I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Common Agricultural Policy (Termination of Guarantee Arrangements) (Fat Cattle and Rye) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 351), dated 28th February 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be annulled.
This order is linked to the previous agriculture scheme and order we have just resolved and I want to make some brief comments on those first. May we have a pledge that the calf subsidy will not be halved as all the Press this morning have suggested? That is another example of the results of the Annual Price Review apparently being known to the Press but not to the House.
Dealing now with the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, in principle the feedstock formula is a good one for a support system and should be maintained. There is a good deal of anxiety about the removal of the existing flexible guarantee system. Although we may not land in trouble immediately, partly because of the tragedy of the swine vesicular disease, we may well find in a short space of time thereafter that we shall be back in the same peaks and troughs which we had in the previous pig cycle.
I come now to the Prayer. This order removes the guaranteed price deficiency system and replaces it at a stroke and in toto with the common agricultural policy, plus intervention buying, plus the buttressing by the import levy system which presumably will be restored to beef once the Common Market countries have agreed on their prices.
This system of agriculture which we developed in the time of Tom Williams was a national policy in the best sense. It was this which laid down the basis of the post-war prosperity of British agriculture. It gaves both protection and incentive to the farmer. It also concerned itself with the final aim of agriculture—the consumer. In other words, it was a national policy in the sense of being in the interests of the farmer and the housewife. It was also a national policy in that it recognised—and this Government have continually failed to understand this—that it was in our national interests as a basically industrial country to maintain a policy which allowed us to import cheap food for our people while at the same time protecting the home farmer by a form of subsidy which went not to the farmer but to the nation.
This has now gone, and that affects the most sensitive of commodities. We remember the crisis throughout December and January leading to the establishment of an inquiry into the price of beef. It is incredible that the first step which the Government should take in the middle of this prices explosion is the removal of the beef guarantee system.
As background to this we have to look at the Government's attitude toward the question of food prices. The former Minister of Agriculture, who was the person responsible for setting the whole process in motion, was the man who thought that it was deplorable that our people should be molly-coddled on cheap food. We remember the quotation. He was a man who defended the "at a stroke policy" about which we do not hear so much now.
We never promised to reduce prices at a stroke … what we did say was that the policies outlined in our statement of 16th June
'… would, at a stroke, reduce the rise in prices.'
He went on to say that reducing selective employment tax would prevent a rise in prices.
The then Minister of Agriculture said,
We never told housewives that we would reduce prices. What we did say … was that we would reduce the rise in prices. The record of pledges that we have fulfilled in our first year of office is an outstanding one. Hon. Members should know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister keeps his word ".
—we have had experience of that. The right hon. Gentleman said later that the solution to the rise in prices was the
sort of pressure which operates in a free society, and it is far more effective than anything the Prices and Incomes Board did".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1971; Vol. 819, cc. 1210–16.]
The Leader of the House, when he was Minister of Agriculture, told the House that we should not take too seriously anything that the Prime Minister said. I would not want my hon. Friend to take too seriously the promise which the right hon. Gentleman made before the election. If he did, he would be the only person who did.
The housewives were assured by the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister did not mean it and that the whole thing was an illusion. However, the rise in prices is not an illusion.
With regard to beef, in the period from the Prime Minister's promise in July 1970 to the end of last year, without taking into account what has happened during the major part of the freeze when the situation has become very much worse, chuck has increased in price by 46·3 per cent., sirloin by 46 per cent., and brisket by 62·9 per cent. Even imported beef has increased in price by 50 per cent.— in a period of two and a half years. My hon. Friend is right. We must not take the right hon. Gentleman too seriously.
Since the freeze started—the period of fairness—as we have been told—all food prices have risen by 7·8 per cent. in 19 weeks, exactly two and a-half times the rate of increase in the same period a year ago. The rise in fresh food prices up to last weekend is about 14·8 per cent. with an increase at this time last year of about 2·9 per cent. In other words, it is a rate of increase of four to five times the rate of increase 12 months ago. The situation has worsened since the freeze.
The hon. Gentleman is talking about beef. Can he tell us by how much beef prices have increased since the beginning of the freeze from the date which he gave in December last year?
They have gone up by about 10 to 12 per cent. This has happened during a freeze. The hon. Gentleman might ask by how much the wages of farmworkers, the people who produced the beef, have risen in the same period.
One of the consequences of this is the effect on consumption habits. I got involved in a controversy with the Prime Minister a few months ago when I declared that as a nation we were eating less beef than we were eating during the last period of rationing. The right hon. Gentleman accused me of being untruthful and alarmist. That was an unfortunate remark, because the figures came out this morning and they show that we are now eating less beef than we were in 1954. The national food survey shows that the consumption of beef and veal amounted to 30 lbs. per head in 1954. In 1972 it was 22·78 lbs. Even if one takes the Prime Minister's system, the marvellous new method he has discovered by using the trade method of analysis—the so-called "supplies moving into consumption" method which was supposed to prove that I was untruthful and alarmist—we were eating more beef in 1954 than we are in 1972. I am still waiting for an apology from the Prime Minister.
