleman is talking about matters relating to the Ribble valley, an area I know well as I was at school there for about 12 years. I therefore know that trough of Bowland well. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's view that the problems of upland farmers are the fault of the Government, the MacSharry proposals, which come from the European Commission, will work against those who have as much as 130 hectares. In other words, the Government are trying to defend people such as Mr. Dinsdale, but the Commission and the MacSharry proposals will have the opposite effect.

§ Dr. Clark
I thought that the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention was superficial, but that one was worse. The MacSharry proposals are about the future. The hon. Gentleman has failed to grasp that we are talking about the past and the present. The MacSharry proposals have nothing to do with tonight's debate on current HLCA payments.
Mr. Dinsdale's standard of living has fallen. He has not farmed badly. He is a good farmer, but the economic conditions under which the Government have operated have made it impossible for his farm to be a healthy investment. Agriculture in the United Kingdom this year and the Government's publication confirm how steep the 1074 decline has been for Mr. Dinsdale and other upland farmers. I stood on his farm today and he told me of two neighbours who have already quit. They are only two of the 16 farmers who are leaving their farms and land each day the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sits in Whitehall place.

§ Mr. David Nicholson (Taunton)
Will it be Labour party policy to make up the £6,000 which was the hon. Gentleman's estimate of what Mr. Dinsdale and his neighbours have lost?

§ Dr. Clark
I congratulate the hon. Member on making a sensible point and anticipating my very next sentence.
Why does the Minister resist the Labour party's idea of paying such farmers a green premium for managing their farms in an environmentally friendly manner? They look after their landscape; the community wants that sort of landscape and will pay for it. Last year, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave me hope. He specifically mentioned his hopes to add environmental conditions to the HLCAs. Why has he not done so? The only conditions we have are those imposed by Europe.
The Government's White Paper on the environment referred to integrating environmental and agriculture policies. It stated: EC support schemes will be required in return to protect and, where possible, enhance the environment on their holdings …. The conservation of the countryside can be an inherent part of good practice in livestock farming, and agricultural policy aims to ensure that basic support for agriculture will provide environmental benefits. Bearing in mind those promises and the fact that the technical amendments in the sheep meat regime proposals from Brussels for the 1991 price review are likely to lead to a considerable cut in production subsidies for upland sheep farmers, it is imperative that other support, such as environmental payments, is brought forward. By failing to do what they promised, the Government have let down the farmer, the environment and the consumer.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)
I have a number of hill farmers in my constituency, and only 10 days ago I met my local National Farmers Union branches and the High Peak Livestock Society, which has many members in the hill district of my constituency. When I met my hill farmers, they appeared to be content with the announcement made to the House by the Minister. But at that meeting, and subsequently, they expressed reservations and advised me that investigation of the rates of the hill livestock compensatory allowances revealed that everything was not as it seemed. It is important that the Minister should clarify those issues tonight.
In order that the House should fully understand the points that I am about to make, I should say that I understand that some rates that applied before—for example, an upper limit payment for six ewes per hectare and a controversial financial limit of £62.48 per hectare—still remain. But the Minister announced a new financial limit of 1.4 livestock units per hectare. I think that I am right about this, but if I am not I shall give way to the Minister. I understand that the limit is for the severely disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas at the relevant rates.
Under the old system, the farmer calculated the number of sheep and drew the relevant rate up to a maximum of six ewes per hectare. The difference between the sheep payment and the financial limit of £62.48 was then taken up by the suckler cow to the maximum financial limit. My farmers were led to believe from a copy of the Minister's announcement in the House that there was a new financial limit of 1.4 livestock units per hectare.

§ Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor)
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Winterton
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) nods agreement.
A livestock unit is defined as one bovine animal, namely a cow, or 6.7 ewes. It is therefore natural to assume that the new financial limit was 1.4 livestock units times the new rate for cows, which is £63.30, which comes out at £88.62. My farmers were under that impression when we met that Saturday morning at a large meeting in my constituency.
On checking with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regional office in my area, Berkeley Towers in Crewe, and with Nottingham and Wolverhampton and with the Ministry in London, my farmers were told that the old limit of £62.48 per hectare stands, and that is the figure from which they will operate. One accepts that any farmer who does not carry the number of stock required to take him to the financial limit will have an increase under the new rates, but any farmer who is stocked to the maximum rate using the HLCA criteria will not receive any increase.

§ Mr. Livsey
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and correct point. We should find out from the Minister whether the 14 per cent. increase that he mentioned is 14 per cent. within the parameters that the hon. Gentleman describes. Has the Minister done his sums?

