HC Deb 23 November 1956 vol 560 cc2089-98

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

11.19 a.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion (Derbyshire, South-East)

Subsection (4, a) of this Clause gives the Minister powers to make provision for defining the …works in respect of which payments may be made under the scheme. It is quite obvious that one of the provisions must refer to the concrete approach to the silo, and I would ask the Minister to make sure that in any scheme which lays down for the farmers, and presents to the House, the apron of the silo is not made too small.

It is quite clear to me that if this Bill is to be any help to anyone at all it must be mainly the dairy farmer in the hill country and in the West. What with the cut in milk prices which is taking place, if the dairy farmer is to live at all he will be able to do so only if he keeps his labour requirements to the absolute minimum. These arrangements must go as far as possible towards satisfying that requirement of keeping labour costs down.

I agree with the statement I have read quite recently that farm buildings are factories in which "farm crops are converted into milk, meat or muck." Unfortunately, I would say, so many of the farm factories are old, dilapidated and inefficient. But that is by the way. Recently, a number of us went to Bulbourne to see the experiment in farm buildings conducted by the Farmers' Weekly.

There we saw the arrangements which were being made to enable cows to feed themselves directly from the silage clamp type silo with consequent saving of labour, but that method is only possible if the approach is kept reasonably free from mud. It is no use trying to save labour one way, by letting animals feed themselves from the silage clamp, if extra labour is required, for instance, in washing off the mud which is collected at the silo from the cows before they can be milked.

I believe that if we are to have this improvement adopted and silage made more extensively, especially in the West and in the hill country where the rainfall is heavier, there must be large concrete aprons. I rather think that the provision the Minister has in mind is a little small for the purpose. Perhaps he has safeguarded himself and will be able to answer on that matter to my satisfaction, but I hope that before he finally makes up his mind upon it he will go into it rather carefully.

Subsection (4 e) of the Clause tells us that a scheme may make provision: as to the persons to whom payments may be made under the scheme in respect of any works. In the rather unusual circumstances in which this Bill is accompanied in its passage through the House by the Minister's proposed scheme, I have been able to read what the Minister said about that subsection, and it is this: Either an owner-occupier, landlord or tenant, or the last two jointly, may apply for grant, but in every case the project will be discussed with the occupier by officers of the appropriate Department. In the advice to be tendered to a tenant when he is making an application, or has made an application, is it the intention of the officer who will do the job to make the tenant's position in relation to outgoing valuation quite clear? This seems to be important to the tenant. If he is to be persuaded to embark on a scheme which may involve him in some expenditure and will add to the buildings on the farm, he must be safeguarded as to his outgoing valuation or he will not readily undertake it. I take it that the intention of the Minister is to make this quite clear, but I want to have it on record, so I ask him to assure us that he has thought of this and that it will be made an item in the outgoing valuation.

Obviously, if a silo building is to figure in the outgoing valuation the landlord would have to be consulted, but while the proposed scheme—that is, the scheme which I have seen—tells us that the project will in every case be discussed with the occupier, there is nothing there said about its being discussed with the landlord. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will note this particularly. Will he satisfy us that in every case where the occupier is making an application, because of the important aspect of the outgoing valuation, which may be involved, the matter will be discussed with the landlord? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his usual courtesy, will be able to help the House about these matters. I shall be grateful if he will.

Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I support what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion has just said about the landlord's position, for I think it is very important; but I do so for a reason other than the one he put forward, although I agree with his. It seems to me that it ought to be a principle throughout all our agricultural policy that whenever the Government enter into the provision of fixed equipment then, automatically, the landlord, as well as the occupier, ought to have a say in the matter.

On Second Reading, I asked my right hon. Friend whether he would re-examine the Order which, we understood, was to implement subsection (4) of this Clause. I hope that, in the light of the debate which has taken place, and considering what has been virtually agreed with the National Farmers' Union, consideration may be given to the possibility of getting the small farmers to co-operate and I hope we may hear something about that from my hon. Friend today.

I would also ask my hon. Friend to say whether there is in his mind a minimum number of dairy cows actually in milk which is to be regarded as the minimum before a grant is made under the Bill. Obviously, if anybody producing milk qualifies, a man with only two or three cows would be entitled to a considerable grant, and it would be payable, for instance, to the county council smallholders, of whom I have many in my constituency.

I am all for giving them every help we can, but there are cases where a little co-operation may be a very good thing and where it would be a great waste of money to give every single smallholder with a couple of cows the automatic right to apply for a grant under the scheme. It is largely a question of common sense. I appreciate that, and I am sure that the county committees will interpret it very well, certainly in my county, whose county committee is one of the best in the country.

Of course, when it is a matter for the county council, another local authority comes in, and we know that with local authorities there is sometimes delay, and that there is sometimes confiscation, but in my own county the authorities work very sweetly together on the whole. However, it is important we should have an assurance about this and some idea how the taxpayers' money is to be spent. I would emphasise yet again, what I have often emphasised in debates on agriculture, that those who are in agriculture are, of course, also taxpayers.