It is against this background that this system is introduced. It is not introducing a free market. Very far from it. It is introducing a system whereby the market is bolstered to maintain high prices. It is a very contrived system, a controlled system. It is a system designed to maintain high prices—and at this time of all times, and of all commodities.
It will be argued by the Minister tonight that because prices are so high at the present time it is irrelevant whether we keep the deficiency payment or not. He will say that we can take measures to deal with them internally. We have permission to do that for a period. Indeed, the beef levy was removed for the EEC countries last December. Is it the case, during that period when the EEC suspended its own rules and levy, that New Zealand was prepared, during our crisis in meat supplies, to ship lamb to us over the winter if we would remove the levy, and we refused to remove the levy? Is that the case? Because what happened? The New Zealanders have found new markets, and 5,000 tons went to Chile, a completely new market. They found new markets, and we lost the meat.
Why should we have this order at this moment? The farmers do not want it. They wanted the guarantee system to remain. The President of the National Farmer's Union, Mr. Henry Plumb, not always a friend of our side of the House —though he may be after this order which
the Government have presented us—said that the NFU felt
strongly that the guarantees should be kept as a safety net for the five years transitional period".
The President of the Scottish NFS was even stronger. He said,
We believe this decision to be a mistake. We have argued for the retention of the guarantees scheme over the transitional period.
So the farmers do not want this system. They wanted the guarantees to remain. Both the housewives and the fanners are betrayed by this order.
Why should it be brought in now? After all, the guarantee was given by the Leader of the House. He wrote the NFU a letter in July 1971. He said that
We are not being expected to abolish our system of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments on entry, so producers will have time to accustom themselves to the new régimes".
Six weeks after our entry into the CAP we have already given up our system before they have had time to accustom themselves to the new regime. The Minister went on:
No terminal date has been set in the negotiations to the ending of deficiency payments".
We have to ask, if no date was given, why we are doing this now when assurances and promises were given to the farmers and housewives that the guarantee system would remain.
The effects of unscrambling our system have already been seen in sugar and bacon prices. Remember, there was the prediction that bacon might go up ½p. Within two weeks that ½p had become lp.
The farmers recognise the importance of the safety net, and the fear of change in consumer consumption. Was this change due to EEC pressure? If not, why have the Government done this? It is no use saying they have done it because prices are so high that the guarantee system does not work anyway. That of itself is an indictment. After all, we elect a Government in order to deal with these effects. They have not acted to deal with the effects of CAP. Secondly, this has arisen precisely because prices were expected to remain high because the CAP was conditioning the market. I recall the analogy used by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), that, in dealing in shares, when the dividend is expected to rise, the shares begin to rise, too. It was precisely the same in this situation. There was that expectation. We have gone rocketing into this without any word from the Conservative Party.
Secondly, if the Government are doing it now it means that they expect high prices to continue. If the argument is that prices are so high that it is meaningless to continue the guarantee payments, that must mean by definition that the Government expect high prices to remain and that they have given up any attempt to deal with the problem.
Thirdly, it means that the Government have given up the fight inside the EEC for a policy that is fair to both farmers and consumers. Apart from the price argument, the Government must have a measure of support within Europe for the kind of deficiency structure which we have been using. I do not think that Dr. Mansholt would disagree with what I am saying. When a spaniel rolls over on its back we expect it at least to bark sometimes. The Government have not even barked. We indict the Government for what they do and how they do it.
The pre-empting of the Annual Price Review was announced in a Written Answer to the Chairman of the Conservative Party Agricultural Committee. It is typical of the way the Government have treated the House and the nation on Common Market matters. Decisions are made in Brussels. We read in the Press that negotiations have taken place, the information is leaked to the Press and the Press comments. The one group of people to whom the decisions of the last few months have never been announced is the House of Commons.
By pre-empting "at a stroke" the Annual Price Review, the Government have insulted the House of Commons. To announce the removal of one of the basic commodities from the Annual Price Review in a Written Answer is an insult to the House. It is unwanted and we oppose it for that reason. It is unnecessary at this stage. The Government have rejected the advice they have received from all quarters—from the Sun newspaper on the one hand to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research on the other—to bring in food subsidies. By dismantling the deficiency payment guarantee price structure the Government are dismantling an essential link in the chain by which we could have brought in food subsidies to protect our people.
Finally, we reject the policy because of the crass insensitivity of the Government, now of all times, right in the middle of the price explosion, in dismantling our traditional food support system. They have transformed a five-year transitional period for beef into two weeks at the expense of the British farmer and housewife. While food prices are soaring, farm workers' wages are frozen. Ministers are fond of criticising the militancy of workers, but given this background of rising prices which their policies have created they should be marvelling at the workers' restraint.
