House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Jun 1993

Column 380

The first criticism is that the Tory party is supposed to believe in free markets and the potato marketing scheme restricts that. Secondly, it is said that the housewife is forced to pay a higher price for her potatoes than would otherwise be the case if there was no such scheme. Thirdly, it is said that the processing companies are concentrating their capital investment in continental Europe to the disadvantage of British employment and our balance of payments because of the scheme.

I hope to demolish those three propositions. First, with regard to free markets, I have already said that there is a totally free market in potatoes outside the farm gate. In that regard, I want to refer to the Nottingham report. Nottingham university is in the first constituency that I was elected to represent in 1959. I have a very high regard for Nottingham university, and I was a member of the university council for many years.

The Nottingham report is a distinguished document, which I have read with the greatest care. I believe that it demolishes most of the criticisms against the potato marketing scheme. The report states : "The current system of market intervention is one that works with the market rather than against it."

The abolition of the potato marketing scheme, far from producing a free market in the technical and economic sense of the phrase, might have precisely the opposite effect.

The processors are potentially a monopolistic group of mainly international companies. They take 33 per cent. of the total market in potatoes in this country and 25 per cent. of the home-grown crop. The market in frozen chips is dominated by one processing firm--three firms take 90 per cent. between them and one takes 60 per cent. The market in crisps is dominated by three firms.

If the Government decided to abolish the potato marketing scheme, my farmers assure me that they would be handing over a large and diversified agricultural industry to a small group of international companies which would be able to determine the acreage of potatoes planted and their price. Many farmers have put it to me that there is a much stronger case for referring the processing companies to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission than there is for abolishing the potato marketing scheme.

We do not have as strong a co-operative movement among potato growers in this country as there is on continental Europe. That is another reason for not allowing the oligopolistic tendencies of the processors unfettered expression.

I want now to consider the argument about forcing up the prices to housewives. Fresh potatoes still form three quarters of the market and are, in economic jargon, a price inelastic commodity. The consumption of fresh potatoes in Britain does not change much with price changes at the farm gate, although fresh potato consumption has been steadily rising in the United Kingdom for years unlike the trend in any other European country.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are a potato eating people. The potato is our staple diet. We are the only European country of which that is true. The competitors of the potato are pasta and rice, both of which are imported products. In any event, it is the retail chain, not the producer, that mainly determines the price to the housewife.

In the earlier part of this year, farmers in my constituency received about 3p a lb for their potatoes

Column 381

loose. The housewife pays about 20p a lb for loose potatoes in the shops and about 30p to 40p a lb for packaged potatoes depending on their quality and variety. That shows what a small part the price paid to farmers plays in relation to the price that the housewife pays.

I am assured that farmers receive only about 30 per cent. of the retail price of pre-packaged potatoes, only 10 per cent. of the retail price of frozen chips and only 3 per cent. of the retail price of potato crisps. It is therefore absurd for processors to argue that the British potato grower is in danger of pricing the processor out of the retail market. As I have said, potato consumption does not change much with a change of price at the farm gate, but what do change are the profit margins of the big international processors. That is no doubt the reason why the chairman of the processors wrote to me and a great many other hon. Members a letter that I received this morning in which he strongly urged me to vote for legislation which would abolish the potato marketing scheme.

8.30 pm

Another criticism is that processing is being forced overseas by the potato marketing scheme. That criticism was completely shot down by the Nottingham report. If anybody cares to read the section on processing, he or she will see that one sentence reads :

"British potato processors are not adversely affected by the potato marketing scheme."

At great length the report explains the justification for that remark. I will not delay the House by giving all the detail, but I do not see how anybody could read that section of the Nottingham report without being convinced by it.

The continental producer, of course, usually has a much smaller production unit. He uses less expensive capital equipment and, in general, produces potatoes of a lower quality and at a lower price than our potato producers. My farmers feel that the producers want to be able to get their higher quality British potato at a depressed price and to acquire total dominance of the British potato market, although they buy only a quarter of the home- grown crop.