11.30 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)

In answer, first, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) and his question about concrete aprons to silos, I would say that we intend that the area of an apron, to qualify for grant, will not normally exceed 50 per cent. of the floor of the silo or 50 square yards if that is greater.

The general idea of the scheme is to provide a 50 per cent. grant for the rudiments of an ordinary silo. We all realise that it will not be 50 per cent. of a more elaborate structure, but it will be 50 per cent. of an ordinary standard silo in an area where building costs are not higher than average. If a farmer wished to have a big apron which might be used for his feeding arrangements, or something of that kind, then probably the grant would not amount to 50 per cent. in that instance; he could make any additional concrete arrangement he thought necessary but what we are intending to do is to provide a 50 per cent. grant on this very simple unit system which will cover the silo itself and the normal minimum requirements for working that silo.

Naturally, there will be a fair amount of flexibility in interpretation in different parts of the country as to the minimum requirements that the advisory officers in the area will think are necessary for the farmer to have for his silo. They would obviously vary somewhat from the east of the country to the west, according to the rainfall.

I should have thought that similar considerations would arise in deciding whether the farmer should be advised to have a roof, and where it might be left completely optional. That, broadly, would be the approach and, so far as we could, we should apply the grant to meet exactly what the farmer wanted; but we shall be limited by the actual definition in the scheme.

With regard to the important point mentioned by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East about the tenant farmer who puts in a silo, that is dealt with in a pamphlet which has already been issued. The pamphlet has been widely circulated during the past week since the House gave Second Reading approval to the Bill, and in it there is the statement: Note for tenant farmers. For silos which are considered to be an 'improvement' under the Agricultural Holdings Act, the tenant should obtain the landlord's consent if the structure is to rank for compensation. What will happen in practice is that the advisory officers will consult the occupier of the holding. If he is the owner-occupier no difficulty will arise, but if he is the tenant then his attention will be drawn to the fact that he should in his own interest consult the landlord in order to preserve his position under the Agricultural Holdings Act and to ensure that if a permanent improvement has been made to the holding under that Act he will qualify in the event of his outgoing from the holding.

I doubt whether it would be possible to require specific consultation with the landlord by the Ministry on each application, but we feel that in this way we have done all that is humanly possible to protect the interests of the tenant. I feel certain that in practice it will work out all right. If as a result of that consultation the landlord wished to consult our advisory officers, we should be only too pleased for him to do so.

I turn to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) about co-operative schemes—several small farmers joining together to build a silo. We really feel that that will not arise. The scheme is devised in such a way that it is extremely flexible and will provide for the making of very small quantities of silage. The minimum quantity which will qualify is 20 tons. Twenty tons would be the product of, I suppose, a reasonably productive field of perhaps three acres. I cannot imagine that it would be usual to find anyone making less silage than that. In other words, it will cater for the needs of the very small farmer.

Bearing in mind the point made during the Second Reading that silage is extremely bulky material—it is, on average, only about 20 per cent. dry matter; the rest is water—it is normally not a practicable proposition to move it for anything but the shortest distances. Therefore, any co-operative schemes in which several farmers shared would ipso facto suffer from the defect that there would be fairly long haulage involved for some of the farmers. We have tried to meet the point from the other direction by making the scheme flexible enough to meet the needs of the smallest farmer.

That really deals with the second question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend about whether the farmer with two or three cows would qualify. The answer is that provided that his plan will be big enough to make a silage pit of 20 tons, he will qualify. I think that that will cover the needs of almost everybody.

What we are concerned with here is not only to help the commercial farmer but also to ensure that the grassland of this country, which is carrying a good deal of grass which is not economically used today, shall be economically used and shall thereby save feeding stuffs, a large part of which are imported. Therefore, if a man with two or three cows who is not a commercial producer, makes use of this silo grant and thereby makes silage where he has not done so before and saves feeding stuffs, the national economy will benefit, good will come from the development and the taxpayer will get a good return for the grant.

I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will be satisfied with my answer to his questions. The needs of the very small farmer are catered for by the flexible design of the scheme, and there is really no need for the provision of co-operative arrangements.

Major Legge-Bourke

Has my hon. Friend thought of the county council smallholdings and what the relationship of these would be with the county councils?

Mr. Nugent

I see no reason why the tenant of a county council smallholding should not apply for this in the same way as he applies for any other grant. The county council smallholder can benefit and, indeed, I would wish him to do, just like any other occupier.

Mr. Champion

The three of us have talked about the small dairy farmer. It seems to me that the scheme will apply to a farmer who is not necessarily a milk producer; it will apply also to a man who is rearing store cattle. That is clear, is it not?

