HC Deb 05 December 1949 vol 470 cc1671-80

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Dye (Norfolk, South-Western)

We have heard from the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) that success in agriculture now depends upon the fullest co-operation between the farmers, the farm workers and the Minister of Agriculture. So we shall probably find the Minister of Agriculture in the highest spirits, as he has come from the great fat stock show where he saw the results of that co-operation, and where no doubt he took some pride in the part he has played. Not only will he have seen some of the finest stock that has ever been produced in the world, but he will have been associating with the farmers who are very happy in having co-operated with him to produce that stock and to produce crops from our farms.

I raise this matter this evening because of the Prime Minister's statement on economies some weeks ago, so far as they relate to agriculture. I am not against economy in administration. Nor am I against streamlining our agricultural efforts, because I realise that as time goes on the farming community must produce greater quantities of food with still greater efficiency, so that fewer people produce more food. In that respect the Government must set an example. But the figure of saving given to us was of about £6 million annually, which is to be made first by some adjustments in the potato acreage subsidy.

In the past potato year the subsidy payment has been £12 for 10 acres, and after that a smaller amount of, I think, £8. We are informed that next year the payment will be £10 for every acre grown, for as small a plot as a quarter of an acre. Well, if the acreage in 1950 is the same as it was in 1949, this will account for something over £13 million. The estimated subsidy for 1949 is just over £14 million, so it is not anticipated that a very big saving will be made on the potato acreage subsidy. We must then look elsewhere for proposed savings to bring the total up to £6 million next year.

While on the question of the acreage payment for potatoes, I must ask whether the Government are sure that this is the best method of getting the greatest quantity of potatoes from our land. I personally do not think it is. I think that it would be wiser to pay for potatoes rather than to pay for acreage, to direct the whole of our effort towards getting as much as we possibly can out of as small an acreage as we can, leaving it to the farming community to choose the acres they will devote to potatoes, provided that their general effort is aimed at putting a sufficient acreage under cultivation. When I was in Wales a few weeks ago I encountered small farmers who were growing four acres of potatoes a year and getting £10 an acre subsidy—thus drawing £40 a year for growing potatoes—yet they never sold a potato on the market; and as far as I could understand, they were under no obligation to sell them. All they had to do was to make an application, which might be investigated, saying that they had grown that acreage of potatoes. As far as I could discover, what they were doing was taking up some of the potatoes, feeding them to the pigs and then eventually eating the pigs. That is what can happen under such an arrangement.

It is said that the reason for the acreage payment is to enable farmers of the poorest land to be able to grow potatoes at a profit. I have seen some of the poorest land that we have in this country carrying, even this year, crops of potatoes of nine tons to the acre, where the cultivation has been well done and the manuring has been correct. These are the two chief items in producing good crops of potatoes.

Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodwin)

And the weather.

Mr. Dye

The weather, of course, has something to do with it. I think that this year was the most adverse in the Eastern Counties for growing crops of potatoes because the rainfall was the lowest for many years; so that in the circumstances of a low rainfall it is possible to produce good crops where the purpose of the farmer is to get good crops; and the whole of Government policy should be directed towards getting the finest crops.

Therefore, as a long-term measure, certainly I should be against paying an acreage subsidy instead of paying a price for potatoes per ton which would enable the efficient farmers to get a satisfactory return. I think that should be the aim of Government policy—to enable the good farmer to get a return which covers his cost of production. I hope that the Minister will eventually look into this question of the potato acreage subsidy to see whether we cannot have cheaper administrative costs and give the farmers a satisfactory price for their potatoes.

The other means of saving which was given was the slowing down of the acquisition of land. I wonder what purpose the Government have in mind. For what purpose are they acquiring tend? Is it for small holdings, for farm institutes or other educational purposes, or for demonstration farms? Are they to be slowed down? It is generally agreed that these things are essential for maintaining and improving our agricultural knowledge and practice.

Another question that is a cause of concern relates to the building of agricultural workers' cottages. I have had letters recently on this subject, and I have seen it stated by opponents of the Government that the Government's policy is to slow down the building of agricultural workers' cottages. As I understand the position—and if I am not correct, I hope the Minister will correct me—the building of agricultural workers' cottages which took place under Section 3 of the Housing Act, 1938, is not limited by the statement that was recently made, for these cottages come under an allocation to the district and are not subject to the limitation on private building licences.