We were told much by the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about how well the processing investment was going overseas. When one studies the matter overseas, one is immediately informed that the market has approached satiation point in Holland--some companies there are going bsunk so much capital into continental Europe, are bringing processed potatoes into Britain. Having made that big investment overseas, it is extremely unlikely in the present circumstances that, if we abolish the potato marketing scheme, they will suddenly start to invest more capital in new equipment in this country when there is already overcapacity in Europe.

The import-export argument is often used. Potatoes are a bulk commodity and are too expensive to move in most cases, so the scope for large-scale exports of British fresh potatoes is unlikely to be great. The balance of payments argument, which is the third argument against the potato marketing scheme, does not stand up to analysis. The employment point is also often advanced against the scheme. Again the arguments point in exactly the

Column 382

opposite way. There are about 16,000 registered potato farmers, but there are 14,500 active growers at the moment, employing about 60,000 workers. In rural areas, that is extremely important, particularly in Lincolnshire. Despite the large capital investment of big growers in equipment, by modern agricultural standards potato growing is still a relatively labour-intensive industry.

A farmer on a typical 1,300-acre farm in my constituency, with 150 acres of potatoes under the quota, told me last week that he now employs eight full- time workers and that five of those eight would be made redundant if he switched out of potatoes because of the uncertainty which could flow from a destabilised free-for-all regime. That is undoubtedly the case. It is virtually certain that the abolition of the potato marketing scheme would force many small potato growers in particular out of business. The Nottingham report, which was published as recently as April, estimated that 7,000 potato growers--40 per cent. of all potato growers--might go out of business without the potato marketing scheme, at a loss of half a million tonnes of potato production, which would presumably then have to be imported.

With her recent ministerial experience at the Department of Employment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will understand the serious social and employment implications of those statistics, particularly in areas such as my constituency where we have about 14 per cent. unemployment on the coast and where potato growing provides much valuable employment. I suspect that the same is true in many other parts of the country. Whatever Ministers might say to the contrary, every potato grower in my constituency would be most alarmed if the scheme was abolished. They are all convinced that that would lead to much greater price fluctuations and much uncertainty. At a time when CAP regimes are being introduced for sheep, beef and set-aside, it makes no sense at all for the traditional British potato to be the only arable crop enjoying no form of agricultural protection.

I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will feel able to accept the two amendments that I have tabled. [Interruption.] Despite what the hon. Member for Workington says, amendment No. 49 would ensure that she would not use her powers under the legislation to close the schemes without the fullest consultation with everybody connected with the industry. Amendment No. 50 would build into the legislation the fact that, if the Community produced such a light weight potato marketing scheme that it would be virtually useless in stabilising the market, she would again have to consult all interests before using the European initiative as an excuse to abolish the potato marketing scheme. I hope that, as a listening Minister, she will seriously consider accepting my two amendments.

Mr. Tyler : I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) and I echo many of his points, but I hope to do so very briefly rather than repeat them. The hon. Gentleman led neatly to my first question. Given the evidence that he has put before us and the evidence that we have had from many other sources, exactly who is in favour of abolishing the marketing scheme? The answer is the Potato Processors Association--that is all ; it is just one potato. When I met a group of Cornish and other south-western potato farmers in Central Lobby just a few hours ago, they said, "There must be some reason for the extraordinary influence of

Column 383

that comparatively small number of people." The only way in which they could interpret it--I do not cast any aspersions --is chequebook diplomacy, which has been rather notorious in recent days. I suggested that it might be a case of crisp bank notes rather than cheques.

On Second Reading, Conservative Members were critical of plans to abolish the board and the scheme. The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), himself a former Minister, said :

"The potato scheme has worked extremely well over the years I am much disappointed that there is a danger of the potato marketing scheme disappearing."--[ Official Report, 23 March 1993 ; Vol. 221, c. 814.]

