House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 Feb 1991

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that this month is the 50th anniversary of the Air Training Corps and that many thousands of young men serving in the Gulf with the Royal Air Force are former members of it? Is he aware that there are 36,000 young boys and girls in the corps? May we have an early opportunity to debate the fact that young people in Britain have come forward during the past 50 years to volunteer to serve Crown and country?

Mr. MacGregor : I am glad to pay my tribute to the work of the corps and all those who have served in it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make his point even more fully in our debates on the armed services.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton) : May we have a debate on Thames Water and the failure of privatisation? I think, for example, of the failure to restore water supplies in St. Stephen's house, where many staff are having to work in virtually insanitary conditions. May we have an early debate, or at least some action on the matter?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman will have seen the note sent to the occupants of St. Stephen's house. He will realise that there are difficulties at present with the water supply in central London. I do not see that it is possible to have a debate.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Surely we need to have a debate on the disastrous state of the GATT talks as soon as possible. Is my right hon. Friend aware that import controls, which now cover a range of products, from steel to cars and food to shoes, cost the average British family more than the poll tax? Therefore, should we not pay more attention to the issues in the House, especially bearing in eind our position as one of the major trading nations?

Mr. MacGregor : As my hon. Friend knows, the Government greatly regretted the suspension of the GATT negotiations in December. We are doing all that we can to ensure that the valuable progress which has been made up to that point is not lost. I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the matter. The need to reach a conclusion to the GATT round is very important.

There is a difficulty about holding a debate as we need to know at what time it would be right to have the issue raised again in the House. We need to know what progress has been made and to hold the debate at a time that is appropriate in that context.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 449?

[That this House welcomes the mission to Iraq being jointly organised by the United Nations Children's Fund and the World Health Organisation for the delivery of emergency medical supplies for children and mothers and, more generally, to assess health needs ; believes this mission to be firmly within the spirit of the provisions of the Geneva

Column 1010

Convention of 1949, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Declaration of the World Summit for Children which states that the essential needs of children and families must be protected even in times of war and in violence-ridden areas' and goes on to ask that periods of tranquility and special relief corridors be observed for the benefit of children, where war and violence are still taking place' ; recognises the high proportion of young children in the Iraqi population ; and further hopes that once the mission has visited Baghdad it will make every effort to inspect the conditions of children and mothers in other centres of war, including Basra and Kuwait.]

This week UNICEF and the World Health Organisation are taking medical supplies to Baghdad for women and children and they will be examining health conditions in Iraq. Given the bombing that took place yesterday and the horrendous scenes we have been shown from Baghdad, would it not be particularly appropriate for us to discuss the subject?

Mr. MacGregor : We welcome the proposal to send a World Health Organisation and UNICEF mission to Iraq to deliver emergency medical supplies. Experience from similar ICRC--International Committee of the Red Cross--missions shows that satisfactory arrangements can be made for such missions without organising pauses in hostilities or relief corridors. This is another issue that could be raised next week.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : I urge my right hon. Friend to find time next week to debate early-day motion 448.

[That this House notes with great concern the establishment of a secret society within the Parliamentary Labour Party called The Supper Club ; notes that its objectives appear to be distancing Front Bench spokesmen from official Opposition policy, campaigning for a new leader for the party, undermining support for British troops in the Gulf and weakening the authority of United Nations resolutions ; and calls for an early debate so that club members can clarify their policies and their preferences for a new leader.]

Conservative Members would find a debate absolutely riveting because the motion, which stands in my name, concerns the revelation of the existence of the parliamentary Labour party's supper club. The need for a debate is urgent and serious for two reasons. First, we discovered yesterday that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen do not have any economic policies, so if we had a debate next week it might enable the supper club to tell us its economic policies. Secondly, the matter is urgent because it appears that the club is planning to change the leader of the Labour party and we would like to know its candidates.

Mr. MacGregor : I have seen the early-day motion, but my hon. Friend will know that I have no responsibility for the matters referred to therein. It was certainly noticeable in the debate yesterday that there was a total absence of any Labour policies for the future, and I believe that that will become clear in other debates as well.

Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) : I am sure that the Leader of the House, who keeps a keen eye on such matters, has seen that I have tabled a ten-minute Bill for consideration next week. The object of

Column 1011

the Bill is to extract additional money for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Will the right hon. Gentleman support the Bill?

