CEREALS (GUARANTEE PAYMENTS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1973 (Hansard, 16 April 1973)

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, I beg to move that the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships on March 28, he approved. I suggest it may be for your Lordships' convenience if we were to deal with the Order amending the Protection of Guarantees as well.
970 These Orders are of a somewhat routine and technical nature. By them we have terminated the target indicator prices for wheat and barley; we have re-defined the cereals year to run from August I instead of July 1 so as to correspond with European practice and avoid confusion when making statistical comparisons and the like; we have changed from cwts. to tons as the units for guaranteed market prices in accordance with the present practice in the cereals trade. References to rye (on which there have been no deficiency payments since the mid-1960s) have been deleted. The obsolete provisions relating to record-keeping and consequential arrangements about services and notices have been removed from the Protection of Guarantees Order. With that explanation, I trust your Lordships will agree these Orders. I beg to move the first Order.

§ LORD HOY
My Lords, I intervene for one reason: the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that these Orders are "routine and technical". They are nothing of the kind. They may well be technical, but they are not routine. Indeed, they now have an application to the Common Market, and I did not know that that was a routine expedient that we had been adopting for a long time. This is quite new. The noble Earl says some parts of this Order change cwts. to tons in the making of assessments. He did not seek to explain why we were being asked to do this. He simply explained that that was what the Order said. The reason appeared to be non-existent.
If I may take Order No. 501, in the Explanatory Note which does not bear the usual clarity of the Ministry of Agriculture which I knew—but, then, one never knows how it goes after you have left the place—it says: The changes effected by the Order abolish the target indicator price arrangements for wheat and barley". That is a considerable change; it is not a routine change. Then it goes on to say: redefine the cereals year to commence, in 1974 and thereafter, on 1st August and provide for the determination of guaranteed prices by reference to a ton instead of a cwt. Obviously the price has to change because one is only part of the other, but the reason does not appear to be very 971 plain in this part of the Explanatory Note.
Moving to Order No. 502 and looking at the Explanatory Note to that Order, I see that for the first time, as the noble Earl said, rye is coming out. It says This Order amends the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) Order 1971, made in support of the guarantee payments for cereals, by deleting the requirements to retain for two years certain records, and to furnish information, relating to periods ending on or before 30th June 1971 and revoking other unnecessary provisions. I do not know what the other unnecessary provisions are so I merely enter the statement that I am perfectly willing to take the noble Earl's word for granted but, if they are going to revoke certain unnecessary provisions, at least the Department ought to do the House the courtesy of saying what these unnecessary provisions are.
So while I do not raise too many objections to it, all I wish to say to the noble Earl—and I say it very kindly indeed—is that when orders of this kind come forward the Department should not use the word "routine"; and secondly, we should like to know whether there is (as there may well be) a good reason for differentiating between tons and cwts. They are certainly not the same weight—that I am prepared to admit—but is it bringing it into line with some other agreements inside the Common Market in arrangement with our fellow members of the E.E.C.?

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will acquit me of giving the impression and saying that something was routine if in fact it was not. It is of course routine that we should have an Order permitting guaranteed prices to be paid; it is equally routine that we should have an Order protecting the guarantees, and it was in that respect that I referred to them as being routine. There are of course changes to which the noble Lord has rightly referred; he was particularly concerned as to why we should move from cwts. to tons and he said that I gave no reason for it, but in fact I did because I said it was done in accordance with present practices in the trade. It is usual nowadays in the trade to deal in terms of tons rather than cwts., and therefore it was considered that it would be more 972 appropriate to have the guarantees done this year in the form of tons and not in the form of cwts. as was done previously. That is the sole reason for it.
With regard to the removal of the target indicator prices, because of intervention buying arrangements, setting a floor to the market, the target indicator prices are no longer needed to protect the Exchequer from the effects of very low market prices. As the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, will remember, target indicator prices were put in to protect the Exchequer from a severe drop in prices. Now, of course, there are the intervention arrangements. These will in fact put the floor in the market and therefore the target indicator prices will no longer be required.

§ LORD HOY
My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation but one thing I wish to refer to is the Statutory Instrument No. 501 in which paragraph 2(c)3 says: In respect of each year the Minister shall—(a) determine a guaranteed price per ton". Is the noble Earl saying that in fact we are getting rid of the old custom and now the Minister himself will come in and will determine the guaranteed price? If the noble Earl will look at the wording here he will see that it says: the Minister shall—(a) determine a guaranteed price per ton for wheat, barley and oats respectively". Is that a substitution for the old arrangement?

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, I am not quite certain of the intricacy to which the noble Lord refers. By the annual determination of prices the Minister takes a guaranteed price for wheat and barley and oats. This has been done and this Order confirms it.

§ LORD HOY
My Lords, I am not making it very complicated; I am reading out the exact words of the Order which the Minister is presenting to the House, from which it appears that the decision will be that of the Minister.

EARL FERRERS
Yes, my Lords, that is correct as regards the guaranteed prices.

§ LORD HOY
That is all I am asking.

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY)
My Lords, the 973 Question is, That the Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order, the Cereals (Protection of Guarantees) (Amendment) Order, and the Eggs (Protection of Guarantees) Order, be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". The Contents have it.

§ LORD HOY
My Lords, there were three Orders about agriculture, two of which affected cereals and the third affected eggs. We agreed to take the two cereals Orders together but have we now had the eggs put in with the cereals?

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, it was certainly not my intention to put the eggs with the cereals. I originally intended to speak to the three Orders together but as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, had indicated to me that he might wish to make separate observations upon them I thought I made it clear in my opening remarks that I would speak only to the two cereals Orders, and although I had spoken to those two Orders together I thought they would be moved separately whereas in fact they were moved together.

§ LORD HOY
My Lords, they cannot be moved together.

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, they had better now be moved separately.

§ THE DEPUTY SPEAKER
My Lords, will the noble Earl move them separately.

EARL FERRERS
My Lords, I beg to move that The Cereals (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1973 be approved.