The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) said : "many people, including my potato growers and farmers, may question whether it is worth having any EC regime at all, since it will do so little."--[ Official Report, 23 March 1993 ; Vol. 221 c. 820.] There is widespread concern right through the industry--not just among processors--and the hon. Member for East Lindsey has rightly reflected that concern this evening.

I stand slightly uncomfortably between the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for East Lindsey. The new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Workington and the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Lindsey are both of value. They fit together--indeed, it is critical that they should fit together. My hon. Friends and I endorsed the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Lindsey precisely because we hoped that they would be placed before the House--and, if necessary, put to the vote.

There is widespread concern among all producers, be they seed producers, early producers, such as the famous early producers from Cornwall, or main crop producers. Demand is growing. The reason for that, even in the comparatively short period since the completion of the Committee's consideration of the Bill, there has been a major development--the failure of the Council of Agriculture Ministers to make any progress whatever in the development of a regime. There has been another, perhaps more encouraging, development--the arrival at the Dispatch Box of the new Minister. I draw attention to the second section of the report in Farmers Weekly to which the hon. Member for Workington somewhat peculiarly did not refer : "Mrs. Shephard said reviewing the potato scheme was one of her first priorities"--

we shall have the benefit of her advice on that tonight. "She would approach the subject with an open mind she promised. She wanted to see the lightest possible regime' but intended examining MAFF's plans for the scheme as well as the EC's suggestions for potatoes. As an MP for the mainly arable constituency of Norfolk South West she is well aware of potato producers' objections to the plans to scrap the scheme and the Potato Marketing Board. I have heard strong expressions of feelings about it,' she admitted." That is significant. I hope that her arrival will prove to be the positive development that can be set against the negative developments in Brussels.

Why did the Agriculture Ministers fail to agree? They failed because all the other producer states are enjoying the greatest degree of subsidiarity that they can exploit in the interests of their own producers. We are the only country that seems not to be prepared to do its best by its own producers. Those of the other 11 member states that produce potatoes--I do not know whether Luxembourg, for example, does--are desperately trying to keep in place

Column 384

the most advantageous schemes that they possibly can to help in what has become an extremely competitive situation. As the hon. Member for East Lindsey rightly said, we should be doing the same. In the absence of an effective regime to help the whole industry throughout the Community we have an obligation to try to make that happen. At present, the imbalance is increasing because the Governments of other member states are doing their best to make sure that it does.

We have heard a number of references to the university of Nottingham report, the title of which has been misquoted. The proper title is "An (Un)Common Potato Regime : the EC and the PMB". I want to read two or three extracts in which the argument not only for the retention of our scheme but for its use as a model for others is put succinctly. The report says :

"The record of several European countries in the potato sector demonstrates that potato producers require some form of collaboration or cooperative in order to achieve stable and reasonable incomes through time. The yields and returns from the crop are inherently unstable--much more so than for other arable crops. Certain vegetable crops may have similar problems, but there the Community has adopted intervention and withdrawal as measures to aid producers' incomes in such sectors. For those crops, at least, the Commission has recognised that yield instability, perishability, and difficulties with storage require an element of supply management ; albeit after the crop is grown. For potatoes the problem is greater because of the relatively larger area grown and consumed. It is the single largest vegetable item produced and eaten in the Community. Hence, stable supplies and prices are more relevant than ever."

The report continues :

"The PMS represents a model for farm policy-makers that deserves consideration and repetition in other sectors."

As the hon. Member for East Lindsey said, rather than disposing of the PMS, we should be replicating it in other parts of the market. Finally, the report states :

"Oligopolistic processing and retailing sectors will tend to exploit growers unless there is some countervailing power available to the production sector. The Potato Marketing Board surely has some role to play in this."

Thus, the conclusion of that excellent report was not just that the potato marketing scheme and the board represent something of which we should be loth to dispose, but that it is peculiarly important to retain them at this juncture.

