§ Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) on 10 June, Official Report, c. 381, what assumptions he made of the reduction in the retail prices of individual foodstuffs at present affected by levies and of the overall reduction in consumer expenditure on food in his estimate of up to £2,000 million per annum for a deficiency payments scheme;
(2) if, in assessing the cost of a deficiency payments scheme to replace the European Economic Community levies at around £2,000 million in his reply to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) on 10 June, he excluded the amount of United Kingdom levy payments to the European Economic Community.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithI refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 20 April. This described the calculation used to estimate the cost of a deficiency payments system with prices set halfway between existing producer prices and world prices. The figure of £2,000 million is based on a similar calculation, but adjusted to reflect a different assumption about the price level. Concerning the amount of levies on imports, these represent only one part of the gross contribution to the Community budget and in 1981 were largely offset by receipts, including rebates made under the terms of the May 1980 agreement. Rebates will again be made in respect of 1982.—[Vol. 22, c. 65–67.]
§ Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he made of any overall reduction in consumer spending on food if a deficiency scheme were introduced in place of the European Economic Community levy scheme as envisaged in his reply to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) on 10 June, Official Report, c. 381.
§ Mr. Buchanan-SmithIt is not possible to give a reliable estimate, since much depends on the assumptions used about price levels and about the working of any 351W deficiency payments system. What is clear is that any reduction in consumer expenditure on food would be largely at the expense of the taxpayer or the farmer or both.