Mr. MacGregor : Since the hon. Gentleman knows that I have no further progress to report on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and as I have not studied his Bill in detail, it is unlikely that I would want to support it next week. I have already made clear the position in relation to the Select Committee.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Will the Leader of the House reconsider the reply that he gave earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? Will he ensure that, as urgently as possible, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary make a statement to the House on the horrific civilian casualties now occurring in Iraq and what plans they have to negotiate a ceasefire so that the carnage that has been wrought upon the people of Iraq and Kuwait can come to an end? That would mean that all the problems of the region, none of which will be solved by the war, can be addressed in a peaceful, political way rather than with the barbarism that is being used in the region now.

Mr. MacGregor : I know that the hon. Gentleman shares the views of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) ; but I also know that there are not many other hon. Members who do so.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : May we have a debate on railway transport and, in particular, the Department of Transport's guidelines that require British Rail to lengthen a large number of station platforms, without any additional money, to conform with the new rolling stock that has been introduced? That is causing British Rail and the travelling public great concern, because in west Yorkshire, for example, many believe that small useful stations will be closed on health and safety grounds when the real reason is that the Government are forcing cuts on British Rail. This would be a useful subject for debate, because it is important that we have an expanding rail network and not one that is continually circumscribed by Government cuts.

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. British Rail is expanding in terms of investment and rolling stock ; there are not cuts. British Rail's investment is at the highest level in real terms for 30 years. The hon. Gentleman mentioned additional rolling stock. Since 1983, Ministers have approved about £1.8 billion of investment in passenger rolling stock and nearly £400 million in locomotives. So that there is much investment, and the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument falls. However, if he wishes to raise particular local points, he knows that other means are available for him to do so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Will the Leader of the House bring forward next week an up-to-date statement on the efforts of the Government to cadge money from other Governments in order to prosecute the Gulf war? If the Irish nationalists are condemned for raising money in America in order to carry out their wishes regarding Irish nationalism, what is the difference between that and the

Column 1012

British and American Governments running around the world touting for money for this American-led mercenary war?

Mr. MacGregor : The hon. Gentleman must know that there is the world of difference. The conflict in Iraq is being undertaken under the auspices of a United Nations resolution, and a large number of Governments are participating. The position is totally different. On the issue that he raised about a statement next week, I suggest that he reads yesterday's debate where he will see that the matter was referred to in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West) : The Leader of the House mentioned that there would be opposed private business on Monday between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock, as though it had nothing to do with him or the Government and was purely a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. If that is so--the measure concerned is the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill--how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the existence of a document, a copy of which I have seen, from the Government Chief Whip instructing all Ministers to be present for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and the business which follows it, and telling them also to procure the presence of their Parliamentary Private Secretaries? How does he reconcile that with the reply that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) in respect of Government whipping on the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill on5 February, when he said that individual members of the Cabinet vote according to their individual wishes?

Does the Leader of the House agree that the documentary evidence we have shows clearly that private Bills are being passed through the House under the flag of convenience and that they are, in fact, Government measures? Will he agree to refer the matter to the Select Committee on procedure?

Mr. MacGregor : As the hon. Gentleman knows, whipping is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

BILL PRESENTED

Cold Climate Allowance

Mrs. Margaret Ewing, supported by Mr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Jim Sillars and Mr. Dick Douglas, presented a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect the increased costs of domestic heating in colder climates ; and for purposes connected therewith : And the same was read the First time ; and order to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker : With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the five motions relating to statutory instruments. Ordered.

That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Column 1013

That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft Income Tax (Building Societies) (Annual Payments) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Chapman.]

Column 1014

Opposition Day

[ 6th Allotted Day

]

Agriculture

Mr. Speaker : I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I have no authority to limit the length of speeches in a half-day debate, but it would be helpful if hon. Members tried to limit their speeches to 10 minutes and if the Front-Bench spokesmen, of whom there will be four, exercised a self-denying ordinance on the length of their speeches.

4.13 pm

Mr. Geraint Howells (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North) : I beg to move.

That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for presiding over a crisis in agriculture which has seen 6,000 farmers leave the industry in 1990, real farm incomes fall to their lowest level since the Second World War and farmers' debt increase by £400 million in two years ; believes that this crisis already threatens the social and economic structure of rural areas and the livelihoods of many farmers ; regrets proposed changes in the Common Agricultural Policy ; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to bring forward proposals to protect the agricultural industry by moving support from overproduction to direct support aimed at social and environmental goals by the introduction of countryside management agreements across the country, by enhanced payments for achieving environmental aims, in particular extensification of food production, by marketing initiatives, and by reformed systems of direct support targeted in particular on family farms.