Mr. Nugent

Yes. This will apply to any farmer who makes application for the grant. We shall ask him to give an undertaking that he intends to make silage. Anyone who wishes to conserve grass in order to feed it to cattle will benefit from the scheme, and I hope that the rearers and the beef men will go in for it just as much as those who deal with dairy cattle.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Nugent.]

11.40 a.m.

Mr. Champion

This is one of the Bills which will quickly become an Act with the co-operation of this side of the House, because the Third Reading will not take long.

It is not much good having this Measure unless fairly extensive use is made of it. One is often surprised, when talking to farmers, to find that they are not completely aware of the services available to them and, in some cases, of the grants available. Not all farmers read the agricultural Press. Not all of them find the time, and some do not even try. Therefore, it is essential to use all possible ways to bring this Bill to the notice of the farmer, and particularly the small farmer.

I do not agree with the suggestion that the small farmer cannot or will not make silage; in fact, I believe that because the job of conserving grass can be spread over many months by this method, silage-making is much easier than conserving grass by the hay-making method. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who said on Second Reading that there should be more co-operative use of machinery by the small farmers, but I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman about the siting of silos, for there cannot be co-operative use of them by farmers. That idea is not practicable. However, the use of machinery in silage making is practicable and should be encouraged, for it is not necessary to squeeze the making of silage into the small number of days necessary for hay-making.

For that reason I believe this to be a Measure which will help the small farmer and that it might even stimulate him to use machinery co-operatively. Our farmers do not lend themselves easily to co-operation in the use of machinery or anything else. I wish they would do more of it, following the example of Denmark and some other countries. This Bill will certainly help them, and I hope that it will also help them to co-operate with each other.

The Minister has followed the unusual course of inviting early applications, and on Second Reading I said for this side of the House that we have no objection. What is now necessary is that these provisions should be made widely known. Farmers should not only be encouraged to use this Measure to the full, but should be stimulated into doing so. The appropriate part of the National Agricultural Advisory Service should be put on to the job of bringing this scheme to the notice of farmers and encouraging them to make proposals.

I also hope that farmers will be advised as to the best methods of making the silage, its use, and especially as to the siting of the silos. There is something to be said for the experiment of permitting cows to feed themselves from the silo, and it may well be that an extension of that idea would result in a saving of farm labour which would be well worth while.

Finally, I wish the Minister well in the application of this scheme. I hope that it will be the success which we all desire.

11.44 a.m.

Mr. Nugent

May I reply to the good wishes of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) in sending this little Bill on its way? First, I thank the hon. Gentleman and the Members of the Opposition generally for the help which they have given us in speeding the passage of the Bill. We much appreciate that. It is urgent to have the work put in hand this winter ready for next year, as it is during the winter months that the farmers can build the silos ready for the coming season.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall spare no effort to give full publicity to this scheme. As I said a few moments ago, we have already widely circulated among the farmers a pamphlet, we have put out publicity through the farming Press, and we are asking our county agricultural committees and their staffs to give the widest possible publicity to the scheme. We are most anxious that this shall reach all farmers, including those who do not so readily read the farming Press or pamphlets. We are most anxious to help the small farmers and, as I have said, the scheme is designed so that the smallest fanner can use and get full benefit from it.

I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said, that silage making is a most valuable process for every farmer, particularly the small farmer who can only do a little at a time, who is dependent on his own efforts, and who has to milk the cows every day and then fit in the rest of the work as best he can around that work.

Silage making is a process which can start at the beginning of the season in May, as soon as the grass is long enough to cut, and it can go on throughout the season. On the other hand hay making must be done at a certain time when the grass is fully grown and ripe, and fair weather is essential. Silage making can continue despite the weather, which is a tremendous advantage.

One of the reasons why we have included a provision for roofs is to give extra independence of the weather. There was some discussion during the Second Reading debate as to whether fixed roofs were necessary. Some people prefer to earth up the top of the pit or cover it with chalk, and some prefer to roof it for conservation. One aspect of the value of a roof which was not mentioned was its value during the process of silage making. The farmer who has a roof over his silage pit can make silage even when it is raining, without the silage suffering deterioriation, and with a much smaller use of such preservatives as molasses to keep the silage in good condition.

The process of silage making is, therefore, peculiarly helpful and suitable for the small farmer, and we intend to make every use of this scheme to try to sell him the idea of making silage. It has been of continuing concern to us that we have made so little impact on the small farmer up to date—not only this Government but previous Governments. Indeed, only about 7½ per cent. of farmers are making silage, and it is made from only about half a million acres. That is out of a total of 19½ million acres of grass in the United Kingdom.

It is evident, therefore, that the acreage of grass at present being used to make silage could be multiplied many times over, with great advantage to the farmers and to the national economy. I can certainly give the House the roundest assurance that it is our intention to make the utmost use of this Bill, and to give fresh impetus to silage making on farms, large or small, throughout the country. Once again, therefore, I thank the House for the help given in expediting this little Bill on its way.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.