§ 3.40 p.m.
§ Debate resumed.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I am replying to only one noble Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, as has happened on a number of occasions in the past. He raised, I think, four main questions—at any rate, I recorded four main questions. He asked my agreement to a statement he made, that our efforts were to cut the Treasury cost and to charge a premium to the housewives. On that, I think it only right to remind him that it is not the Treasury cost; it has to be the taxpayer's cost—the Treasury gets its money mainly from taxes, and most families buying food contain a taxpayer.
I took up, but apparently not sufficiently to the noble Lord's satisfaction, his question about what he called maximum prices. As a matter of fact, I misunderstood his term. He was referring, as I said, to the prices charged for specific qualities of wheat, and I tried to point out that these wheats were of a superior quality, and that the minimum import prices are sub-divided as to the types of wheat, in order to make fair the corresponding prices. In fact the minimum import price that he mentioned, £26 10s., is for the superior North American hard wheats which are not produced in this country, and the minimum import price for Continental wheat, which is the wheat that mainly corresponds to the type produced in this country, is £22 10s. I hope that I have persuaded him that this is fair.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he has quite persuaded me that it is fair to 1058 sub-divide prices according to qualities: I am not disputing that at all. The point that I am making is that there is only one guaranteed home price, £26 10s. If the minimum import price of any quality is £26 10s. and the wheat comes in at that price, and that is the market, then, quite obviously, no subsidy will be payable because of the difference in the level of market. It will be the same price.
LORD ST. OSWALDI am sorry. I wish I could make myself plainer to the noble Lord. The fact is that this relates to a type of wheat which we do not produce in this country.
§ LORD STONHAMWith respect to the noble Lord, he has told me something of which I am well aware. If wheat is imported and the price is fixed at £26 10s. per ton, and the farmers' guaranteed price here is £26 10s., although for a different type of wheat, obviously there will be no subsidy payable. That is what I would have thought.
LORD ST. OSWALDMy Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord and I are not going to understand each other in regard to this question. If, in fact, we were able to produce this superior type of hard wheat, then presumably the price for the domestic wheat would be as high as the price for the corresponding American wheat; but at the moment we cannot produce that wheat.
The noble Lord also said that the effect of these Orders would be to bring grain on to the market at an artificially high price. That is not so. I quite see that it is a political point which he is tempted to make, and which others of his colleagues have felt themselves tempted to make. But what we are, in fact, doing is preventing artificially low prices which have upset the market in recent years. The noble Lord referred in particular to the question of French wheat coming in last year below what is now to be the minimum import price for corresponding wheat, and yet he objected to our proposed arrangements. I should be happy to be present when he went down to explain to his farming friends in Somerset that he thought this was a bad thing, and that he thought that the French wheat ought to continue to undercut our wheat. It would be an interesting exercise of the 1059 noble Lord's persuasiveness at which I would gladly be present. Finally, and most interestingly, he implied in his closing remarks, I thought quite strongly, that a theoretical future Labour Government would rescind these Orders and scrap the whole system. That I found most interesting, and I thought that it really should be more widely known.
§ LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGHMy Lords, a week ago to-day the noble Lord literally invited me to say something, and then, when I had said something, he proceeded to charge me almost with having perverted the Holy Gospel and made use of terminological inexactitudes. I do not intend to give him an opportunity of repeating that statement. I should, however, like to congratulate him upon this second instalment of the Conservative Party's efforts to "Set the people free!" It has taken them eleven years, since 1953, to prepare themselves for the second move in setting the people free, and I should like to say just this one word in conclusion. If he would be good enough to take a Gallup Poll of Conservative Members sitting in the House at this moment, plus Independents, plus Opposition Members, too, to ascertain how many of them understand the policy that he has enunciated this afternoon, it would tell us a good deal that we do not know.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.