§ Mr. Winterton
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that the Minister will clarify the matter when winding up.
One must bear in mind the fact that the size of farm is immaterial, because the limit is financial and is attached to 1076 the area. That means that the small farmer will be hit proportionally harder. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said, the small hill farmer must be encouraged because, in the context of conservation, such farmers are important and will continue to be so.
I and, I think, many hon. Members are uncertain, and there is no doubt that many farmers in disadvantaged hill areas are also uncertain. Hill farmers in my branch of the NFU and members of the High Peak Livestock Society accept that it is one thing if rates are not raised but that it is entirely another to create the illusion of a substantial rise when that is not the case. I am sure that all hon. Members who represent farming constituencies, and especially those with hill farmers, are aware of the fall in farming incomes in less-favoured areas. They have dropped by 60 per cent. in real terms over the last two years.
That is not my figure, but the official figure published by the Ministry. The controversial figure of £63.30 has been in place since 1984. Since that time, we have encountered grave problems. One of these is inflation, much of which has been generated, directly or indirectly, by Government policy.

§ Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West)
rose——

§ Mr. Winterton
I will not give way. My hon. Friend is always angry when I speak the truth. [Interruption.] Well, if she wants to be helpful, I shall be happy to give way.

§ Miss Nicholson
Does not my hon. Friend agree that, whereas it is not good that some other product subsidies should be linked to output, a link between this subsidy and output is a very good thing in the modern world, as the upland farmers are producing the sort of meat that every dietitian says we should eat?

§ Mr. Winterton
I am tickled pink. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is taking my side in an argument. I entirely agree that The mountain sheep are sweeter, But the valley sheep are fatter". I forget who wrote those lines, but they are part of a famous poem that I learned at school many years ago.
The situation facing the sheep farmers in the marginal areas of this country is very serious indeed. Will they get an increase, or will many of them get no increase at all? They require an honest answer from the Government. In the last two years, they have suffered huge income reductions. When will they be assisted? As well as producing food for the nation, they maintain the countryside—and the Government often profess that maintenance of the countryside is one of their high priorities.

Several Hon. Members
rose——

§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)
Order. We have less than an hour to go, and a number of hon. Members still wish to speak. I, too, shall be tickled pink if Members take to heart my appeal for short speeches.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery)
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), with his usual ferocious independence, has told the truth. We look forward to hearing a head-on reply to the points that he has made so eloquently.
1077 Speaking for the Labour party, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that he wanted to applaud the Government for the increase that is reflected in these regulations.
I should prefer to say that we are thankful for small mercies. Small mercies they are. The last thing that the Government deserve for any part of their agriculture policy is applause. It was amazing to hear a Labour Front Bench spokesman speak in those terms.
It is crucial that we look at HLCAs in context. I can use my constituency as a good example. Proportionately, Montgomery is the most agricultural constituency in the United Kingdom. Its dependence on HLCAs and other agriculture support mechanisms is probably as great as that of any other constituency. Let us look at what is happening to constituencies like mine. In recent years, Montgomeryshire has had low unemployment. Now, my constituency has the largest unemployment increase percentage in the whole of Wales. Between January 1990 and January 1991, unemployment rose by 48 per cent.—four times the Welsh average. The figure for men was 53 per cent. In Wales, we in Montgomeryshire have an unenviable lead of 20 per cent., but other agricultural constituencies are also badly affected. Monmouth has experienced a 26 per cent. increase in unemployment in the last year, and the figure for Brecon and Radnor is 25 per cent.
Examples are to be found also in English constituencies with a strong agricultural base. Perhaps the best one to choose is Huntingdon, which is of interest to the Government. Unemployment in that constituency has increased by 44 per cent.——

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)
How many hill farmers are there in Huntingdon?

§ Mr. Carlile
Huntingdon has a strong agricultural base, and it has had a 44 per cent. increase in unemployment in the past year. The Government should face up to that.
As has been said, Welsh farming income has dropped dramatically. In 1990——

Several Hon. Members
rose——

§ Mr. Carlile
I shall heed your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

§ Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.

§ Mr. Carlile
In 1990, there was a 23 per cent. fall in Welsh farming incomes, following a 28.2 per cent. fall in 1989. Those decreases do not take account of inflation. The Welsh fall is greater than the United Kingdom average. Finished cattle prices are running at about the same level as 1990, and that means that they are below 1989 prices. Finished lamb prices are well below 1990 prices.
We are extremely concerned about the continuing delays in payments to Welsh farmers. The suckler cow premium was paid several weeks later, just before Christmas. We know what an awful mess the Government are in with the forms for hill livestock compensatory allowances. It is not good enough to blame Brussels. The Government could have produced forms that requested all the information that they needed to make HLCA 1078 payments well before the uncertain time that they are now offering. They failed to do so. They know the effects of such delays in an industry that as many as 6,000 farmers left in 1990.
Part of the context of the regulations is, of course, the MacSharry proposals. We support the Government's rejection of those proposals as being highly discriminatory against the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) said earlier. As the Government have suggested, the original MacSharry proposals penalise the more efficient producers. We are extremely concerned about the knock-on effects, especially on the livestock sector, and about changes in other sectors.
We will be interested to hear from the Minister what the Government are saying about the new proposals that have emanated—and I use the word advisedly, for they are nothing short of an emanation—from Brussels today. The proposals spell further decline in sheep, beef and milk—a 2 per cent. reduction in the support price for lamb; a 2 per cent. cut in the milk quota; a minute reduction in the green pound, which will do practically nothing to help the British farmer; and the virtual removal of the safety net for beef farmers.
Let us hear from the Minister how this very small HLCA increase fits into that context. He must confess to the House that, overall, there will be a further decline in the position of farmers in the hills of the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Curry
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that the budgetary discipline guidelines should or should not be observed? Is he recommending that we should or should not go through the budgetary discipline guidelines? The proposals from Mr. MacSharry, which emanate—whichever verb the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to choose—are in response to the problem of agricultural budgets exceeding their targets. Does he believe that we should or should not go through those? If he does not, we must exercise restraint; if he does, we want to know that.

