HL Deb 26 January 1978 vol 388 cc488-97

4.19 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels on 23rd and 24th January on agriculture at which my right honourable friend represented the United Kingdom.

The Statement is as follows:

"The main issue before the Council was the Commission's proposals for common prices in 1978–79. I reiterated my view that common price increases should be kept to a minimum and that for products in structural surplus there was no case for any price increase at all.

"Following the vote of this House on 23rd January, I requested the Council to agree to amend the Commission's proposal to devalue the green pound, so as to increase the amount of the devaluation from 5 per cent. to 7½ per cent. The Council agreed, subject to a qualification I shall mention later, to this revised proposal, and also to the proposal to devalue the Italian green lira by 6 per cent. The new green rates are to apply from 1st February for milk and milk products, pigmeat, beef and veal and, in the case of Italy only, for sugar. For other products the new green rates will come into effect at the beginning of the marketing year for each product. This means that the resulting increase in United Kingdom intervention prices for sugar will not take place until 1st July, and for cereals not until 1st August.

"The Council's agreement is not however definitive at this stage. The German, Dutch and Belgian delegations said that, because of the short time they had had to consider the proposal, they could agree to it only ad referendum; in other words, by reserving the right of their Governments to withdraw their consent. They proposed that the ad referendum period should run to 1st February.

"There is no precedent for a Member State being denied a request to change its green rate at a Council meeting, and this procedure would have had two disadvantages. It would have prevented the regulations being published in time for the devaluations to take effect on 1st February; and it could have prejudiced the discussion of other issues in the interim. The first difficulty was met by bringing forward the end of the ad referendum period to 29th January. On the second point I made it clear that until the devaluation of the green pound was finally approved I should not feel able to take part in the discussion of other issues."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

4.18 p.m.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for repeating that Statement. It is a sorry Statement and it tells us little that we do not know already, and comes to an abrupt end leaving all the questions unanswered. The Minister has continually refused the advice to devalue the green pound realistically and I regret to say he has let it slip, with his predecessor, from about 7 per cent. to 30 per cent. This is the nub of the whole problem and this has resulted in Dutch, Danes, Germans and Belgians having got used to their agricultural products coming into this country with huge European subsidies on them and having had an easy ride into our market. Therefore it is not surprising that we now find a resistance when what they had got used to is going to be curtailed. When I say I have little sympathy, it is because the Minister of Agriculture has continually disregarded the requirements of adequate home food production and he has entertained, and now entertains again, the displeasure of his European colleagues, this time by refusing to sit on any other meeting with his co-Ministers until they say, "Yes". It really is quite extraordinary.

I thought it was a rum way to carry on diplomacy, to put a pistol at your colleague's head and say, "I am not going to talk to you about anything else until we resolve this". The right honourable gentleman has no one else to blame other than himself. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, this. Are we to understand from the Statement that the three Governments concerned will not advance the date by which they will report the advice to their Governments, or have they merely not indicated whether or not they will?

Needless to say, I do not know the Minister's movements but I believe that he has meetings in Brussels on Monday and in Berlin on Friday which are connected with fish. If the Governments indicate that they will give their advice by the 29th, will the Minister go to those meetings but, if they do not give their advice, will the Minister not go to them? Indeed, will those meetings tale place at all and, if they do, are the Government satisfied that it will be appropriate for the Council of Ministers to meet without the United Kingdom representative? What does the Minister think he is going to gain by virtually saying to his colleagues, "I'm not going to talk to you again until you've kissed me"? It really is a sorry tale.

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, one other question. When the Government say that to delay approval until 1st February would prevent the regulations from being implemented by then, is it not possible, to use a European phrase, to stop the clock until these negotiations have been completed? Once they had been completed and agreement obtained, the devaluation would then take place as from 1st February.

Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I should like to join the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for his Statement. First I should like to ask the Minister about paragraph 2 of the Statement where he says that he reiterated his view at the Council of Ministers' meeting, that common price increases should be kept to a minimum and that for products in structural surplus there was no case for any price increase at all". Does this mean that the Minister is suggesting that British agriculture should be given no price increase for these products at the February price review? If he is, I hope that he realises what the social and economic consequences for the agricultural industry would be.