We are debating a serious issue. The purpose of our calling the debate is to try to restore confidence in an ailing agricultural industry. I forewarn the Minister that I will not attack him personally. I hope that during the debate I shall be able to advise him a little, from my farming experience, on the mistakes that his party and his Government have made over the last 12 years. It is to be hoped that the introduction of our 10-point policy, which I trust that the Minister has read, will enable us to go forward and improve the nation's agricultural industry.

I have had the pleasure of representing a rural constituency in west Wales for the last 17 years. The majority of my constituents are self-employed farmers, many of them on small family farms. I hope to have the pleasure of continuing to do what I can to help them for many years to come.

Never during the past 50 years has the future looked so bleak for British farming, an industry which has rightly prided itself on its efficiency. It is sufering from a crushing loss of confidence that has driven, and is continuing to drive, many farmers from the land. Over 6,000 workers, 4,000 of them full-time, left the land last year. How many more will leave the land this and next year? Let us hope that something can be done in the short term to stop the decline. Unfortunately, farmers' debt amounted last year to £7 billion, compared with £3 billion at the beginning of the 1980s. Interest alone is now costing the industry £1 billion annually. The high interest rates that have prevailed for the last couple of years have caused increasing problems to an already overstretched industry. The reduction

Column 1015

announced yesterday has come too late for many and is too little to save many hundreds of others from financial ruin in the next few months.

Let us make no mistake about the fact that all farmers are suffering in the current situation, including the large farmers of East Anglia, the dairy farmers of Devon and the south of England and the hill farmers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But those who stand to lose the most are the smaller family farmers, of whom there are many in every part of Britain.

When I refer to family farms, I am speaking of farms that are looked after by the husband and wife and perhaps son and daughter, all earning a living from their parcel of land. It is important to do all that we can to preserve that type of farming, of whose record we should be proud. The livestock producers, the descendants of farmers who toiled on upland farms in the less-favoured areas over the centuries, have helped to weave the fabric of rural Britain, of which we are proud.

Some may ask why, in a time of recession, agriculture should be picked out for special treatment. We Liberal Democrats believe that agriculture has a vital role to play in the United Kingdom economy and in maintaining the structure of rural Britain. It deserves support as an efficient industry which has increased production, until today we are 75 per cent. self- sufficient in food. We must maintain a thriving agriculture so that we can carry on producing high-quality, reasonably priced food for the consumer. We also need the farmer as the guardian of the countryside, a responsibility which he has successfully carried out since time immemorial.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, faced with the present crisis, we in rural Wales are concerned not just with agriculture directly but with the whole of the rural economy? Village life depends on the farms that are under threat. If farming goes, the whole infrastructure of large areas will disappear.

Mr. Howells : I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency similar to mine and encounters problems similar to those that I encounter. I am sure that the Government will take heed. We need the farmer as the guardian of our countryside--a responsibility which, as I have said, he has successfully carried out since time immemorial.

Last, but not least, we recognise that if our rural communities are to survive, the farmer, his or her family and related industries and services must be encouraged to stay in the countryside. That may be difficult at times, but we have to do our best. A Conservative Member shakes his head. I wonder whether he is against such a policy.

Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the crofters and farmers of the islands, particularly the Scottish islands, contribute to the local community and are very valuable to the countryside? The agricultural development programme that was instituted for the islands was very welcome, but people now find that they are unable to keep up their payments, and we shall have to seek an extension. Many of these people are too proud to ask for help. This is the sort of thing that makes life very difficult for the farmers of the islands.

Column 1016

Mr. Howells : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who cares so deeply about her people in Scotland. As I have told her many times, I refer to her as "Miss Scotland". I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of what she has just said. We need the part-time farmers and crofters in many parts of Scotland. [Interruption.] I am sure that she is proud to be called "Miss Scotland"--if only because of the record of her father, who played so often for Scotland.

We must not leave the industry at the mercy of naked market forces, as the Government seem intent on doing. They are willing to allow free market forces to take over completely, and quite content to allow the structures that have been developed since the second world war to encourage British farming to wither away.

Mr. Alex Carlile (Montgomery) : My hon. Friend has just mentioned the Government's willingness to allow market forces to run riot. I know that he is aware that the Government seem willing to allow that in relation to agricultural tenancies, too. Does he agree that the policy that the Government have offered in their recent consultation paper--that agricultural holdings should be subject only to negotiation in the free market--is unrealistic? Bearing in mind the inequality of bargaining power between a young applicant for a tenancy and an experienced land agent, does he agree that a free market in tenancies is likely to wreck the strength of the agricultural rented sector? [ Hon. Members :-- "Speech."] Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to ensure that there is a reasonable supply of farm tenancies is to give fiscal incentives to both landlords and tenants?