§ Mr. Carlile
We now hear from the Minister what appears to be an acceptance of the appalling revised proposals made today. It is no use telling the farmers of Wales or any of the other uplands in the United Kingdom that they must make do with half an agriculture policy, which is all that he is offering them. We need an agriculture policy that ensures the survival of farming in the hills, for without that there will be nothing on or at the bottom of the hills, as he well knows. It is essential that the Government start planning for the future by introducing new mechanisms within the United Kingdom that include farm management contracts for farmers, country management contracts, and all the other aspects of our 10-point plan that my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) described so clearly in the House in our agriculture debate a few days ago.

§ Mr. Curry
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question? There is a problem of an overrun on the budget. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that there should be measures to bring the budget back within its guidelines—yes or no? That is the question that Mr. MacSharry has to face. That is the question which every member of the Agriculture Council will have to face. It will not go away. It has to be answered.

§ Mr. Carlile
I will tell the hon. Gentleman again: the Government must produce a policy which will ensure a future for British farmers. If the budgetary disciplines are accepted in the form in which it appears we must accept them, he will have to take steps to produce a policy for the future of upland farms. He has produced no ideas at all, either in this debate or before it. I see some approval from Conservative Members for that statement. No steps at all have been produced to that effect.

§ Mr. Cash
rose——

§ Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Carlile
No, there is pressure on time.
We give a guarded welcome to the announcement for HLCA rates for 1991. We are thankful for small mercies. But there are two extremely disappointing aspects. The first is the financial limits. Those financial limits have not been increased from £62.48 per hectare in the severely disadvantaged areas and £46.86 per hectare in the disadvantaged areas. That means that many producers will not be better off because of the increased rates. The EC maximum rates are £77.33 and £58 per hectare respectively. We believe that the financial limits should be moved closer, if not up to those maxima. Let the Minister tell the farmers why the British Government will not increase the limits to or near those maxima.

§ Mr. Curry
rose——

§ Mr. Carlile
I shall not give way. The Minister can reply to the debate later, and I look forward to hearing him.
Many farmers are in a catch-22 situation. They will not benefit from the increase because of their stocking densities. The new rate for hill cows is higher than the maximum stocking density per hectare. That means that hill farmers stocking more than one cow per hectare will lose out on the increases. What sort of support is that for hill farmers? Many will be blocked from benefiting from the increased level of payments. The scheme has been changed far too much and it is now full of inconsistencies.
Another severely worrying matter relates to the disadvantaged areas. The 50 per cent. rule has been retained on disadvantaged area payments. It means that producers in those areas will get only small increases which do not keep pace with inflation over the years. Again, that is an unsatisfactory aspect of the proposals.
Those of us who represent hill farming areas warn the Government that farming is in as serious a decline as that faced by the steel industry years ago and the coal industry too. We see communities faced with break-up and massive unemployment. The Government must do far more than pat themselves on the back over a small increase in HLCAs. They must come forward with a full policy for upland areas, or they will have no credibility whatever in the farming industry.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
I only wish to take up the point that has just been made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and to support the Government in what is an extremely difficult position which has been brought about by 1080 proposals emanating from the European Commission, not from the Government. I have the greatest sympathy with the Government's position.
The fact is that the whole of the CAP is in need of significant reform. The fund's structural problems, the way in which the hillstock farmers' difficulties have been addressed, and the problems concerning Mr. Dinsdale, which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery mentioned, turn on the way in which the situation has been orchestrated. The rules relevant to the 1950s and the 1960s are not relevant to the 1990s and the year 2000.
This afternoon, the Select Committee on European Legislation, of which I am a member, examined proposals to reform the common agricultural policy. It is essential and in the interests of British farming that we get to grips with the real problem—votes in France, Germany, and Italy. Until we address that aspect, we will not resolve the GATT problem, which could bring world trade to a grinding halt. We must appeal to our friends and colleagues in Europe—although sometimes they are not so friendly—to address the issue of helping the farmers of this country, so that we may resolve the issues that arise in the GATT talks.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery would not allow me to intervene in his speech, but I draw to his attention the people who are getting substantial subventions from the Community that neither the Commission nor the Community's budget can justify. They are Bavarian pig farmers, those running small or uneconomic farms, those looking to the Commission for a social wage, and those who are not farmers at all but who run farms on a part-time basis.
The problem will not be solved by reducing it to an argument about technicalities. It is a political problem, and one that must be resolved by Community policies directed at the Community, not at the specific interests of individual countries. It will not be resolved until the Community and the Commission are prepared to grapple with the problem, and Mr. MacSharry is prepared to consider the interests of the Community as a whole, not just his own Irish farmers.
I hope that my points will be taken on board by the Commission, because there are those in this House and throughout the country who are no longer prepared to countenance the current situation.

