5.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what machinery he intends to introduce into his department to determine a fair method of recoupment of the selective payroll tax by agriculture, horticulture and forestry to ensure that the burden of this taxation to those industries is repaid in full; and if he will make a statement.
9.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the total cost of the Selective Employment Tax to agriculture; what remuneration the farmers will receive; and when they will receive it.
15.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the extra price per lamb necessary to recoup the Selective Employment Tax for a hill farmer employing a shepherd for 40 score of ewes.
32.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why farmers will have to wait until the 1967 Price Review before the effect of the Selective Employment Tax, payable in September, 1966, is offset.
I would refer the hon. Members to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) on 13th May stating that the Government had decided to repay the tax direct to individual farmers and growers, and that the industry would be consulted about the detailed arrangements for repayment. The cost of the tax to agriculture was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 9th May. Forestry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources.
Is it not time that the position of forestry was cleared up? Is it not intolerable that it should be left in the present situation? Would the Minister say what the cost of this tax will be to the agricultural and horticultural industries in terms of interest rates?
I have already said that I am not the Minister responsible for forestry, but if the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, who knows, probably in an hour from now he may hear something. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I am not thinking about the Derby winner. The question of interest charges is a matter which will be taken into account in the Annual Price Review, but the hon. Gentleman should not be too worried about it.
Is the Minister aware that at present the agricultural industry is in the position of presenting the Government with an interest-free loan for a certain number of months at any rate, this being money which they will almost certainly have to get from the banks and on which they will have to pay considerably high rates of interest? Is not this extremely unfair?
I have said that any costs incurred will be taken into account in the Annual Price Review. I am now working out the detailed arrangements for making repayments. I hope this will be done quickly. I think that this move has been welcomed by the industry.
Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the terms which he has announced for agriculture apply equally to horticulture and whether horticultural and agricultural employers will benefit by the scheme which he has announced?
Yes, Sir.
On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is answering my Question with a number of others? Is it not in accordance with your usual practice, Mr. Speaker, to——
Order. I was not aware that a Question in the name of the hon. Member was being answered by the Minister at the moment. To which Question is the hon. Member referring?
My Question, No. 13.
That is not on the list I have of the Questions which the Minister is taking together.
I said No. 32, not No. 13, Mr. Speaker.
How does the Minister think that he will repay to the industry, through the Price Review, the interest rates which only some part of the industry will be paying? Is he not falling into the same mistake as was made in the White Paper originally?
Certainly not, and this has been accepted by the industry.
Don't you believe it.
I believe that it has.
49.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the cost to the agricultural industry of the Selective Employment Tax on the industries which provide agricultural requirements and services and on those which handle farm output; and whether all increased costs of this nature will rank for reimbursement at the Price Review.
No reliable estimate is possible but changes in farmers' costs will be taken into account at the Annual Review in the usual way.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that there must be substantial increases in farming costs as a result of the new tax and that in some quarters the increases have been put at as high as 10 per cent.? For that reason, should not agriculture be put in the first category of this tax so as to give it fair treatment?
The right hon. Gentleman keeps referring to putting it into the first category. I have already dealt with that. The industry gets fair treatment under the present Government. We cannot give any precise estimate of the increase in costs. I have said—and this will be accepted by all sensible people in the industry—that we will take this into account in the Annual Review.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the costs will be fully recouped in the Price Review, or covered partly by increased efficiency in the industry?
I cannot announce decisions of an Annual Review which has not yet taken place.
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the massive support for agriculture of which he speaks is in fact massive support not for agriculture but for a cheap food policy?
Certainly our support under existing legislation has provided for the consumer food cheaper than that of many other industrial countries and it has also given long-term security. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind when he considers not only Liberal but Opposition policy.
13.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to assist the horticulture industry, in view of the extra costs which will be imposed on it by the Selective Employment Tax.
17.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will give details of the development of horticultural policy foreshadowed in paragraph 17 of the White Paper on the Selective Employment Tax.
29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the increased costs which will fall on the horticultural industry as a result of the Selective Employment Tax; and what steps he 14 ill take to mitigate the effects.
I would refer the hon. Members to the Answers which I gave to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) on 11th May and to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) on 13th May.
While I welcome the Government's change of heart over the tax or, the horticultural industry—which is welcome so far as it goes—is the Minister aware that a great deal of needless anxiety was caused to the gowers by the Government's original announcement? Will he try to see that he and his colleagues think out their policies a bit better in future before announcements, rather than afterwards?
That has nothing to do with the Question. I acted quickly and an announcement was made. We are anxious that our Horticultural Improvement Scheme should benefit the industry.
The Minister says that agriculture can recoup this tax, or the loans under it, through the Price Review. How does he propose that horticulture is to recoup the loan it is making to the Government?
It is quite true that horticulture is not covered by the Annual Price Review, but I am consulting with the industry, and I want quick repayment.
23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the increased costs which will fall on the agricultural industry as a result of the Selective Employment Tax between its introduction and the time of the next Price Review; and what steps he proposes to take to mitigate the effects.
The answer to the first part of the Question is that the tax payments will amount to between £11 million and £12 million. As to the second part, the tax will be refunded direct to farmers and growers.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the farmer will be giving an interest-free loan to the Government and that the imposition of this additional tax contravenes the conditions upon which the Price Review was agreed? Will he give an assurance that the Price Review will be fully honoured and the farmers recouped?
I have said previously that this will be taken into account.
The Minister must be aware that the wording of the Question talks of the increased costs which will fall upon the agricultural industry. Does he really tell us that there are no secondary effects which will arise from ancillary industries, whose costs will be increased and who will put up their charges as a result? Has he taken this into account?
I did not say that, but anything which will affect the viability and profitability of the agricultural industry would be taken into account.
26.
asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from farmers and others about the effect on agriculture, horticulture, forestry and fishing of the Selective Employment Tax.
On agriculture and horticulture I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) on 13th May. Forestry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Land and Natural Resources. I have received no representations about the effect on fishing.
While I recognise that these representations have resulted in a welcome change in policy, may I ask the Minister now to give a clear assurance that these wealth-producing industries can count on the Minister's support in their attempt to be classified with manufacturing industries, from the point of view of the Selective Employment Tax?
As I have said, there is no question of running down the industry or of regarding it as something inferior. It is in a special category. As I asked earlier: do people who want to classify the industry as a manufacturing industry also want it to be rated in the same way as the manufacturing industries?
Was it not said yesterday by the Prime Minister, in answer to a Written Question that forestry was to become the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture?
We must wait for the legislation to be completed.
Is the Minister aware that he has twice put a ridiculous question this afternoon about comparability with manufacturing? If agriculture were rated, is he not aware that this would rank fully for Price Review purposes and that the only relevance of it to this matter is that agriculture should have the same standing in receiving the premium return as manufacturers?
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that agriculture has a special role in the National Economic Plan regarding production and manpower. It would be absurd to give it a premium. In addition to this, agriculture has special and massive support, which I defend.
Would the Minister define "land owning" as a manufacturing industry?
I do not think that I could.