HC Deb 06 February 1951 vol 483 cc1597-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Snadden

I want to ask a question which has been put to me regarding the extension of the period which is laid down in Section 1 of the principal Act. Imagine that a farmer goes into a new farm and submits a scheme under the Hill Farming Act, 1946. That scheme is approved by the Department of Agriculture, but a little later further knowledge of the holding makes it clear that the scheme, which was believed to be comprehensive and adequate at the time, falls short of what is needed. The farmer then produces a further scheme which is supported and approved by the county agricultural executive committee, but it is turned down by the Department of Agriculture because of financial stringency.

In view of the fact that the Bill carries on the old legislation into a new period of five years, can those items which are now completed rank for a grant from the increased money which is to be made available under the Bill? It seems fair that they should, since the county agri- cultural committee had already given full support in the case I have illustrated. If the Parliamentary Secretary could explain the position of such an applicant, because of the extension into the new period and the fresh money that is made available, I should be grateful.

Mr. T. Fraser

I am asked a very hypothetical question. In point of fact I am not aware that schemes have been turned down up to now because we have outspent the £4 million provided for in the parent Act. Indeed, the total value of the live schemes before Ministers at present quite considerably exceeds the £4 million provided for in the parent Act of 1946.

I should have thought that the executive committees with the Ministers concerned would always be a little reluctant to approve another scheme in respect of one farm or one area, which might include several farms, if that farm or area had already been covered by a scheme which was accepted by the agricultural executive committee and the Minister's own advisers to be sufficiently comprehensive in character, particularly if the Minister is to be selective in his schemes. I think that if he had approved of a scheme covering a number of farms already he would be inclined to spend the additional moneys on new schemes which would come forward later on, but it would be quite wrong for me quite categorically to say that no farmer would ever be able to benefit should he have to come forward a second time.

Mr. Snadden

The example I gave was put to me from the south of Scotland. I have not had time to check it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.