8.45 pm

At the moment, potato growers are facing the worst of all worlds. One of the Cornish farmers who came to see me this afternoon showed me the figures for his potato crop for 1992-93. The total cost, excluding management time and professional fees, came to £80,000 for about 60 acres. That yield is not remarkable or incredible, but it is not bad either. The income from that crop was £43,200. Such huge losses cannot be repeated year after year without more and more growers being driven out of business. That farmer said that, if the growers have another similar year or if the scheme goes and therefore the fluidity of the prices becomes even more alarming, he will have to make half his staff redundant. It should be remembered that my area is also an area of very high unemployment.

In those circumstances, we shall find that the other member states, which have in place the best support systems that they can devise for this sector of the industry, will carve up the market and we shall be at their mercy. To coin yet another new phrase, it will be the most uneven ploughing field yet.

Column 385

The Minister is still in her honeymoon period. She has three great advantages. I am sure that other hon. Members from both sides of the House who have farming communities in their constituencies will agree that the right hon. Lady's arrival in Whitehall place has been warmly welcomed for three reasons. First, she has a farming background and it is to be hoped that that will help her to understand the problems of the industry. The speech that was referred to earlier will perhaps give added encouragement to that view. Secondly, the right hon. Lady is known to be a good listener--although whether the hon. Member for East Lindsey is right in thinking that the whole Government are good at listening is perhaps a matter for dispute. Certainly, the right hon. Lady's predecessor did not go round the farming community and achieve such a reputation. Thirdly, and perhaps most important for the farming community, the right hon. Lady is not her predecessor. That is why I hope that she will not automatically adopt her predecessor's views this evening.

Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 are welcome and useful. I hope that the right hon. Lady will think so, too. I hope that the House will either accept them without a Division or, if a Division is called, will vote to add them to the Bill. The Minister must answer the very real concern about the circumstances that have arisen following the failure of the Council of Ministers to develop even a light weight regime--let alone a more effective regime. I hope that, in the hiatus that has followed that meeting, she will be able to reassure the potato producers of this country that they will not be given a potato in a poke--an intolerable state of affairs in which all the producers of all the member states receive better treatment than they do.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : I welcome my right hon. and hon. Friends to their ministerial appointments. Having entered the House with them in the 1987 intake, I am not surprised at the progress of their careers. They will bring a great deal of common sense to the agricultural industry and do a lot of good work for it. While it is a great joy to have a lady Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I remind the House that we had a lady Minister of State not long ago--Baroness Trumpington. She took a leading role in the reform of the potato marketing scheme when we previously examined it. I well remember her visiting my constituency and confronting many of my farmers with the bad news that the potato marketing board would disappear. She listened to their arguments and said, "Perhaps we can have another think about it."

I sense that we are in the same situation now because there has been much debate about the future of the potato industry and the scheme. If one thing is clear, it is that no clear consensus has emerged. Despite the welcome fact that the Government have accepted the amendments carried in another place that there should be parliamentary control over the enabling power to revoke the potato marketing scheme, it is right that there should be some greater certainty about the need for more consultation before the scheme is revoked.

The House must be concerned about the wide discrepancy in the view of the growers and processors. As we know, growers see the scheme as providing both stability and the prospect of a reasonable return on their potatoes. If there is no scheme, there will be a potato glut and a fall in incomes, and growers would be forced out of business. Indeed, the threat of the abolition of the scheme has created the current uncertainty among growers,

Column 386

coupled with the failure of the Commission to make any real progress in the creation of a Community-wide potato regime. At the other extreme, potato processors such as McCains in Scarborough on the edge of my constituency, which buys from many potato growers in north Yorkshire, say with some force that they want to buy more locally grown potatoes. We must face the fact that, in their view, the scheme prevents them from doing so and does not give the growers enough encouragement to grow the right variety and quality of potatoes for their factories.

Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway : I will not take any interventions because we want to wrap up the debate quickly.

The last thing that the House should want is a solution imposed by Ministers. I want the growers and processors to find a common solution. We largely achieved that with regard to the future of the milk industry. Where we are now with the potato industry is where we were two or three years ago with the milk industry. There was a lot of resistance to change and the two sides of the industry failed to reach a common position. As we found that common solution with milk, I believe that we can achieve the same in the potato industry. I want north Yorkshire and the United Kingdom as a whole to have an expanding potato industry with more United Kingdom-grown potatoes processed in United Kingdom factories with that product sold at home and overseas. The proposed Community-wide scheme is some way off and may not happen, so there is time for the matter to be debated further, although I suspect that we do not have unlimited time.