Mr. Howells : That is my hon. Friend's speech done. As a poor hill farmer, I must listen to my colleagues at length. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will advise the Government. If my memory serves me well, he has until 31 March to express his views. I am sure that he has already drafted something and that it is on the way to the Minister. The point that he has just made is very valid and constructive.

Our parents and grandparents saw unfettered market forces in action in the 1920s and 1930s. At that time there was even greater desertion of the land. Rural communities were dispersed, and the production and distribution of food were inefficient and inadequate.

During their 12 years in office, the Government have signally failed to provide the necessary encouragement for an industry which surely deserves better. Therefore, they are failing not only the farmers, but the consumers and rural community of which farmers form the backbone.

I shall give a little bit of advice and a little history lesson to the Minister. I do not think that he was here in 1973--

[Interruption.] He indicates that he was here then. Just to remind him--the Tory Government of 1973 decided to do away with the deficiency system for beef cattle. Within 12 months, the beef industry had hit rock bottom, calves were left at the market throughout the country and could not be sold. We could not sell our beef cattle.

In 1974, I was elected to the House. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the late Fred Peart made a wonderful job of saving the beef industry in that year. It was a lesson for every one of us, and makes me wonder whether the agricultural industry of Britain will survive in a free market economy without safeguards for the produce of this country.

Column 1017

I listened to the Minister with interest at the annual meeting--

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : He spoke well.

Mr. Howells : He spoke quite well, but he made a point about the future of the milk marketing boards about which I am a little worried and perturbed. I remember the days before the war when we had a free market economy. During the past 50 years, the forefathers of hon. Members on both sides of the House have fought hard to establish the milk marketing boards. It all started in Cardiganshire in west Wales in the early 1930s. During the past 50 years, the boards have served producers well and dairy farmers are still farming in every part of Britain.

I do not think that the Minister was responsible although I may be wrong, when the Government decided in 1988 to do away with the guaranteed price for wool. This year, the farmers will be paid that guaranteed price of between £1.15 and £1.25 per kilo, but next year they will not have the guaranteed price, and our sheep and wool producers will lose about £30 million next year because the Government have done away with the financial agreement.

The decision was taken unilaterally and had nothing to do with the European Community. It was a Government decision and a big mistake. On behalf of the sheep producers of this country, I say--I am sure that hon. Members will agree--that we should bring pressure to bear on the Government to reintroduce that financial agreement for another five-year period until we are out of our present crisis. If the will is there--I hope it is--that can be done.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says about the critical position facing family farms throughout the United Kingdom. To go back to his history lesson, do farmers in Ceredigion and Pembroke, North agree with the view expressed to me by many farmers in Scotland, that agriculture always does better under a Labour Government? Would he like to speculate on why so many of them persist in voting Conservative?

Mr. Howells : I will not follow that line, but I will say that most farmers in Britain will vote for us next time, because we have a good policy to help them out of this crisis.

The Government made a big mistake in the early 1980s when they persuaded our farmers to expand, to spend more, to invest more and to produce more. That continued for four or five years. I respect the Minister's views, but now, five years later, he is trying to persuade farmers to produce less. I honestly believe that the Tory party has misled and mismanaged agriculture during the past 12 years--

Mr. Colin Shepherd (Hereford) : Going back to an earlier passage in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the milk marketing board, is the House to understand that he is advocating the retention of the board with no change in it? If so, can he explain how he reconciles that with the requirements of the European Community, which I believe his party supports?

Mr. Howells : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know from speaking to dairy farmers in his constituency--I spoke to many of them at their annual general meeting

Column 1018

this week--that more than 90 per cent. of them favour holding on to the milk marketing board with its present statutory powers. That is food for thought for the Minister. Given the will to do so, he may be able to persuade his counterparts in Europe to keep the present system.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer) : I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on these matters, butI wonder whether he will help me. At present, 35 per cent. of the milk sold in this country is of the skimmed or semi-skimmed variety, which does not come under the present marketing arrangements. There is also the problem that the movement towards standardised milk will have serious effects on those arrangements ; and there is the further problem that this country has so far not been able to produce the quality of product at the top end of the market, so, even though we are less than fully supplied with milk, we are producing milk for intervention products such as butter.

All three aspects mean that, as the milk marketing board has itself said, the board should start thinking of moving towards a voluntary co-operative. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with his views that somehow we can stay exactly as we are?