§ Ms. Hilary Armstrong (Durham, North-West)
The constituency that I represent is not predominately agricultural, but is has some significant and beautiful agricultural land. Much of it is in the north Pennines and is therefore used for hill farming. My constituency also includes land that was formerly given over to industries such as steel and coal, which have suffered from a lack of the intervention which agriculture has enjoyed.
The situation in Weardale is different from that in hill farming areas represented by other right hon. and hon. Members. That community has suffered many economic problems, and they have been intensified by those now confronting hill farmers. The Government's agricultural policies are threatening the future of their communities and their land.
Weardale has traditionally considered itself a working dale, embracing manufacturing and industrial activity as well as agriculture. This week sees the demise of the last of 1081 Weardale's industrial works, in upper Weardale, and the closure of its mineral works, where mining of fluorspar has been an important activity for many of the families who, although their livelihood is based on farming, have topped up their incomes by involving at least one member in industrial work. During the past three weeks, more than 200 workers have been made redundant and the last 35 will go this week.
I have met the hill farmers numerous times. They held a meeting last night, and have written to me of their concern about the future of wool. Other hon. Members have already mentioned that, and I do not want to go into the details, but the farmers feel that that is another example of the way in which their livelihood is disappearing. Some of the hill farms in Weardale have already been sold off to Saudi Arabian princes who are interested in the shooting rights. I am not sure what the events of the past few weeks will mean for the future of that moorland; there is a slight irony there.
I want the special character of the uplands to be protected and developed, not abandoned. All the farmers tell me—and I believe them—that, unless the land is tended by farmers, it will decline, and I already see signs of that.
Many of the points made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) have been raised elsewhere. There is considerable confusion about the nature of the financial reward that the Government's proposals will supposedly bring, and great concern about the delay in the provision of money and about the future structure of support and development. Many farmers genuinely feel that they have been abandoned; they are clutching at every straw presented by the Government, because there is nothing else, but every facet of their livelihood and their life in the community has been stripped away.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough to the Minister the extent of the crisis facing the communities of upper Weardale. Tonight's debate deals with just one aspect of that crisis, but it points to the critical need for a Government policy to deal with the current decline, which affects not only individuals and their families but whole communities and the future of land and land use. I hope that the Government will see the debate in the context of a range of other issues; I have not mentioned interest rates, but they are having a major effect as well.

§ Mr. John D. Taylor (Strangford)
The Minister mentioned that sitting beside him is the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who is the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland. He has been sent over from England to look after the people of Ulster. He and I recently attended a conference at Greenmount agricultural college on the subject of the family farm. One of the main guest speakers was the EC Commissioner, Mr. Raymond MacSharry, from Sligo.
One of the startling facts that emerged from the conference is that 25 per cent. of farmers in Northern Ireland are now trading at a loss. They are losing money per animal. Most of that 25 per cent. farm in what are known as less-favoured areas. It is against that 1082 background that we must consider the regulations that have been recommended for Great Britain and which will apply subsequently to Northern Ireland.
The background is also coloured by the fact that, with one exception in the past five years, there has been no increase in HLCAs. As several other hon. Members have said, there has also been a considerable reduction in the real income of farmers in recent years. Farmers' incomes in Northern Ireland have been reduced by 45 per cent. in the past two years.
Agriculture is in a serious state throughout the United Kingdom. We understand the point that the Minister was trying to make to Liberal Members earlier—a point that they would not accept—that there are budgetary restrictions in the European Community and that we have to evolve policies within those restrictions. It is all very well to say that we must help farmers to do this, that and the other, but we must operate within a parameter. Is the policy right within that parameter?
We have two agriculture organisations in Northern Ireland. One, the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association, condemned the new HLCAs. Its spokesman, Mr. Bradley, described them as nothing more than a pittance. It is disgraceful. It doesn't take any account of inflation and the fact that hill farmers are worse off today than they were five years ago … Farm incomes have fallen by 45 per cent. The larger of the two organisations is the Ulster Farmers Union. It welcomed the increases for cows and sheep, but it expressed some reservations.