The present scheme does not protect United Kingdom growers from low-priced imported products and that has undermined the market, certainly in Yorkshire. But there is an opportunity for more discussion and consultation to find a solution. The potato industry needs an agreed solution--that is the best way forward. The industry does not need a political solution or an imposed one. Amendments Nos. 49 and 50, to which I have added my name, provide the mechanism by which we can not only have that further consultation and discussion but provide some greater assurance about the future of potato growers.

Farmers and potato growers in Ryedale and north Yorkshire, and workers in McCains modern processing plant at Cayton, Scarborough, should be on the same side of this matter, not at loggerheads. That is what happened in sugar and it should happen in potatoes. A partnership solution between growers and processors is what the potato industry in the United Kingdom badly needs.

Mr. Ainger : I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) because I wanted to make the point that there is a forum where producers and processors can get together and discuss acreage and types of potatoes to be grown--the Joint Consultative Committee. When one looks at the minutes of the JCC and talks to its members, it is interesting to see that the processors have never demanded a higher acreage or different varieties to be grown. When one reads the minutes of those meetings, it is stretching the imagination to believe what the processors say because they have a forum and an opportunity to address their concerns. It leaves hon.

Column 387

Members with the belief that the processors are concerned not about growth or the type of potatoes grown but the price of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) took us on a nice trip around Europe. At last, we discovered--I hope that it is good news for Ministers--what has been going on in other member states with regard to support and intervention. It is worth while comparing what is currently happening in our potato industry with that of Brittany.

In Central Lobby today, I met local producers from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). I was told--I shall use acreage terms--that if an early potato producer in Pembrokeshire could get an income of £1,000 per acre, he would get a reasonable living. We are looking at £800 to cover his costs. In fact, producers now get between £400 and £500, so obviously there is a massive loss. The potato marketing scheme has been implemented. Total assets of about £2 million--25 per cent.--have been allocated to early growers. However, that will leave them with a significant loss this year, which unfortunately follows a significant loss last year. This year, about 15 per cent. less acreage has been planted and it has been estimated that there will be a further cut of about 30 per cent. as a result of the poor season this year. That is important because the early potato sector has an excellent record of import substitution. In 1987, 385,000 tonnes of new potatoes were imported. That has fallen to approximately 260,000 or 270,000 tonnes now. When we have a balance of payments problem, it seems crazy to allow production of a basic staple food such as potatoes to fall and to encourage imports in.

I return to the comparison that I was making between Pembrokeshire and Brittany. We have a looming crisis. The levy-payers--the producers--will benefit to the massive tune of £500,000. As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington told us, the French Government are intervening directly using French taxpayers' money, not producers' money. The Government have already contributed, according to my figures, more than £1.3 million to their early potato growers. That is the equivalent of about £530 to £560 to each one.

Government intervention is not the only factor in France. The French potato industry has developed powerful co-operatives which in effect set quotas and market the produce directly from the producer. They also supply the seed. They control the acreage in the same way, to a certain extent, as the JCC does.

9 pm

If the Bill is not amended we shall face the prospect in the near future of only British producers being left unprotected in the face of Government intervention and powerful co-operatives establishing quota and acreage, marketing and so on in continental Europe. It is bizarre that the first part of the Bill abolishes the milk marketing boards and encourages the establishment of a powerful co-operative to replace them, yet it sweeps away the potato marketing board and puts nothing in its place.

This is my first opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State to her new post. I urge her to listen to what the producers are saying and what people in rural communities are saying. As the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) said, the potato industry makes a vital contribution to rural areas in terms of employment

Column 388

and income. The Secretary of State represents a rural area so she knows that well. It seems ludicrous to leave the Bill unamended. We have heard that it is highly unlikely that we shall get an EC regime. We shall leave our British producers unprotected in a market in which their EC competitors are determined to export to Britain maincrop and early potatoes. I trust that the Secretary of State will have something positive to say in her reply.