I do not want to dwell on what the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said. He did his best on a flimsy brief. He did not appear to want to hear my intervention, so I will repeat what I said. Since shortly before Christmas fresh beef prices in Britain have declined by over 20 per cent. That is what I said and it is no use denying it.
I do not shed any tears of sorrow for the demise of the fatstock guarantee scheme, nor on the other hand do I welcome it. The British beef producer has done a wonderful job since the scheme was introduced. That cannot be denied. When the scheme was introduced in 1964 we had a beef breeding herd of 1,106,000 head. At Christmas 1972 that herd had expanded under the scheme to 1,906,000 head. It has done a splendid job and it would be churlish for anyone to deny it.
At the same time, it will be recognised on both sides of the House that any scheme which is to replace the present one must give an amount of security to the beef producer of this country— especially one who is taking the stock right through—similar to that provided by the existing scheme. The existing scheme provides a beef producer with the necessary time—it needs three or four years to take the beef right through to market—particularly with the undertaking that at any price review prices will not be reduced by more than 5 per cent. per annum. With that important undertaking, the existing scheme has provided the producers with the stability on which to build the wonderful expansion which has taken place.
I want to examine now what we shall get under the new policy we are adopting as part of the common agricultural policy. It appears to me that the security under the new scheme will be every bit as real and probably even more beneficial to the beef producer than the one we are discarding. I say that because at the moment the guaranteed price for our beef cattle live weight is about £1330 per hundredweight. This is being abandoned and under the new scheme we find that the guaranteed price—or, as it is called in the EEC, the intervention level—will amount to about £14·50.
In addition, in the succeeding years, as we go on the transitional path towards full membership, there will be further annual substantial increases guaranteed to the beef producer until we reach the present intervention level in Europe of over £20 per hundredweight, which is likely to be considerably more by the time we get there in the late 1970s. The new scheme offers the beef producer in this country a long-term security and a form of certainty which has existed in the old scheme and which has been so successful. On that basis, I offer it my welcome.
I understand that fat stock certifying officers will be made redundant. Is it proposed that they will do a form of independent weighing service of beef carcases at deadweight centres, which was formerly one of the tasks they undertook. Secondly, can my hon. Friend give an assurance—I am sure he can —about the Intervention Board and the intervention machinery being brought into use? None of us can contemplate it today and we do not know what we can contemplate tomorrow, but is the intervention machinery ready for operation and are the necessary cold stores ready for the storage of beef on intervention?
I understand that the Community's price review will be announced in May, and that it is likely that fat beef prices will go up some three or four per cent. in that decision. Can my right hon. Friend say whether this will affect our guide prices at once, or whether it is proposed that any change which may come about at Community level next month will be brought into use in this country, perhaps at the next change for the year 1974–75?
I intend to take up one or two of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), because the Opposition agree with him that the present system of guaranteed prices for fat cattle has served the nation well. It has been of great benefit to both the farmer and the housewife.
We are asked to accept that farmers should now lose the protection of the guarantee system for all eligible stock sold on a liveweight or deadweight basis. It is a tried and trusted system which many people will be sorry to see go.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) that farming opinion, although it knows that it has nothing to lose in the immediate future, is uneasy about this very early termination of the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Scheme in respect of beef cattle. This may be the result of some of the horse trading which has been going on in Brussels whereby we have sold the pass on beef in order to get help over some other commodities.
The order comes into force next Monday, 26th March. Farmers may not be worried by the termination of the scheme, but there are a number of matters arising on what is to replace it. We have not had a system of intervention buying before, and, although we know the rough price levels for intervention buying, there are still a large number of questions which remain to be settled.
We have only seven days to go before the order comes into operation and the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Scheme for beef cattle is terminated. Intervention buying applies to carcase meat and not necessarily to cattle. It will apply to meat of a certain quality only. With only seven days to go before the old system is abandoned, we do not yet know what qualities of meat the Intervention Board will be able to buy in. Farmers may not be worried, but politicians and administrators should be.
Furthermore, there are as yet no overall Common Market standards for the intervention buying of beef laying down qualities. One question that we should like answered is when the quality standards for the buying in of beef will be announced to this House. All we know is that beef carcases which kill out at less than 50 per cent. will be excluded from the operation of the Intervention Board. That does not cut out many carcases. Most cattle kill out at well above 50 per cent. We know also that it will include culled cows, which is a new departure in this country. At last we are to give official sanction to the use of culled cows for beef production.
Then there are a number of technical difficulties in describing beef carcases. Can the Minister say, for example, whether the MLC's carcase classification scheme forms the basis of intervention buying? The MLC has put out a good system which is welcomed by all progressive cattle people in the country. The question is whether it will be allowed to continue as the basis for intervention buying. I hope so.
The hon. Member for Harborough talked about the special position of fatstock staff in the Meat and Livestock Commission. I do not know whether any of them will be made redundant, but unless we get a statement from the Minister tonight—and it does not look as though we shall—their future is a little uncertain. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to produce some words of reassurance to them. It is desirable that these MLC fatstock staff are used at the intervention centres so that they can continue doing more or less the same type of work, albeit with some technical variations, as they are doing now.