If that is so, I cannot see how the statement about the number of private licences that are to be issued will limit the number of cottages that can be built by farmers and landowners for their workers and let at a rent and under a tenancy agreement such as is covered by the last Act relating to these houses. I should like the Minister to make a statement clarifying the position for the guidance of rural district councils, farmers and others who are interested in the building of cottages by private people for farm workers. It has also been stated in some quarters that farm water supplies and the extension of electricity to farms will be slowed down. If that were the case, there would be some lack of incentive, for these developments in agriculture are essential if the country is to achieve its agricultural targets.

There are one or two other matters to which I should like my right hon. Friend to reply. He will know that in my constituency a large tract of land has been taken for a battle training area and that during the past two or three years a great part of this area has been cropped under his Department. Recently the War Office said that no further crops were to be grown, and the farmers were so informed. In reply to a Question which I asked last week, the Under-Secretary of State for War said that the War Office had changed their decision and would enable some of this land to be cropped. I ask my right hon. Friend to see that satisfactory arrangements are made for as much as possible of this land to be cultivated in the coming year and in future years.

What were described as the largest manoeuvres to be held in that area were held a week ago. When I visited the area following the manoeuvres, the land in the safety belt had not been touched in any way. There was nothing to stop the cultivation of that land. Can my right hon. Friend see that, through his Department, early arrangements are made for full cultivation of this land in the national interest? The farming community and the military community must live side by side. Both need the land, one to grow food and the other for training for defensive purposes. That being so, I hope that there will be the fullest co-operation between his Department and the War Office so that as small an area as possible is reserved for training purposes and wherever possible such land is cropped or grassed, so that we make the best of the situation in which we find ourselves.

Nothing that I have said detracts from the great efforts of my right hon. Friend and his Ministry during the past four or five years, and the whole country is glad to see the progress that has been made. We all desire to produce as much food as possible for the nation in order to save dollars and promote health. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say something this evening that will dis- courage those who are saying that economies will prevent the farming community from making their full contribution.

10.34 p.m.

Brigadier Medlicott (Norfolk, Eastern)

I share the doubt of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) about whether the existing potato acreage payment is the perfect system for producing the results we have in view, but as it is the accepted method, I regret the economy cuts have fallen on it in the way they have, because they seem to me to be likely to discourage and affect chiefly the smaller grower. That remark applies also to the alteration in the minimum qualifying acreage from one-tenth of an acre to one-quarter of an acre. I should like the Minister to say what approximate saving it is thought that change of the qualification of acreage is likely to bring about, because again it seems to me a change that will bear heavily on the small producer, whose expenses are necessarily relatively high.

A certain amount of doubt was caused by the delay in announcing the details of the changes in the payments. The Prime Minister made his statement op 24th October, but it was not until 10th November, in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk that the details of the changed method of payment were announced. Presumably the details must have been known on 24th October, and, while I am not suggesting that the delay was very serious, it did lead to unsettling rumours going round. One of these rumours was that the qualifying acreage was to be raised to three acres. It would have been helpful if the statement could have been issued sooner after the announcement by the Prime Minister. If the Minister can say anything about this matter, I shall be grateful.

10.36 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams)

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity briefly to answer the questions which he and other hon. Members have put. I should have preferred to have had this opportunity when more hon. Members were present, so that they could better understand the full significance of it. If I may, I should like to say a word on the effect which Government economies may have upon agriculture, including cuts in capital expenditure.

Regarding the adjustment of the potato acreage, these payments were introduced in the early days of the war so that an adequate return could be provided for the efficient farmer on poor potato land without giving excessive returns to the grower on good land. As my hon. Friend is aware, yields vary enormously according to the quality of the land. He referred to a case this year where he had seen nine tons of potatoes to the acre produced. The average for the country is about seven per acre. If one farmer gets nine tons, someone else is getting five tons to make that average for the country. But it does not quite work out like that.

It seems to me that the wartime Government and the present Government had no alternative, while they required as an insurance an outsize yield of potatoes, but to encourage people to produce potatoes on non-traditional potato land. The acreage payment was the only solution. We had the over-all price, and the provision of an acreage payment was intended to bring growers' returns in the heavy-producing areas and the thinner-producing areas nearer together. I can assure my hon. Friend that the moment the time arrives when, instead of some 1,300,000 or 1,400,000 acres of potatoes. we get something much nearer to our prewar acreage of 730,000 acres, I shall be very happy to see the acreage payment go altogether, so that we can have potatoes grown on land more suitable for potatoes, and the traditional non-potato producing areas produce crops for which they are more suitable.