If I may turn to paragraph 3 and the implementation of the 7½ per cent. devaluation, it is tragic that part of the implementation will have to wait for such a long time. Speaking from these Benches, I cannot help reminding the Minister that if he had taken the advice of my colleagues in the other place we might have had a 5 per cent. devaluation last autumn and another 5 per cent. devaluation now, and that this might have been better for the agricultural industry of this country and for the nation as a whole.

Turning to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, regarding the last sentence of paragraph 4 of the Statement, I agree wholeheartedly with the remarks that he made. One cannot have a fit of pique of this kind. Surely we are in honour bound to negotiate with our European partners on all issues that come in front of us. I should also like to take this opportunity to object to a public statement made to the nation by the Minister shortly after the debate on 23rd January. He said that he hoped that the nation would remember that the Tories and the Liberals in this Parliament will be responsible for the increase in the cost of living that is bound to result from the devaluation of the green pound. I should like to make—

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)

My Lords, I must ask the noble Baroness to forgive me for interrupting. It is natural and tempting to make speeches when Statements are made, but the noble Baroness should ask questions.

Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON

My Lords, I should like to put what I have to say in the form of a question. The difference in the price of food that was quoted was between 1p and 1½p in the pound. I should like to ask the Minister whether or not it is a fact that 7/10ths of a 1 per cent. increase in industrial productivity would compensate the worker for this increase in the cost of living.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, may I—

4.27 p.m.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, I think it is probably best, more appropriate and more in accordance with the custom of the House if I answered first the points which have been raised by the two spokesmen for the Opposition Parties. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has raised a number of points. He asked about the last part of the Statement and its connection with the next meeting of the Fisheries Council. We received assurances this morning that the German delegation do not intend to make any link between the devaluation of the green pound and the Common Fisheries Policy. We have assured them that the United Kingdom will consider the Commission's proposals for 1978–79 farm prices on their merits. I understand, however, that the German Government will not be in a position to lift their reserves on the devaluation of the green pound until 29th January, but for his part my right honourable friend has confirmed that he intends to attend the meeting on 30th January in Brussels of the Fisheries Council.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, that is next Monday.

Lord STRABOLGI

Yes, my Lords. The noble Earl also asked whether we could stop the clock regarding the operative date. The original operative date would have been 1st February and this will still be the operative date. While it was a useful suggestion that the noble Earl made, I do not think that it is necessarily applicable. Of course, I readily concede that short notice was given, but the debate in another place took place during the Council meeting and it is not for me to comment on the arrangements for business in another place. As is known, the Government's wish to devalue by 5 per cent. was changed to 7½ per cent. by a majority vote. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, asked me about price increases and whether the Minister is against increases for United Kingdom farmers. The green pound devaluation will itself raise United Kingdom support prices by 8.1 per cent. This should prevent a freeze on common prices, if it can be agreed, from harming United Kingdom agriculture.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough to convey the wholehearted congratulations of every right thinking person who puts first the interests of his country and the consumer. May I emphasise that the Minister will have the continued support of the electorate in the battle he is putting up against the political antics of both the Conservative and the Liberal Parties. It is of the utmost importance that the electorate of this country should understand that what has happened this week is the logical outcome of the action taken by the Euro-fanatics who should put the interests of this country first, certainly before what they regard as the interests of Brussels. Will the Minister be kind enough to spell out in pence, so that everybody understands, what the increase is going to be if the green pound is devalued by 7½ per cent. and what that increase would have been had the Liberal Party had its way and devalued the green pound by 10 per cent. This is very important. Will the Minister also ensure that when, as a result of this increase, the butter, the cheese and the other mountains continue to get ever bigger the responsibility is firmly fastened upon the dear food Parties—the Conservative and the Liberal Parties?

Lord BOOTHBY

My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, may I say to him that his Statement today will give immense satisfaction to the country as a whole, and that it probably means the continuance in office of this Government for quite a long time.

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I am grateful to my two noble friends, Lord Wigg and Lord Boothby. My noble friend Lord Wigg asked about the effect of the 7½ per cent. devaluation on food prices; that will be about 1½ per cent. overall.

Lord WIGG

In terms of pence per pound, my Lords.