A further technical question for the Minister is whether intervention buying, when it comes, will be at particular deadweight centres or at deadweight centres generally. If it is only at particular deadweight centres, it could mean a great deal of favouritism for those centres, in that obviously that is where stock will be sold when market prices fall below intervention buying levels. That might well help towards the rationalisation of slaughterhouses which is something that people might welcome long term, but I wonder whether that is the Minister's intention.
We are abandoning the present system, and this is a major change not only for the House of Commons and for the housewives of this country but also for farmers and fatstock producers generally. A high percentage of the fatstock sold each week is sold through auctions on a liveweight basis or a liveweight private treaty basis. What will happen if there is intervention buying? Obviously it will have to take place on a deadweight basis.
I think that this new emphasis on deadweight buying is good, as I worked for a long time with a firm which put its trust first and foremost in buying off the hook rather than off the hoof, but when intervention buying has to take place is there not a possibility that stock will begin to bypass the auctions through which much of the present fatstock goes? If so, that may lead to a rapid decline in the auction markets.
I am not here to speak up for the auction markets. I think that they are not a particularly good method of selling fatstock, and I am sure that that view would be echoed on the benches opposite. Nevertheless, even if the auctions are gradually going to decline under this system, many farmers and auctioneers who use them may not think so, and I think, therefore, that the long-term effects of what we are being asked to do tonight have not been explained to the House or to the farming community. It is about time that the Minister, or someone in authority, told us exactly what will be involved as from next Monday 26th March. What we are talking about at the moment is uncertainty and vagueness. At present, farmers are not too worried, because prices are high and are likely to continue so for the next two or three years. Nevertheless, they are producing meat in the long term, and in the long term many things could happen. Farming changes rapidly, and although not as rapidly on the fatstock side as on the pig and, to a lesser extent, on the sheep side, we may not always be in a situation of a grave shortage of beef. Therefore I ask the Minister to make sure that he can give some real reassurance tonight to farmers and to the MLC staff involved, because such a reassurance would help the industry generally.
The last few words of the speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) made the case for the order. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The intervention prices will not apply for two or three years at the minimum.
The hon. Gentleman's speech disproves the case which the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) tried to make. I have never heard such a speech. It was full of mischievous half-truths. If it was the hon. Gentleman's intention to cause chaos, confusion and trouble among the farming community, it is lucky for us that farmers are too wise to be taken in by his words.
It would be useful if the hon. Gentleman were to name one of the half-truths to which he referred. Secondly, many farmers have made it clear that they want the present scheme to continue.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to name a half-truth. Certainly I can. He said that the farmers will be bamboozled because we are taking away the guaranteed prices which are essential to their well being. As has already been said, nothing of any importance whatsoever is being taken away. The price is higher than the guarantees. The hon. Gentleman knows that if by any misfortune he happened to be in my right hon. Friend's place, he would not find any beef in this country anywhere near the guarantees price, which is below the intervention price. He knows that what he was saying was a load of codswallop.
Let us go back to what the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West said about the problems which arise. Of course, it is correct to say that by going over to an intervention system at some time in the future, the emphasis is placed on the carcase—on the hook rather than on the hoof. I agree with this development. This must gradually happen over the years to come, and most forward-looking farmers would agree with going from the hoof to the hook. At the same time, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism about the demise of livestock auctions. Certainly in Derbyshire and elsewhere there will be markets dealing with the young livestock yearlings and so on. 1 do not see that trade declining at all.
However, what the hon. Member for Renfrew, West must be clear of is this. He was on the horns of a dilemma when he tried to argue that the farmers were puzzled and worried because something which was of no importance to them was going to be removed, and at the same time the consumer was going to be hard done by, by having these guarantees removed. The two do not march hand in hand and they cannot be reconciled. I do not believe that moving over and doing away with the fatstock guarantees— which, as has been said, have served us very well in the past but are now out of date and are of no practical application to the farming industry—will have the slightest effect on the level of the prices which the housewife will have to pay for her beef or any other meat product in the coming years.
It is true that it is next week that the Community are making up their minds about their own price determinations. We shall hear what they are either on Thursday or Friday of this week. But this will be of no importance to the House or to our farmers at all because we are within the levels of determinations which we would have had even if we had kept the fatstock guarantees. It would be within the terms of Article 54. The fact that they have been taken out means that the bottom of the so-called floor, which would have existed, and which would have been completely unimportant to our farmers, would have been raised by a certain amount depending on what the EEC in Brussels decides, whether it is 4, 5 or 8 per cent. The bottom of the intervention point would have been raised by that much, but it would have had little effect on the level of prices in this country, for they will remain that much higher because of world conditions which will continue to prevail.