Mr. Clifton-Brown : You allowed me to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the basis that I spoke briefly, which I intend to do. First, I welcome my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend to their posts. They bring a new look to the industry which I am sure will be welcomed.

I listened to the debate for many weeks in Committee. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) went on at some length. I thought that I had heard it all. When he announced this evening that he had come up with a better scheme than all the experts had done since the potato marketing board was set up in 1958, and that it almost worked, I nearly fell off my seat. I am sure that the PMB will rush to employ his services as a consultant. But, under the Labour party's new probity, I am sure that he will refuse any consultant's fee.

I declare my interest as a potato grower. Let me bring a little sanity to the debate. In the past 10 years the amount of processed potatoes that we import has doubled from about a quarter of a million tonnes per year to a little more than half a million tonnes a year. On a yield of 20 tonnes per acre that works out to some 30,000 acres. That is 30,000 acres of potatoes that we could be growing in Britain. It amounts to a loss to our balance of trade of £125 million. That is a large sum of money. So there is a good case for looking carefully at our potato market.

It is plain that the potato marketing board has been an outstanding success. The hon. Member for Workington quoted many figures from the Nottingham report which was commissioned by the PMB, so although it may be independent, we cannot expect it to come out glowingly against the PMB.

It is a fact that in the last three of the past 12 years price fluctuations were higher in the United Kingdom than elsewhere and that in any four years price fluctuations were lower here than elsewhere. Therefore, the comment that we have heard so often this evening that the PMB has brought stability into our potato market is simply not borne out. Indeed, in the past season large tonnages of potatoes were changing hands at well below the cost of production, at £30 a tonne or less. The hon. Member for Pembroke, North (Mr. Ainger) has told us that this year many of his early growers are losing money. Last week I heard that an ex-farm price in Pembroke was £41 a tonne whereas at this time of year one would expect the price of potatoes to be £100 a tonne.

The kernel of my remarks is that we are now in a changing market. It will become increasingly easy with technology and better chilling methods to import not only fresh potatoes but every sort of processed potato, so we must consider our potato market.

I recognise from letters and representations from my constituents that they welcome the PMB/PMS overview of our policy. I have made representations to my right hon. Friend and, indeed, her predecessor to the effect that we should go slowly on abolishing the PMS. It would be folly to abolish the PMS the moment that the Bill is enacted and, as the hon. Member for Workington has rightly

Column 389

pointed out at length, to suffer the subsidies that would follow. It would be folly to lose the stability that the board brings until we have a regime, however lightweight, across Europe, to which we can oblige our Community partners to adhere under Maastricht. I welcome the thrust of the Bill, but I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to think carefully and not to throw the baby out with the bath water. I urge them to go slowly. In that respect I welcome amendment No. 49, which calls for consultations with the industry, but I do not welcome amendment No. 50 because a poll of the industry would produce a difficult result. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh must know that 60 per cent. of the market is produced by just 2,000 of the 16,000 growers. Why, then, should a poll on a per member basis produce the ultimate answer about what should happen to the market?

One needs to consult widely to see the best way forward for potato growers and, above all, for consumers and processors, so that we start to repatriate some of the half a million tonnes produced abroad which should be produced here. I look forward with eagerness to what my right hon. Friend has to say.

Mr. Welsh : I think that the massive impor of frozen chips has more to do with a lack of processing capacity than with the workings of the potato marketing board. Nevertheless, I share the wish of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to see increased home production. He again proves that absolutely nobody supports the abolition of the PMB. I have not even heard the Government defend such a policy. Perhaps they will do so before the evening is through.

Although I, too, welcome the new faces in the ministerial team, I hope that they will bring new thinking and a fresh approach. In particular I hope that they will listen to the industry and those involved in production.