Mr. Howells : I advised the Minister a few minutes ago that the Government made a big mistake with one of our statutory boards--the British Wool Marketing Board--in 1988. He should not make a similar mistake in 1992. We have learnt the lesson the hard way, so I hope that the Minister will not let our dairy farmers down after 50 years of stability.

Mr. Richard Livsey (Brecon and Radnor) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the milk marketing board is under threat from the views of the Dairy Trade Federation, and that it is having to bend to the federation's views? Other Ministers have protected the milk marketing board's position in the past and this Minister is duty bound to do the same now.

Mr. Howells : My hon. Friend's views are always sound ; but I must add that I shall not give way any more today.

One of the problems is that there has been no consistent agriculture policy ; instead, there have been sudden switches of tactics which cannot entirely be blamed on the Government. In the early 1980s, the cry was for increased production--and as fast as possible. Farmers were urged to invest in equipment and buildings, and then suddenly there were cuts and quotas. Little wonder, then, that agriculture has been so unnerved. From one year to the next, farmers have to change their plans and have little opportunity to form long-term strategies or to invest sensibly. They must be given the chance to plan ahead.

The Minister is right to criticise the current MacSharry proposals, but he is wrong to lay the blame for all the industry's ills at the door of the common agricultural policy. The Minister has so few positive proposals that we wish to make some constructive suggestions of our own. The industry would benefit from a 10-year strategy aimed at assisting farmers during transition. It would encourage them not to resist inevitable changes and would ensure that they compete on equal terms with other European farmers.

We have a 10-point plan and some of the points are especially relevant. First, we have said that resources must

Column 1019

be switched from supporting over-production to direct support for farm incomes, and that payments must be specially targeted on medium and small family farms. Secondly, as agriculture underpins the social fabric of rural Britain, it follows that direct support must concentrate on social as well as environmental objectives. Thirdly, the future of the European family farm should not be sacrificed in any attempt to bring the GATT negotiations to a conclusion. If a reduction in some support for agriculture can be justified, it must be gradual and sensibly phased.

We say that less-favoured areas and environmentally sensitive areas should be extended, and the system used to sustain local farming communities and to encourage environmentally friendly farming and the preservation of the countryside. In case some Conservative Members think that this attack on the Government is only by Liberal Democrats, let us hear the view of the National Farmers Union. I am delighted to see that the new president of the NFU, David Naish, is here listening to the debate. I wish him well in his new office and thank the ex-president, Sir Simon Gourlay, for the services that he rendered to British agriculture.

According to the NFU the MacSharry proposals strongly discriminate against British farmers. The NFU states:

"Although rebuffed on first outing by Council of Ministers, these proposals are likely to come back in some form in some very tough EC price proposals due to be announced soon".

The NFU says that the

"Minister be left in no doubt that he must not come back from Brussels without having removed the discriminatory aspects of the package."

It says that the cut in interest rates is welcome, but that there is a pressing need for the Government to go further, and soon. It states :

"Unless urgent action taken soon we shall see the demise of the small family farmer in British agriculture, together with his role in the rural community and management of the countryside."

The Farmers Union of Wales states that it

"recognises the threat to Welsh agriculture of a revised CAP favouring the Allotment' farmers of Europe".

The Minister understands that quotation. The FUW continues : "however it is undeniable that 80 per cent. of EEC support goes to 20 per cent. of farmers --and that 60 per cent. of farm support does not get through to the farming community"--

that is most important--

"Preliminary estimates suggest that this waste--the proportion of consumer and taxpayer expenditure on current farm support which does not get through to farmers--is about 60 per cent. on average. While public dissatisfaction with the growth in this spending is almost all directed to agriculture only some 40 per cent. is actually benefiting farmers."

We are concerned that the Government are presiding over a gradual decline in agriculture. It has been starved of support and resources and, as a result, it is fighting for its future. I fear that it may already be too late to reverse that trend. Time is not on our side. We face the consequences of further cuts in support, the open market of 1992, and greater access to the European market by iron curtain countries. Urgent and effective action is needed to ensure that farming survives as an effective force. We hope that

Column 1020

this debate will make a turning point in public and Government perception of a once great industry, which came to the country's rescue in two world wars.

In the last century, a prominent Englishman, George Borrow, travelled through Wales, from north to south--and his book, in which he describes his experiences, is very interesting. When he came to my area of mid-Wales, he wrote :

"This is an area where crows will die and men will live." I hope that the day will never come when only crows will live in mid-Wales, and there will be no men there to farm the hills and uplands.

4.40 pm

Next Section

Home Page