§ Mr. Roy Beggs (Antrim, East)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the smooth ministerial statement today disguised the pain and suffering that will come soon to farming families who have already experienced lower incomes from livestock sales? Now, because of financial limits, our efficient livestock farmers will have lower incomes disguised as an increase.

§ Mr. Taylor
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. When the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland tried to sell the increased HLCA payments, he said that they would mean an extra £2.7 million for the farmers of Northern Ireland. He ignored the financial limit per hectare. There might not actually be a £2.7 million benefit to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) was right to emphasise that point.
The Ulster Farmers Union stated that it is extremely concerned that the United Kingdom Government has not increased the Financial Limit per hectare in either the old or new less favoured areas. This will probably pose a problem for smaller farmers with intensive stocking rates.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
That is the point.

§ Mr. Taylor
I am glad that Tory Members agree with me.
I am not sure whether the Minister is speaking only for Great Britain tonight or for the United Kingdom as a whole, but I want to ask several questions that apply to the United Kingdom. The Minister's presentation of the deplorable delay in the introduction of the increases in HLCAs was a little too smooth. We should had have them towards the end of last year, but we are getting them three months later. We must have a thorough explanation tonight because farmers are not satisfied with what they have heard and with the reasons that have been given for the delay. Is the delay due to the Government's ineptitude, or is it entirely the responsibility of the European 1083 Community? We need a firm answer. Farmers are losing money. Some 25 per cent. of them are running their farms at a loss, and the delay in the announcement of HLCAs is deplorable.
How quickly will the payments be released to our applicants in Northern Ireland? Will it be done in a matter of days or weeks? As there has been such a delay, we want a special effort to be made to ensure that payments are released as quickly as possible to try to aid the cash flow in hill areas in Northern Ireland and in less-favoured areas.

§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus, East)
My concern is obviously about Scotland, but my colleagues in Plaid Cymru have expressed their great worry about problems in Wales. Hon. Members have heard tonight that there are common problems throughout every part of hill and uplands agriculture. That industry is crying out for Government action. I hope that we shall hear more than we have heard tonight if matters are to be handled properly for that important sector of the economy.
I hope that the Government realise how imperative it is to get money into the hills and upland areas. Farmers are now facing their lowest incomes in real terms since the second world war, at a time of high interest rates and rising costs. The result is that record numbers of people are leaving the industry. Nowhere are the problems more evident than in the livestock sector, which is being hit hardest. Farmers in the hills and uplands have no alternative but to produce livestock.
Given the importance of that sector in terms of employment, the economy and its role in rural communities, why is there no commitment to those areas and why is there no support? I am concerned that, because of the state of the industry, we may be about to see modern-day clearances of the hills and upland areas of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We must add to those problems the shadow of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and the common agricultural policy proposals. The industry is in trouble, and it is looking for support and action, but it has seen no sign of them from the Government.
Instead of a clear policy, through no fault of their own, our farmers get high interest rates to suit the overheated economy of southern England. Instead of getting assistance, they find that they are hit with falling incomes and rising costs. The allowances are welcome, but they are inadequate to meet the needs of the industry if we want that industry to remain and thrive in rural communities. Hill and upland farmers are crucial to the survival of Scotland's rural communities. They are entitled to ask what future and what commitment the Government see for them. There has been precious little so far.
Why have the HLCAs been delayed yet again? The industry is crying out for income to tide it over its current massive cash flow problems. The Government are perfectly willing to spend massive amounts on weapons of war or on sweeteners for privatisation and all the other items that they consider a priority. It is time that they considered hill and upland farmers and agriculture to be a priority. Much smaller amounts could then bring about massive rewards for the country in terms of food 1084 production and a saving in imports and thereby ensure the future of rural communities. Why has the staggered delay been allowed?
I have asked the Minister when payments would be made, and he said that he expected that 55 per cent., of payments would be made by the end of March in England and Wales—that is, if I heard him correctly. He is saying that nearly half the payments will not be made for more than one month. That is totally unacceptable, given the cash flow difficulties facing the industry.
The Minister said that part of the problem was that the farmers had not submitted the forms, but he admitted that the processing figures showed that there was a major difficulty in the Ministry's bureaucracy. He said that, as at 22 February, only 41 per cent. of the forms received in one region had been processed. By definition, therefore, 59 per cent. had not been processed. In two other English regions, 73 per cent. and 77 per cent. respectively had not been processed. In the light of the bureaucratic problem, can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that the payments will be made as soon as possible? A delay until the end of March is too long, given the cash flow problems facing the industry.
Because of the cash flow problems in the industry, I am worried about how far the HLCAs will stretch. Problems are linked. As the Minister is aware, knackeries are closing. Hill and upland farmers in many areas are faced with the problem of getting rid of dead or fallen stock when there is no local knackery to which to send the animals. The extra costs will be borne by the industry. What are the Government doing to assist it?

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
What about transport?