I support maximum consultation with the industry. I remind the Government of the massive and strongly felt opposition in Scotland to any abolition of the PMB. Although it is not a perfect institution, it has by and large served the interests of producers and consumers over the long term. If the Government had listened to Scottish farming views, the PMB would be in no danger of abolition. The scheme would certainly be modernised and improved, but there would not be the threat of abolition. I wonder whether the Scottish Office shares completely the views about abolition which have been expressed elsewhere. It seems that there are two voices. I hope that what I interpret as the Scottish Office voice will prevail. Perhaps it will and the Minister will surprise us all before the evening is through. I remind the Government about the importance of the potato industry to Scotland. It is a major employer and a major source of employment in other, related industries. These decisions are of major importance to us. Scotland's ware industry and its crucial seed industry require both stability and direction if they are to plan ahead properly. I remind the Minister of the capital- intensive nature of the seed potato industry. I am told that the investment requirment is about £3,500 per hectare. Thus, any delay or doubt in decision-making simply destabilises the industry and, with uncertainty, investment simply stops. These

Column 390

amendments would eliminate at least some of the uncertainty and allow the industry to participate in decisions about its own future. There is a need for proper planning horizons. There is too much short-termism in the approach to agriculture. In the case of the potato industry, producers require firmer guidance as to the Government's intentions so that the industry may plan ahead properly. Producers have to look to markets and contracts. The sooner the Government clarify their decisions, the better. I am told that the actual production of potatoes takes a year and a half of forward planning. This extends to four years or more when capital investment, banking decisions, machinery, and so on, are taken into consideration.

That brings me to the argument about a level playing field. This is not just the use of a cliche ; it really is an attempt to ensure that the industry will not face massive disadvantages. Our industry has the quality and the expertise to beat any of its competitors if it is allowed a level playing field. The United Kingdom's potato industry is not a burden on British taxpayers, yet it has to compete against its European Community counterparts whose Governments positively finance their potato sectors. I am told that £7 million in loans was given to Spanish producers last year, that Italy supplied £50 million to its producers, that France has put £13 million, if not more, into its industry, and that Portugal gives growers an export subsidy. The British Government will put our industry at a great disadvantage if theyrittany's early potato growers assistance to the tune of millions of pounds to prevent market collapse in an area that provides about 80 per cent. of French early potatoes. The British Government must understand that it is little wonder that our industry is concerned about the abolition of market stabilisation measures here while direct competitors have such advantages given to them by their Governments. Does the Minister accept the concern of potato growers about the need for a level playing field? Can she give a guarantee that the potato marketing scheme will not be abolished while other European countries implement market stabilisation measures that are not available here? Can the Government guarantee that they will not revoke the scheme before the European Commission requires that to be done? Otherwise our industry will face massive disadvantages.

The industry requires consultation, stability and a level playing field so that it may plan for the future. Potato production is massively important to Angus--indeed, to Scotland--and the Government's overall strategic decisions will affect, in turn, a mass of associated industries and services. I am thinking of transportation, the supply of machinery and the very important processing sector. In summing up, I put to the Government a plea for clarity of action so that producers and processors may begin to plan ahead. Confidence--or, more important, the lack of it--is a major factor affecting this sector of the industry.

A change of Ministers should provide an opportunity for second and cooler thoughts on the subject and allow those affected to have a real say in deciding their future. I

Column 391

do not expect, however, that the Government will allow that freedom and that sort of decision-making power to our agriculture industry, more is the pity.

Mr. Cash : I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend the member for Lindsey, East (Sir P. Tapsell). [Interruption.] We have corresponded on this matter. I want to get it on the record--because I have a direct constituency interest in this matter--that I endorse what he has said and many of the other remarks made during the debate.

9.15 pm

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Gillian Shephard) : This has been an extremely interesting debate. Not the least interesting feature has been the light in which we have now all been led to regard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr.

Campbell-Savours). He has revealed himself as a capitalist, an entrepreneur, a faulty drafter of clauses, but an excellent drafter of potato marketing schemes. We have been treated to a vision of the hon. Gentleman in his bath and, finally, when he read the extract of what I said in 1989, he showed himself to be a wonderful female impersonator.