Lord STRABOLGI

I am sorry, my Lords, but my noble friend has bowled me rather a fast ball here. I cannot tell him, compared with the 5 per cent. but I can tell him that the effect of the 7½ per cent. devaluation will be 1½ per cent. overall, although of course there may be a significant rise in some products. I readily concede that point. It will be 5p or 6p per pound for butter, 2p per pound for beef and 1½p per pound for bacon. If my noble friend would like to table a Question for Written Answer, I shall be glad to reply to the other point.

Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON

Is my noble friend aware that the stand of his right honourable friend in the Council will command the complete support of most of us in this country who have some regard for the interests of the consumer? Is he aware that the trouble that has been created in the Council is due entirely to the attitude of the Conservative Party—

Lord WIGG

And the Liberals.

Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON

—who themselves are responsible through the majority they managed to get in another place, for having the farm proposals for NCA devaluation increased from the figure of 5 per cent., which had been proposed by the Commission and which would probably have been agreed to by the other Member States, to the figure of 7½ per cent.? Therefore, it does not lie in the mouths of the Opposition to blame the attitude now taken by the Council upon the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is my noble friend further aware that, in his endeavours to ensure resistance to price increases in fields where there are surpluses, such as milk and milk powder, of which there are a million tons rotting in Europe, together with a quarter of a million tons of butter, he will receive the support of all right thinking people in this country who are not bound to the farm lobby of Sir Henry Plumb?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend with his great knowledge of the Community. The trouble with the Opposition is that they say one thing to the farmers on one day and they say another thing to the food manufacturing lobby on another day.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, before he gets too virtuous about defending the interests of the consumer, that it was the Government themselves who recommended the figure of 5 per cent., which would have meant an increase in the price of foodstuffs? Before he becomes too confident, with the support of his noble friend and the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches—and I am surprised at the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches who, in his House of Commons days, always argued, without thinking of the consumer, that the fishermen ought to have more for their herrings—he should remember that it is essential to see that the food is produced at home in order to keep our balance of payments correct and to be able to live in a time of emergency. What has been decided upon is more likely to do that than running away from it, which was the Government proposal before it was amended.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, if the TUC and the general body of the trade unions and many millions of workers in this country had anticipated what has happened, they would ever have accepted the guidelines laid down by the Government providing for a limitation of 10 per cent. so far as wages are concerned and whether, in the new circumstances that have emerged, the Government will now decide to take into account the increase in the cost of living which is bound to result?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, these are much wider and fairly hypothetical questions which I would rather not answer arising out of this particular Statement.

Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND

My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the hysterical and schizophrenic attitude of the Opposition in another place may do longer term damage within the European partnership and would he not also agree that, in the questions they have asked today, the Opposition have not once mentioned the housewife? At this time when the Government are asking for restraint, does he not agree that the 5 per cent. devaluation suggested by the Government was a reasonable one?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I think there is a great deal in what my noble friend has said. Frankly, I should not like to comment on what the Opposition do in another place; it is quite sufficient for me to cope with the Opposition in this House.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would clarify one thing because I think he made a fairly important remark. He said earlier that his right honourable friend the Minister will go to Brussels on Monday: does that not contradict the end of his Statement when he said, I should not feel able to take part in the discussion of other issues"? Secondly, in order to help the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and his colleagues who are so rightly concerned about the cost to the housewife, with which I wholeheartedly agree, will the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, not confirm that it was his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture who said that, since 1973, during which time his Party was mostly responsible, the price of food had gone up by 128 per cent.?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I expect that that is so. We are living in an imperfect world and all Governments are facing great difficulties. On the more specific point made by the noble Earl, speaking of course for my right honourable friend and not for myself, I think it would be right to say that it would prejudice discussions of other issues which were related to undertake them while this discussion was unresolved. But, with regard to the Fisheries Council, which the noble Earl asked me about, I was glad to confirm that my right honourable friend would be going to that.

Earl FERRERS

My Lords, I am not being awkward, I just want clarification: when the noble Lord says that they cannot discuss other issues, does fish not constitute another issue?

Lord STRABOLGI

My Lords, I cannot go further than what I have already said, which was to confirm that my right honourable friend will attend the Fisheries Council on Monday.

Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE

My Lords, we have spent 23 minutes on this Statement and there are a lot of speeches still to be made on other matters. All sides of the House have expressed their views and I hope I reflect the feeling of the House when I suggest that we should now continue with the debate.