HC Deb 02 March 1966 vol 725 cc1286-9
26. Mr. van Straubenzee

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for approving applications for grants made at the present time under the Farm Improvement Scheme.

Mr. Peart

As the money provided by existing legislation is virtually all committed, formal applications under the present Farm Improvement Scheme cannot be accepted. However, we are continuing to examine farmers' proposals in the light of the Government's policy for continuing and extending the Farm Improvement Scheme. Clearly no commitment to grant can be made in advance of legislation by the new Parliament. I intend, however, when new legislation is passed, to deal with applications for grant in accordance with the terms of the Act in all cases where farmers have started work with the written agreement of my Department.

Mr. van Straubenzee

Would the Minister confirm that the legal basis on which these grants are made has fallen by the wayside in the Agriculture Bill? Is he acting properly in anticipating legislation? How does he expect farmers to make intelligent applications under this scheme?

Mr. Peart

I think that the farmers will be pleased with my statement. I should have thought that they would welcome what is a sympathetic statement. I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Mr. Godber

I am amazed that the Minister thinks that the farmers will accept this with enthusiasm. Does he not recognise that a serious situation has arisen here, which he created in the first place by putting this matter in a long and complicated Bill, a situation which the Prime Minister aggravated by delaying the process of that Bill? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the unlikely event of him being Minister after the election, take special action to see that early payment can be made by introducing a small enabling Bill?

Mr. Peart

I have made my statement and I think that it will be accepted. The Bill was a very good one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It was an excellent Measure and had some very good proposals. When we come back after the election we will complete it.

28. Mr. J. E. B. Hill

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the recent monthly trend in applications for farm improvement schemes; and by what proportion this differs from the average for the last five years.

Mr. Peart

Since 17th November, 1965, when we stopped accepting formal applications under the Farm Improvement Scheme, 4,032 people in England and Wales have put to us proposals for consideration under the Agriculture Bill. Over 2,100 were received in January against 1,900 for January, 1965. The January, 1966, figure is very slightly above 100 per cent. of the five-year average for that month.

Mr. Hill

Nevertheless, has not the uncertainty about the future of the scheme particularly the rate of grant, stopped the rising trend that was apparent, and is not this acknowledged by the Minister in that, even before his cut has been made effective, he has announced his intention to ask Parliament to provide him with power to replace 5 per cent. of the cut grant by a supplement, and—

Mr. Speaker

Order. There are a lot of good farming Questions to come. I must protect other hon. Members.

Mr. Peart

I think that the figures are reasonable and satisfactory. At the beginning of the new scheme there was a certain amount of natural uncertainty, but now that its details are becoming better known there is tremendous interest in it.

Mr. Godber

In view of the Minister's very unsatisfactory reply on timing—it is now acknowledged that these 4,000-odd people to whom he refers will have to wait a very long time indeed for their money unless separate provision is made—does he not think that he should look at this matter again?

Mr. Peart

Not necessarily. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look carefully at my reply.

Mr. Stodart

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when he will be able to pay this grant to this admittedly increased number of farmers, in view of what is admitted all over as a shortage of capital in the industry today?

Mr. Peart

That is another question.

40. Mr. Godber

asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the estimated annual cost of the 5 per cent. supplement to grants under the Farm Improvement Scheme; what is the estimated help from public funds that a farmer paying tax at the standard rate will receive now on a £1,000 building qualifying for grant; and what he would have received both in grant and allowances on an application approved before 17th November, 1965.

Mr. Peart

The cost arising from the supplement is estimated to be about £4 million in the first full year.

Under the old scheme which ended on 17th November, 1965, the farmer qualifying for investment allowance would have received a grant of £333 and an investment allowance worth about £32 at the standard rate of tax as abated by the earned income allowance. Under the 25 per cent. rate of grant for the extended scheme proposed he will, with the 5 per cent. supplement, receive £300. In addition, of course, he would be able to get grants under the extended scheme on a wide range of equipment which has not been grant-aided hitherto. Had the investment allowance continued he would instead have received a grant of £250 plus an investment allowance worth £36 on the standard rate making £286.

Mr. Godber

Does not this show that not only is the farmer who pays no tax worse off but that those paying the standard rate of Income Tax will be worse off than under the present proposals—those prior to 17th November?

Mr. Peart

It does not show that. The example I gave was a fair reply. The scheme itself will be of greater benefit to many farmers paying no tax or less than the standard rate.