§ 2.45 p.m.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government if they are aware that in 1951 the farmer received £23 for a high-grade bacon pig, that there was a £44m. subsidy on retail pig meat prices and the housewife paid 3s. 1d. per lb. for best bacon and 2s. 6d. per lb. for best pork; that currently the farmer receives £17 for a similar bacon pig, that there is a £21m. subsidy on pig meat and the housewife pays 4s. 8d. per lb. for best bacon and 5s. 0d. per lb. for pork of similar quality; and, since the difference in the two amounts of subsidy accounts for only 4d. per lb. who receives the remainder of the 100 per cent. increase in the margin between the price received by the farmer and the price paid by the consumer.]
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept the implica- 8 tions of the figures quoted by the noble Lord or the statistical basis of his comparisons. The £44 million subsidy in 1951, for example, relates only to home-produced and imported bacon and takes no account of the £12 million subsidy on pork. In reply to the noble Lord's earlier Question I expressed my doubts about following his calculations. In that instance there was at least some basis of comparison in the 1¾ lb. loaf. In the case of pig meat no comparable basis exists.
I need not remind your Lordships that in 1951 the production and distribution of pig meat were controlled, maximum retail prices were laid down and the housewife was strictly rationed. To-day supplies are unrestricted. The housewife has a far greater freedom of choice and the quality is higher. There is no doubt that she is much better served.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, we still have the same position, where the farmer is one-third worse off, the housewife is paying double, and the taxpayer is still mulcted of a considerable sum. In order not to confuse figures too much, could the noble Earl answer one question which is of current importance? Can he say why bacon, which incurs the costs of processing and curing, should be cheaper than similar cuts of pork? Does he not realise, as one who has the greatest possible interest in the welfare of agriculture, that these two questions demonstrate beyond peradventure that the Government's support price policy for agriculture is an utter and abject failure?
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, I would not for a single moment accept the latter conclusion. I do not think that anything that has been said bears that out. I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot answer the noble Lord's question, as I have not the figures of the relative costs of bacon and pork at my finger tips; but I will write to the noble Lord.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, this applies to home production. In 1951, the very best bacon pig was fetching about £23. Today the farmer gets £17. Is that true? And is the comparison in pork prices the same?
EARL WALDEGRAVEFirst of all the grading standards of the very best bacon pigs are entirely different in 1951 9 and now. I cannot accept the figures entirely. The £44 million subsidy for 1951–52 relates, as I said, to home-produced and imported bacon only: it takes no account of the pork subsidy. There is nothing in the figures that have been produced which takes account of the fact that feedingstuffs were then subsidised. Ever since the 1947 Act the relevant figures have been taken into consideration every February to arrive at the guaranteed prices. The noble Lord cannot take figures nine years apart from the figures given for an entirely different reason and compare them. This is not comparing like with like.
§ LORD STONHAMSurely, my Lords, if there had been anything wrong with the comparative figures of £23 in 1951 and £17 now the noble Earl would have challenged it. He must know from his own knowledge that it is correct. Is that not a remarkable drop, allied to a doubling in the retail prices? If the noble Earl says he does not know whether bacon is cheaper than pork I am astonished. Let me assure him that there is a difference in price. I should like to ask him why it is that bacon is cheaper than pork, when bacon incurs the cost of curing.
EARL WALDEGRAVEMy Lords, out of his large number of supplementaries, I am well aware that the prices of £23 and £17 (although the figures are not strictly comparable, because of the different grading) give, probably as near as we can get, the respective prices of pigs. I did not say that, I did not understand the difference between the price of pork and the price of bacon. I said that I had not any figures in front of me to answer the noble Lord as to the comparative costs of production of one and the other, which is what he originally asked.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that the kernel of the Question, and of the last question is that the price to the farmer has gone down, while the price paid by the consumer has gone up; and the question to which the noble Lord, and, indeed I, would like an answer is: who is going to benefit from the subsidy?
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, perhaps, when these questions and answers are pub- 10 lished, the noble Earl may be able to answer the farmers how it is that the overall adjusted income of the farming industry was £320 million in 1951 and is down to £288 million in the last year, and we shall begin to understand who is responsible for it.