§ Mr. Welsh
Indeed. Yet another problem is offloaded on to the industry, but there is no sign of any Government action or any acknowledgment of the problem. The United Kingdom is in the minority of European countries in not providing some form of government assistance. It is a matter of priorities. If the Government consider that agriculture, especially the hill and upland sectors, is a priority, the industry could be given a shot in the arm and the future of the industry and the rural communities that it serves could be secured with expenditure of a relatively small amount.
My plea is that the Government should get cash to the hills and uplands as fast as possible. The livestock industry is in trouble and deserves urgent action.

§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Cannock and Burntwood)
Although I represent Cannock Chase in the heart of the midlands, which rises to an elevation of 800 ft, I do not claim today to speak on behalf of a constituency interest. I hope that the House will allow me this indulgence. As I come from a borders farming family and am the grandson of a borders farmer, over the past eight years I have had my ear bent by my family——

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
And by a close neighbour.

§ Mr. Howarth
Yes. It therefore did not seem inappropriate to raise these points. The Douglases have been the longest-serving tenants on the Duke of Roxburgh estate—I think that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) knows only too well what I mean—going back beyond 1700. When I go to the borders, I feel a sense of participating in a long and honourable tradition.
1085 As we all know, whatever constituency we represent, farmers have been having a tough time in recent years. Over the decades, they have been urged by us all, and particularly their political masters, to produce ever more food, to invest, to mechanise and to become more efficient, and they have done so with considerable effect. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) told us where the problem lies—not with the efficiency of the United Kingdom agricultural community but with our continental partners' desire to subsidise inefficient farming practices on the continent. I am sure that we all agree.
I requested my uncle's views and, writing to me shortly before Christmas, he said: Since 50 years ago we have been begged, pressed and, sometimes, forced to increase production and I suggest that no industry has done just that any better. We were also encouraged to borrow vast sums of money to enable us to do that, and many of us have done so. Suddenly about four years ago the country and Western Europe wakened up to the fact that most of what we'd been pressed to produce was not over-produced, with the result that we've been faced with colossal drops in prices, coupled with payments for interest on borrowed money at rates of interest far in excess of anything that could be foreseen when the money was borrowed. My uncle adds that his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), will be able to substantiate what he has written. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not be participating in the debate, but I am sure that he will acknowledge what my uncle wrote.

§ Mr. Nicholas Winterton
Does my hon. Friend agree that the British farmer has contributed to the surpluses to an extremely limited extent? Farmers in other countries in the Community have created the surpluses.

§ Mr. Howarth
I think that my hon. Friend is right, but I do not claim to be an expert on these matters.
It is to the Government's credit that they have sought to tackle the problem of excess production while representing to the best possible extent the interests of the British farmer. It has not been easy to combine those tasks.
We know that prices to farmers have fallen dramatically, while their costs have increased relentlessly. At the same time, farmers have become more efficient. The example of my own family is that, in 1928, two farms employed 10 people but today they employ only three. It is the farmer who undertakes most of the work on the farms. No one can accuse farmers of having been inefficient.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire will be aware that average stock prices at Hawick auction show that between 1989 and 1990 the price of black-faced warranted ewes fell by no less than £5—a 20 per cent. fall in one year. The price last year was lower than it was in 1984. That shows the difficulties that the farming community has been facing.
Difficulties have arisen because farmers have switched to Iamb from beef. My hon. Friend the Minister knows only too well that beef has been more difficult to sell than lamb in the recent past, although I eat beef—and British beef to boot—and I understand that we in the midlands are eating beef once again.
I say to the House what I have said to my family face to face—that, when manufacturers find that there is no market for their products, they also find that there is no 1086 intervention fund to buy their surplus products. The result is that they go out of business. I am not suggesting that farmers should go out of business, but farmers are not alone in experiencing difficulties.
I understand that the rate for hill ewes has increased much more than that for upland ewes. I am told that upland ewes demand rather more tending than hill ewes. I shall be most grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that observation.
There is a strong case for incentives to keep hill farmers on the hills. Farmers are best conservators in Britain, and rural communities add enormously to our heritage. Future generations will not forgive us if we allow ourselves to be steamrollered by inefficient continental farmers into operating a regime in the United Kingdom which has the effect of destroying important rural communities and the contribution that they have to make to our national life.