What is clear about the hon. Gentleman's performance is that his customary paranoia has not deserted him. He accused the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of rejecting his starred amendment, but he must know that that is a matter for Madam Speaker. I reject his accusation.

I noted that my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), in moving his amendment, attempted to compare me to the unfortunate Madame Cresson. I will pass over that comparison, the white helicopter and everything else. He spoke about processed potatoes, and I wonder whether he has noted the massive changes in the pattern of potato consumption in this country since 1975. In 1975, we consumed 143 lb of potatoes per head per year ; in 1992, we consumed 110 lb per head per year--a considerable reduction. In the same period, the consumption of crisps has increased. In 1975, we consumed a mere 7 lb per head per year ; in 1992 it increased to a staggering 17 lb per head per year. I am amazed by those figures. All I can say is that it is obvious the hon. Member for Workington has not been indulging, but I might have been. As to frozen chips, in 1975 we consumed 4.7 lb per head per year ; in 1992 consumption rose to 18 lb.

Those figures should be noted because they indicate a great change in the demands on our potato processors. I would remind hon. Members, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), that processing also provides employment.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) should note that 30 per cent. of potato producers were in favour of abolition of the potato marketing scheme.

Mr. Tyler : I think that I am right in saying that that poll was taken some years ago and that a different situation has now arisen-- particularly with the failure of the Council of Agricultural Ministers to arrive at a satisfactory alternative.

Mrs. Shephard : The EC position must be taken into account when we look at the issue, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that many producers see the downside of what is, in many respects, an excellent scheme.

Column 392

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale made a very balanced contribution and reminded us of the need to look at change in the consumption of potatoes and the demands on potato producers. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) referred to the JCC and Government intervention. The Government are intervening in the market this year to the extent of £1.5 million, which is not an inconsiderable sum. We heard the usual sensible, balanced comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). I considered the Nottingham university report, which was commissioned by the potato marketing board. The university did not consult processors and its report contains some arithmetical errors. Nevertheless, it made interesting reading and I have studied it carefully.

The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) reminded us of the need to consider the lack of processing capacity in Britain and to consider the reason for that.

Speeches have been balanced, but hon. Members have hinted heavily that we need to remember the changes that have occurred in the potato market.

I know that the Bill's provisions have caused a lot of anxiety among farmers, despite the fact that they are only enabling provisions. Representing the constituency that I do, and in the light of my words on 27 January 1989, I obviously understand the concerns of growers--

Mr. Campbell-Savours : No one would have known that the hon. Lady made that speech if I had not found it.

Mrs. Shephard : I could have referred the hon. Gentleman to it with no trouble at all. He should ask in future.

I understand that growers are concerned that the scheme that they know well and on which they have come to rely over the years might disappear.

Since taking up my post, I have considered the recent poll taken by the potato marketing board, but the view of the majority is not universally held. We must remember that retailers and processors as well as consumers-- interestingly, nobody has mentioned consumers during the debate--have an input. Potatoes are an important crop in Britain. It has become a high-tech and successful industry. Producers set great store by it, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury pointed out, a third of potatoes eaten in 1992 were in processed form and only 23 per cent. of those came from a United Kingdom provenance. We must consider the trend in the market if we are to retain a healthy potato industry.

Mr. George Kynoch (Kincardine and Deeside) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that we must not consider only the healthy trend in the market but ensure good production planning? Many of my constituents, to whom I referred in a recent letter to her, recognise that the acreage control is necessary for good management planning in potato production. Will she go further and say that she will press this point with our colleagues in Europe, rather than accept a rather loose European regime being imposed on us?

Mrs. Shepherd : I have received a representation from my hon. Friend and I shall bear his remarks in mind when we are working in Europe on this matter.

The Bill provides for two possibilities, depending on the existence or otherwise of an EC regime for potatoes. Let

Next Section

Home Page