We have increased the qualifying area of potatoes for which the subsidy can be paid from one-tenth to one-quarter of an acre. That will save money in administration, and it will save money in that those who produce less than one-quarter of an acre will not receive the acreage payment. It may be that 100,000 or 200,000 producers will get paid on a slightly lower average and to that extent they will lose very slightly. But no one can lose more than £2 10s. in one year. Therefore, the effect on the farmer will be small, but on the whole it will be of great importance to the nation. I believe the saving on the quarter of an acre qualification, plus a smaller overall acreage, will be quite considerable.

My hon. Friend asked me a question about the acquisition of land. The purchase of land under the powers conferred upon me by the Agriculture Act, 1947, will proceed more slowly than otherwise contemplated, but I fear that I cannot give any details. I can say, however, that we are deferring less urgent acquisitions as, for instance, experimental husbandry farms. We have several of these farms, and we intend to get more, but some have been deferred for a short time.

Enough has been said to show that from the day when the Government took office we have been extending facilities for agricultural education. Where approval has been given to a local authority to provide an institute, there is no question of its being withdrawn, and work will proceed according to schedule. Where approval is sought for a new institute because of priority in the Loveday Report, it will be dealt with on its merits.

On the question of capital investment generally, it will not be denied that the Government have played their full part in the expansion programme by making it possible for the farmers to get the tools they require for the job. The increased allocation of steel for machinery, the organisation of the supply of water pipes, and of components for farm buildings are a few of the examples of what is a very old story. Last year our long-term programme for investment in agriculture was submitted to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation, and later it was published in a White Paper. While it is not possible to assess accurately the requirements of thousands of farmers, I think that our estimates have been remarkably close.

A great deal has still to be done in extending and modernising farm buildings, and although agriculture must make its own contribution to economising on the building industry side of the national investment programme, I do not expect any appreciable reduction in the programme for improving fixed equipment on our farms. My hon. Friend referred to houses. As will be appreciated, for broad reasons, the housing programme has had to be curtailed. The effect of this will be a reduction in the allocation to local authorities, and it will be somewhere in the region of 10 per cent. less than 1949, but most of the cuts are likely to fall on houses built under private licences, which are mostly houses for sale.

The houses will be allocated where the need is greatest and special consideration will be given to such areas on a selective basis instead of an a percentage basis, as has been the case hitherto. If a reduced allocation creates special difficulties for agriculture, then obviously those difficulties must be dealt with in the regions and, if necessary, later on at headquarters. I should like to make it clear that subsidies for houses allocated for agricultural workers are still available.

My hon. Friend referred to water supplies and electricity schemes. Any cuts in capital expenditure by the Electricity Boards will necessarily fall on work other than generating plant, for unless there is proper generating plant distribution falls short, but to what extent is problematical.

Mr. Douglas Marshall (Bodmin)

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that they have been slowing down in the Southwestern Area?

Mr. Williams

I have not seen any slowing down yet. There has not been any slowing down because the Central Electricity Authority and the area boards are terribly anxious to carry on with their electrification of the countryside as fast as possible. Wherever the production of home-grown food is at stake, I am certain that priority will be given for extending electricity to farms wherever possible. The amount of work on arterial water courses has to some extent been scaled down, and some schemes have been deferred, but there is no suggestion for cutting grants for field drainage or water supplies to farms.

My hon. Friend referred to the battle training area at Stanford, but all I can say is that, once the training gets into its full stride, I fear that there will be very little land of the danger area available for agricultural use. Certainly, we have made arrangements that whatever land can be made available, consistent with training requirements, the very best use will be made of it.

I should like to say, in conclusion, that the Government have already made substantial provision for certain kinds of farms in the Hill Farming Act and limited provision for marginal production, and grants for water and drainage works. Despite this, there are gaps, and inquiries are proceeding to ascertain the area of land which does not qualify for assistance and which could be improved at modest cost. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will agree that we should like to see an improvement in the stock-carrying capacity of the marginal land, and I can say that we are trying to see how this can be done. It is impossible, in the time available, to answer all the questions raised, but I hope that I have at least given an indication that the economies referred to by the Prime Minister a few days ago will not materially affect the progress of agriculture.

Brigadier Medlicott

As the right hon. Gentleman touched on the question of land acquisition by Government Departments, may I ask him to keep a very special eye on this, because in Norfolk we are losing a lot of land to the Departments, and the farmers are particularly concerned about it?

Mr. Williams

No area of land—a yard, or acres—is taken unless we have had a very careful look at it.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven Minutes to Eleven o'clock.