I imagine that we shall be taking steps, as from Monday of next week and indeed in ensuing years, to raise the level of the intervention, although the level of the actual price in the market will certainly stay a great deal higher than the intervention price for at least two or three years more, and, in my view, a great deal longer than that. What is replacing the fatstock guarantees—the deficiency payment, so-called—with this new system of intervention prices as the safety net will be a better system in the future for our livestock breeding industry and for the beef industry.
Our beef producers have not relied only on the fatstock guarantee over the years in expanding their herds. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) gave the figures. There have been other things at work to help them to raise the level of herds and the level of killings. The beef cow subsidy, the calf subsidy and so on—all these factors have had an influence. Many of them will continue under the new proposals put forward by the Commission regarding hill farming areas. I have no doubt that these incentives will continue.
I have no doubt that what my right hon. Friend is proposing is right. We should do away with the fatstock guarantee, which has served its purpose well. The future is well safeguarded, and it will be greatly to the advantage of our livestock farmers to rely completely on the new system of support through intervention prices under the EEC policy for this product.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) is right when he says that the new system will cause a rationalisation of slaughterhouses. But what a nonsense that makes of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, on which so many of us laboured for many days when it was a Bill in Committee in the middle of last year. We pointed out that that Bill would hamper the good slaughterhouses and encourage the growth of inefficient slaughterhouses, and we tried to persuade the Government to postpone the vital clauses in view of the effect which our impending entry into the EEC would have.
The hon. Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) have argued that farmers will be much better protected under the new EEC arrangements, with intervention buying. I must correct one figure which the hon. Member for Harborough gave. I agree that the guaranteed price for beef is £13·20 per live cwt, but, from the information I was able to glean from the Library this afternoon, I understand that the EEC guide price per live cwt is £16·51, a rather higher price.
I realise that hon. Members will probably argue that this will protect the farmer, but what are we talking about?
No, I have not. The Government and their supporters express great concern for the fanner, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) said is right, that even the farmer could be undone later on. The Government are assuming that the present high price of beef and the forecast high price after our entry into the Common Market will continue for ever. Obviously, they do not intend to use the present guaranteed price method as a means of helping the consumer. This is the point.
It is all very well to say that beef prices are higher than the guaranteed price, and have been for some time. The Government appear to be satisfied with the present guidelines and with the fact that the intervention policy can force them up even higher, or safeguard them so that they remain high. It is no good telling that to my constituents in Bradford, which is a low-wage area. It is no good telling it to people who attended a meeting I addressed in Yorkshire this weekend, people who were saying that even before the present high beef prices they could afford beef only once a week. If we are to believe all that we have heard from the Conservative side on this matter, and I do, the price of beef will go much higher. What will the low-paid do if that happens? The Minister of State may smile but this is no laughing matter for the low-paid, the pensioner and the people on the lowest fixed incomes. They know that the little meat they may have had in the past has now gone completely. Instead of six meatless days a week they will now be faced with seven.
Surely the Government could have used the system of guaranteed prices to provide assistance to the consumer. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he can offer the consumer as well as about the guaranteed prices for the farmer. It is no earthly use his telling us, as he said on television, that the only way to bring prices down was to increase the amount of beef on the hoof. The Government can do something. They could help the low-paid workers. If they will not allow them better wages will they provide food subsidies? Could that be linked with the guaranteed prices machinery?
I wonder whether the Ministers concerned with agriculture read the report of the debate that took place on a Prayer a few weeks ago when I spoke from the Opposition Dispatch Box. I spoke— the Minister does not need to smile about this—about people earning £15 or £16 a week take-home pay or less. What hopes have such people of buying beef? What hopes have the pensioners, even with the increased pensions given in the Budget, of buying beef at the fantastic price that it is?
It is all very well the Conservatives being smug and saying glibly that the Opposition are talking nonsense. They can talk glibly about the guaranteed price being unnecessary because the price obtained is much higher than the guaranteed price and that the price in the Common Market will be higher than that. They say that intervention buying in the EEC will ensure that it is higher still. We should take that smug look off the faces of the Government Front Bench by insisting that they tell us what they intend to do to ensure that the poor people of this country will get a little piece of beef on their plates on Sundays, something which is denied them now.
I hope that the Minister will pay some attention to the unfortunate consumer at the bottom end of the scale and not just blind us with science about how much better the farmer will be protected when he goes to market. Let us have protection for the consumer.
The speeches which we have heard from the Opposition indicate a good deal of misunderstanding about what hon. Members are trying to pray against. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney)—I understand his concern that the poorer people should have the opportunity to buy meat—must understand that the order, whatever views may be held about it, will not have the effect of making it more difficult for the poorer people. If anything it will make it a good deal easier for them in the long run.
The speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) was an extraordinary speech. I do not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) who called it codswallop, but it was an odd speech to make on a Prayer of this kind. The hon. Gentleman introduced a lot of extraneous matters that have no relevance to the order. He was trying to deal with a variety of matters which we have dealt with at Question Times on a number of occasions recently. He repeated certain percentages which I have told him in the past I do not accept. It is as well to understand that the Government use precisely the same official price index as the previous Government used when in office. We stand by the same official index. I suggest that it is only right and proper that our discussions should be based on a similar approach from both sides of the House. I gave the figures recently and I do not propose to go through all that again.
The Prayer is related to the Order which was laid on 7th March dealing with the abolition of the guarantee arrangements for fat cattle and rye. We have heard nothing about rye tonight. It is accepted that it is a small matter although, of course, there is concern. The market price for rye is well above the guaranteed price anyway. The argument has been related to beef.
In some way the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and the hon. Member for Bradford, South have argued that the order is against the interests, on the one hand, of the consumer and, on the other, of the purchaser. The only hon. Member on the Opposition benches who seemed to understand the matter clearly was the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), who made some interesting points, even though I might not agree with some of the conclusions which he drew.
It is important to understand what is involved. Beef prices in this country have risen to the extent that they are now not only way above our recent guarantees, but so far above the the guide prices for the Community that the retention of the guarantees provide no more assurance for the British farmer—indeed, not so much—than there is provided by the Community arrangements. The auction price for the type of animal qualified under our guarantee price system is expected to average over last year £15·70 a live hundredweight, which compares with the guaranteed price of £13·20. Prices have been as high as £21 during January. That has been a matter of much comment from Opposition hon. Members.
It is not logical for Opposition Members to complain when we remove the guarantee which is no longer applicable. Prices even now are about £5 a hundredweight above the existing guarantee price, and there have been no guarantee payments since the week beginning 8th March last year. It seems clear that no further payments will be called for during the present fat stock year.
Under the Treaty of Accession we have retained the right to maintain a guarantee price during the transitional period for individual commodities. We have retained that right until Community prices take over from the United Kingdom guarantee price system. We intend to exercise that right as far as it is necessary to do so. Once we reach the position when the Community price applicable to this country is above the existing guarantee, it is sensible and logical that we switch to the Community system. That is precisely what we are proposing to do. The guide price under the Community price for 1973–74 cannot be less than £14·87 per live hundredweight. That is the existing price level. Of course that could be increased if increases are brought about as a result of Community arrangements during the coming month's discussions. This was a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). If there are changes in terms of beef, it will affect the guide price applicable in this country.
Is the Minister saying that, because of present world beef prices, he apprehends that there will be no fluctuation in the entire transition period which might lead to de-stabilisation of producers' returns. If there is some de-sitabilisation, does he expect that farmers will have to obtain security from the market or from the intervention prices?
I am not saying there will be no fluctuations in the transitional period which could not ring in some form of intervention. I am saying that as intervention prices in the Community are higher than our existing guaranteed prices, it is logical and sensible to switch over to that system. Not only is the figure £14·87, but it is applicable to all cattle, whereas the present United Kingdom guarantee applies only to clean cattle and is equivalent to another 80p bringing the price to £15·70 if there is to be a figure comparable with our present guarantee. This will give or producers adequate and greater assurance for the future.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West asked me to say something about what will be announced in the price determination which I hope to announce to the House later this week. He knows that I am unable to say anything about that tonight, I shall announce it at the appropriate time. I shall deal with any point about fat cattle and calf subsidy.
The figures in the Community show that price levels are such as to give adequate assurance to our producers. This is important to our producers and to our consumers. It is only by encouraging increased production that we can ensure that adequate supplies are available. This is the important factor which should be of interest to Opposition Members who claim to be interested in consumer problems. The way to help the consumer is by stimulating increased production.
I have dealt on a number of occasions with the points about subsidy. I have pointed out that no Government in this country in normal peace time has endeavoured to produce subsidies of this nature because of the involvement in relation to allocation and possible rationing.
On the point about subsidy, let us take the hypothetical situation that has been suggested in the Press. The milk deficit will be wiped out in the Annual Price Review and will be borne by the Government in the price that goes to the consumer. Will not that be a subsidy?
I do not propose to comment on that because it refers to the Price Review. It has nothing to do with beef. There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a different regime in regard to milk. That is a quite irrelevant point.
I was asked about fatstock certifying officers. The Meat and Livestock Commission will act as agents for the Intervention Board on the activities that follow and we must discuss this matter with the Commission. There may be some redundancies in the course of time, but I hope it will be possible to make suitable arrangements in this respect.
I was asked whether the Intervention Board is ready for operation. The answer is yes, it is ready. There are now some 65 different slaughterhouses which are approved for use. These have been notified to farmers' leaders and the Intervention Board is currently discussing arrangements on cold freezers and ice stores with the National Federation of Cold Storage and Ice Trades. These matters are in hand. The board is confident that in the unlikely event of there being a call on the Intervention Board, it will be in a position to operate the system. This is an important reassurance.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West quoted the Scottish National Farmers' Union, but the Scottish farmers made it clear in their Press handout that it could be argued that intervention buying provided more effective protection for the consumer than the old system, which was a guarantee to the industry as a whole. The views of the English NFU also show no serious concern about this matter.
