§ 2.35 p.m.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the amount of subsidy paid during the last three months on British lamb which has been exported to France.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD)My Lords, there are no figures relating specifically to lamb, but I have the latest available figures for exports of sheep and carcases which cover the three months ending with September. These show total exports to France over this period of some 10,000 sheep and 238 tons of carcase meat. This is equivalent to a total of 23,000 lambs. It is impossible to say how many of these received the guarantee payment, but even supposing that they all received subsidy the total payment would have been some £26,500.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that information. Although he does not think some £25,000 is a significant amount, would it not be fair to say that this is money which is in fact coming from the British taxpayer for which the British consumer gets no benefit whatsoever, but from which either the French consumer or French middleman derives considerable benefit? If that is the case, would the noble Lord not agree that this is not the right way to spend the British taxpayers' money?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, there are two replies to the noble Lord's point, 642 both supporting each other. In fact, I quite see that at first sight this must seem to be to the cost of the British taxpayer. But, in fact, in estimating the effect we have to go through rather a complicated exercise: on the supposition that the removal of these animals from our market raised the average price above what it otherwise would have been by as little as one-sixteenth of a penny, there will, in fact, be a saving to the taxpayer of some £33,250, which will more than offset the subsidy payment. In fact, the taxpayer has not lost over this. In making the other reply to the noble Lord's Question, I must ask him to remember that the subsidy is paid to the producers; and the subsidy enables the producers in this country to sell their produce at the world market price in competition with imported supplies. The United Kingdom market is a free market and this postulates free import and export. If it is a free market inwards, it is right that it should be a free market outward as well. So the position is that the French buy in our markets at world prices.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, the noble Lord has given us very many figures for which I am most grateful. But would he not agree that the logical conclusion to be drawn from his second answer, at least, is that it is to the benefit of the British taxpayer if there is less on the market; and therefore would he not agree that this is in contradiction to the whole of the Government's professed agricultural policy to encourage agricultural production? I am sure that the noble Lord must agree, if he stops to think and is not blinded by his own figures, that this makes nonsense of the whole present policy with regard to deficiency payments and increased production.
LORD ST. OSWALDI think the noble Lord is being even naughtier than usual. He knows very well that when we say we want less on the market it is when the market contains a surplus. If the market can be relieved of a quantity of produce by selling it, then we are absolutely delighted; and I should have thought that he would have been as well.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it not a good thing for the French public to acquire a taste for British lamb; and 643 will the noble Lord give an indication of which restaurants in Paris will serve it, so that we may enjoy it there?
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, it is a question of research rather than forecast. This lamb has already been sold. I regret that I do not have the figures with me at the moment.