Mr. John Home Robertston (East Lothian)
That was a speech from an hon. Member who expects to have to return to the hills after the next general election. I, too, have the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) as my Member of Parliament. We all have crosses to bear in this life, and he is mine.
Before I go any further, I should perhaps declare an interest in a hill farm in the Lammermuirs. I also represent several hill farmers in the Lammermuir hills. I confirm what has been said by members of all parties who have taken part in the debate. Beyond any shadow of doubt, there is a crisis in the economy of the hill and upland areas throughout the United Kingdom

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
The hon. Gentleman should declare his interest.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I have declared an interest. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has caught my attention. I was fascinated when he suggested that the Liberal Democrats would extend hill livestock compensatory allowances to Huntingdonshire. I am not sure whether he knows what is the highest point in Huntingdonshire, but if his party thinks that it will win Huntingdonshire by promising hill livestock compensatory allowances to its farmers, they have problems. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery should contain himself just now.
There is a crisis in the economy of the hills and uplands. The Minister stands accused of a con trick. The Government say that they are increasing the allowances but, as the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made abundantly clear, they are taking the money away with the other hand by applying the stocking rate restrictions. To make things worse, there has been a significant delay in making the payments. Delay in making payments to an industry which is facing such severe problems is bad news. It is a heavily indebted industry, and interest rates are high.
I wonder what proportion of the money will go straight to the banks when it is eventually paid. So many of the hill farmers are heavily indebted, and they will simply use the money to reduce their overdrafts. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred to the special problem in the Ribble valley area. Perhaps one way of overcoming the problem of the delay would be for the English National Farmers Union to bring forward its 1087 annual general meeting and compel the Minister of Agriculture to come along and make his statement a little earlier. Perhaps farmers would get their money a little sooner. I offer that merely as a suggestion.
The allowances are just another chapter in a shameful history of neglect of rural Britain by the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said, rural communities throughout the United Kingdom are being affected. The Government's neglect of the industry is shameful. Every time that I take part in an agriculture debate, I remind the House and the farming industry that many farmers say that they always do better under a Labour Government. That has been true, and it will be true again shortly.

§ Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor)
I wish to make only a few points and to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) about stocking rates and the capping of the total amount of HLCA available at £62.48 and the other figures that he mentioned. There is no doubt that, in one sense, the Minister has misled us here this evening. He said that the amount had been fixed for environmental reasons, and that keeping the figure down would have a good environmental impact. The problem is that farmers are not being given an environmental payment in order to make up for that level of capping.
If the Minister is not prepared to increase the amount to the maximum of £77, he should compensate farmers for the difference between the two amounts, which by my arithmetic would be £15 per hectare, to conserve the environment. The Minister cannot have it both ways: by not allowing the £15 per hectare, he is creating an immense social problem in the uplands. My constituency is more akin to a continent than a constituency. It is 92 miles long. We have 16 ewes for every person in the constituency. We depend very much on our hill livestock compensatory payments. Yet farmers are being capped and are not being compensated for looking after the environment.
As we know, the upland farmers are the best conservationists in the country. The single sons of hill farmers in my constituency can no longer survive on the meagre pittance being provided. The recent figures from Aberystwyth in the farm management survey show that Welsh upland farms of 175 acres or less have an income of £2,000 a year, and farms of 175-plus acres have £4,000 a year. No one can live on such incomes. That is equal to a crisis.
The crisis is compounded by the fact that, in Wales in the last two years, farm incomes have dropped by 41 per cent.; they have nearly halved. The Secretary of State for Wales said in the Welsh Grand Committee last week that HLCAs amounted to £37 million. The drop of 41 per cent. in incomes equals £32 million. We are on the road to nowhere. We are on the road to depopulation, back to the 1920s and 1930s, with no young people left in the upland areas.
The Government must have a coherent policy. Of course we need to stay within the EC budget, but that is not the point. We need major reforms. We may have to scrap intervention and bring back deficiency payments to get the product on to the market, so that the consumer can 1088 buy it at a reduced price. We have to do something about half the budget that does not get to farmers. We must put more of that money back into farmers' pockets.