I am confident that the farmers as a whole will be well satisfied with these arrangements. They are sensible arrangements that are part of a logical development of our integration into the CAP. Those who dislike the CAP may not like our moving into it, but having accepted it as part of the Treaty of Accession, we are entering it.
The arrangements will not harm the farming community. Indeed, they will be in the long-term interests of not only the fanning community, but the con- sumer, because they will maintain confidence, as the Government has succeeded in doing over the past two years. It will help to increase the stock of beef-breeding animals. There are striking figures on the beef breeding herd and the heifers coming into use for beef which show welcome indications for the long-term future of beef supplies.
I remind hon. Members that the price of beef has gone down in the past month. Beef prices are still high, but, with increased production, they will become lower. There is nothing in the order to prevent their coming down and there is every stimulus to bring them down from their present still high levels. Beef prices are mostly the result of world conditions, not Community forces. They are the result of world shortages. The order is a sensible step in our policy of encouraging better beef production. This is the way in which both the farming community and consumers may benefit.
The provision is made clear in Article 54 of the Treaty of Accession. We are following the terms of that article precisely. It says that we may maintain our own guarantee system and subsidies until prices reach the level of our own guaranteed prices. We are thus acting precisely in accordance with that provision. That is what one would expect from the Government once the Treaty of Accession had been signed and ratified. It is a logical system, and I hope that the House will find it worthy of support. I am surprised that a Prayer against it should have been moved.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West referred to the two orders. There is little that I can say about them. The position is clearly set out in the orders. They could have been debated, but the hon. Member chose to go at once to the Prayer. Presumably, that was because he thought the beef position was the most important.
The orders are a logical development of our policy. I shall be announcing, I hope later next week, the determination of the Price Review, which will show a continuation of our concern to encourage increased production in this country, which I believe to be in the interests of all the people of this country. I therefore commend the order and ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to reject the Prayer.
The first reason is that there is nothing in Article 54 that compels the Government do it now. They have done it by choice or by compulsion of the EEC. Secondly, they have misunderstood that the reason for the attack on the system is that we do not intend when we return to power to maintain running high prices, as the Conservatives have.
|Division No. 85.]||AYES||[11.30 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Deakins, Eric||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Hunter, Adam|
|Ashley, Jack||Delargy, Hugh||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)|
|Ashton, Joe||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Janner, Greville|
|Atkinson, Norman||Doig, Peter||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Dormand, J. D.||Jeger, Mrs. Lena|
|Barnes, Michael||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Duffy, A. E. P.||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)|
|Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)||Dunn, James A.||John, Brynmor|
|Baxter, William||Dunnett, Jack||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Eadie, Alex||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)|
|Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Edelman, Maurice||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Edwards, Robert (Bllston)||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Ellis, Tom||Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||English, Michael||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)|
|Booth, Albert||Evans, Fred||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Ewing, Harry||Judd, Frank|
|Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland)||Faulds, Andrew||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Bradley, Tom||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Kelley, Richard|
|Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)||Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)||Kinnock, Neil|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Lamble, David|
|Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury)||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Lamborn, Harry|
|Buchan, Norman||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Lamond, James|
|Buchanan, Richard (Q'gow, Sp'burn)||Foot, Michael||Latham, Arthur|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Ford, Ben||Lawson, George|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Forrester, John||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Leonard, Dick|
|Cant, R. B.||Freeson, Reginald||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Carmichael, Neil||Galpern, Sir Myer||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Garrett, W. E.||Lipton, Marcus|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Gourlay, Harry||Loughlin, Charles|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Coleman, Donald||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||McBride, Neil|
|Concannon, J. D.||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||McCartney, Hugh|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||McElhone, Frank|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Hamling, William||McGuire, Michael|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||Machin, George|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Hardy, Peter||Mackenzie, Gregor|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Mackie, John|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Mackintosh, John P.|
|Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Heffer, Eric S.||Maclennan, Robert|
|Dalyell, Tam||Horam, John||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)|
|Darling, Rt. Hn. George||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||McNamara, J. Kevin|
|Davidson, Arthur||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Huckfield, Leslie||Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield,E.)|
|Davies, lfor (Gower)||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Marks, Kenneth|
|Marsden, F.||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Marshall, Dr. Edmund||Pendry, Tom||Stallard, A. W.|
|Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Perry, Ernest G.||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Meacher, Michael||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Prescott, John||Strang, Gavin|
|Mikardo, Ian||Price, William (Rugby)||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Millan, Bruce||Probert, Arthur||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Radice, Giles||Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)|
|Milne, Edward||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, ltchen)||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Tinn, James|
|Molloy, William||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Tomney, Frank|
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Richard, Ivor||Torney, Tom|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Varley, Eric G.|
|Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Moyle, Roland||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)||Wallace, George|
|Murray, Ronald King||Roper, John||Watkins, David|
|Oakes, Gordon||Rose, Paul B.||Weitzma'n, David|
|Ogden, Eric||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Wellbeloved, James|
|O'Halloran, Michael||Rowlands, Ted||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|O'Malley, Brian||Sandelson, Neville||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Oram, Bert||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Orbach, Maurice||Shore, Rl. Hn. Peter (Stepney)||Whitlock, William|
|Orme, Stanley||Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Oswald, Thomas||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Padley, Walter||Sillars, James||Williams, W. T. (Warrington)|
|Paget, R. T.||Silverman, Julius||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Palmer, Arthur||Skinner, Dennis|
|Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Small, William||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Parker, John (Dagenham)||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)||Mr. Joseph Harper and|
|Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Spearing, Nigel||Mr. John Golding.|
|Adley, Robert||Cooper, A. E.||Gray, Hamish|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Cordle, John||Green, Alan|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Corfield, Rt. Kn. Sir Frederick||Grieve, Percy|
|Amery, Rt. Hn Julian||Cormack, Patrick||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Costain, A. P.||Grylls, Michael|
|Astor, John||Critchley, Julian||Gummer, J. Selwyn|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Crouch, David||Gurden, Harold|
|Awdry, Daniel||Crowder, F. P.||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Dean, Paul||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Hannam, John (Exeter)|
|Batsford, Brian||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)|
|Bell, Ronald||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Drayson, G. B.||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Benyon, W.||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Hastings, Stephen|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Dykes, Hugh||Havers, Michael|
|Biffen, John||Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Hicks, Robert|
|Blaker, Peter||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Higgins, Terence L.|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)||Hiley, Joseph|
|Body, Richard||Emery, Peter||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)|
|Boscawen, Hn. Robert||Eyre, Reginald||Hill, S. James A.(Southampton,Test)|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Farr, John||Holland, Philip|
|Bowden, Andrew||Fell, Anthony||Holt, Miss Mary|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Hordern, Peter|
|Bray, Ronald||Fidler, Michael||Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia|
|Brewis, John||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Fookes, Miss Janet||Hunt, John|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Fortescue, Tim||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Bruce-Gardyne J.||Foster, Sir John||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Fowler, Norman||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus,N&M)||Fox, Marcus||James, David|
|Buck Antony||Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodtord)|
|Burden, F. A.||Fry, Peter||Jennings, J. C. (Burton)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.||Jessel, Toby|
|Carlisle, Mark||Gardner, Edward||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Gibson-Watt, David||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith|
|Chapman, Sydney||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine|
|Churchill, W. S.||Glyn, Dr. Alan||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Kimball, Marcus|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Goodhart, Philip||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)|
|Clegg, Walter||Goodhew, Victor||King, Tom (Bridgwater)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Gorst, John||Kinsey, J. R.|
|Cooke, Robert||Gower, Raymond||Kirk, Peter|
|Coombs, Derek||Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Kitson, Timothy|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Knox, David||Nott, John||Steel, David|
|Lamont, Norman||Onslow, Cranley||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Lane, David||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Osborn, John||Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M.|
|Le Merchant, Spencer||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Stokes, John|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Sutcliffe, John|
|Longden, Sir Gilbert||Parkinson, Cecil||Tapsell, Peter|
|Loveridge, John||Peel, John||Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)|
|Luce, R. N.||Percival, Ian||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|MacArthur, Ian||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|McCrindle, R. A.||Pink, R. Bonner||Tebbit, Norman|
|McLaren, Martin||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Temple, John M.|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|McMaster, Stanley||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Thomas, Rt.Hn. Peter (Hendon, S)|
|McNair-Wilson, Michael||Ralson, Timothy||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Maddan, Martin||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Madel, David||Redmond, Robert||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Turton, Rt Hn. Sir Robin|
|Maginnis, John E.||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Marten, Neil||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Waddington, David|
|Mather, Carol||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Maude, Angus||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Mawby, Ray||Ridsdale, Julian||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)||Wall, Patrick|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Walters, Dennis|
|Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Ward, Dame lrene|
|Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Rost, Peter||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)||Russell, Sir Ronald||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, ltchen)||st. John-Stevas, Norman||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Moate, Roger||Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Money, Ernie||Scott, Nicholas||Wilkinson, John|
|Monks, Mrs. Connle||Scott-Hopkins, James||Winterton, Nicholas|
|Monro, Hector||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Shelton, William (Clapham)||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|More, Jasper||Shersby, Michael||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Simeons, Charles||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Sinclair, Sir George||Worsley, Marcus|
|Morrison, Charles||Skeet, T. H. H.||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Mudd, David||Soref, Harold||Younger, Hn. George|
|Murton, Oscar||Speed, Keith|
|Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Spence, John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Neave, Airey||Sproat, lain||Mr. Michael Jopling and|
|Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Stainton, Keith||Mr. Paul Hawkins.|