§ Mr. Curry
Much passion has been raised in the debate. I understand that. I represent hill farmers myself and I share the concerns of Opposition Members and of my hon. Friends. None of us, I hope, will compete in our concern for upland farmers, both in their role as producers and in their role as guardians of the countryside. The difference is that we have responsibility for government. We also have to act within a budget. There is no way out of that; we cannot escape from it. The budget is laid down in the Community, and the House, in general terms, subscribes to it. We cannot get away from it by saying that we will pretend that disciplines do not exist. The Liberal Democrats want to keep multiplying the expenditure. Everything they said in the debate would result in a multiplication of agriculture expenditure.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that the increase is inadequate. Everybody would like more, but we have to allocate the resources. In the early years to which he referred, the market delivered a reasonable livelihood because it was a time of rapid expansion, particularly in exports. Prices were buoyant. The point of the scheme is to compensate for the disadvantaged character of the neighbourhood. It is not designed specifically as a mechanism to compensate for shortfalls in the marketplace. It is different from a price support mechanism, which means that we have spent a fortune intervening on beef.
The hon. Gentleman knows why there has been a delay. We could not send the forms out earlier because we could not give the instructions and the guidance to go with them until we sorted out the problem about how the scheme would apply. I regret that. It was a nuisance. It has been a pain for everybody, but we had to face that difficulty. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) paid advances. It was not a happy experience. One reason that we are not doing it again is that it was such a difficult experience. It took so long to complete the payments that some farmers were longer getting the total payment than they would have been if we had not paid advances.
I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's encounter with Mr. Dinsdale. When I am in that part of the world tomorrow, I shall try to find Mr. Dinsdale, because I am anxious to hear from him a more precise account of the conversation than the hon. Member for South Shields was willing to give. I want to know whether the hon. Gentleman told Mr. Dinsdale that he would pay more on the HLCAs as they stand. That is the question before us. Would he pay more as they stand—or was he going to present Mr. Dinsdale with a marvellous bran tub of environmental measures and invite him to plunge in his arm, the idea being that every farmer would come out with a prize labelled as an environmental payment?
It is easy to say that we should pay farmers to look after the environment. In my constituency and that of many hon. Members, it is difficult to see what else farmers could do in terms of good husbandry. We have already said that farmers look after the environment. If we were to pay farmers for what they are already doing, we should need to 1089 define that payment precisely in terms of its budget and its objectives. We shall undertake that process, but it is no policy simply to say, "We shall not tell you whether you will get any more under existing policies; we shall invent something else that may or may not serve as a pretext to pay more."
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a characteristic speech, and challenged me to give the full facts. To avoid being so accused again, let me make it absolutely clear that we have not increased the maximum amount payable per hectare—it is set at £62.48 in the severely disadvantaged areas and at £46.86 in the disadvantaged areas. We have held payments at those levels because, if we have limited resources, we choose not to give them to farmers stocking at the highest densities. I acknowledge that some farmers will not receive any increased payment. We will give resources to those who do not stock at the highest densities. That will increase commensurately the headage payments available to those farmers.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) must make up his mind about whether the Liberal Democrats will live within the budgetary framework of the Community.

§ Mr. Alex Carlile
Of course.

§ Mr. Curry
Well, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer that question. He said that his party would invent all sorts of super new policies. Here and now the budget has overrun and we are faced with proposals from Mr. MacSharry which we must tackle. On Monday, we must start to debate those proposals. I want to know whether we have the support of the Liberal Democrats for the budgetary guideline we issued. The majority of the House applauded that guideline. Those who did not said that it was inadequate. We had to bring agriculture expenditure under some sort of control——

§ Mr. Wallace
Will the Minister give way?

§ Mr. Curry
No, I gave way generously before.
We are all agreed that we had to have some type of budgetary discipline, but now it comes to the test are we to say, "Well, let's not bother for the moment"?

§ Mr. Wallace
rose——

§ Mr. Curry
The hon. Gentleman has had his say. I deliberately limited my remarks to allow as many hon. Members as possible to speak.

§ Mr. Wallace
The Minister is afraid to give way.

§ Mr. Curry
Certainly not, but I shall not be goaded. The hon. Gentleman can sit and make gestures to his heart's content, but he will not influence me.
The Liberal Democrats have not answered the question about what they would do about the budgetary restraints which, whether we like them or not, exist.
1090 My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) mentioned some of the fundamental problems—the current surplus, the need to change the common agricultural policy and the MacSharry proposals. I deliberately refrained from embarking on those proposals as they are not the subject of the debate and we all had our say on them some time ago. If pressed, however, I can tell the House that our position on them has not changed. We do not find them acceptable, particularly as they do not take us towards the marketplace. Rather, they do the opposite. I do not believe that farmers want to be taken on a magical mystery tour that takes them further and further away from that marketplace. That is not the answer to the agriculture crisis.
We already have a surplus, which is hanging over the market. Many Opposition Members are willing to say how much agriculture policy costs the average family per week or per month. They claim that we must bring it under control, but at the same time they say that more money should be directed at farmers. One must make up one's mind what one wants in this world. We cannot have it both ways. We must tackle the problem.
Hon. Members want to know why the Government do not pay the maximum allowance permitted under the Community regulations. The answer is simple—money. If we were to pay at the maximum, we estimate that that would be equivalent to an extra £60 million of public expenditure. We do not believe that it would be justifiable to pay that in present circumstances. If the hon. Member for South Shields is saying that he would pay it, I am interested to clock up the expenditure to which he will commit his party. I am willing to add that to my running count of the pledges that have been made by at least half the members of the Labour party and give the information to the other Labour party members who say that they will exercise restraint in budgetary matters when their party comes to power, in that unlikely event.
I can answer precisely one question asked by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). In Northern Ireland it is hoped and intended that 85 per cent. will be paid by the end of April. That is the target figure for Northern Ireland and the Department officials are geared up to do that. We must not forget that there are 65,000 claimants and that there is much work to do. We must undertake the process properly. We cannot simply act and hope, afterwards, that we got it right because the possibilities for fraud and inaccuracy are too great.
We support farmers. We have shown that we support farmers. We have introduced a raft of measures in favour of farmers. The Government will not stand accused of failing them. The farmers do not believe that, and I commend the regulations to the House.