HC Deb 27 May 1957 vol 571 cc156-64

10.1 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber)

I beg to move, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved. It might be for the convenience of the House if this Scheme were discussed with that relating to Scotland, in which case if there are points relating to Scotland I am sure that my noble Friend will be very glad to deal with them.

The general Scheme for England and Wales re-enacts the previous Scheme, with two small changes. The first change is the abolition of the proviso under Part I that farmers must get approval before reseeding to grass land for which the ploughing grant is claimed. This change fully and formally recognises the prime importance of grass as a feeding stuff and, indeed, as a crop in its own right. The recognition is only formal, as previously at least 95 per cent. of the applications to reseed to grass have been granted. It is, none the less, important, and it will certainly simplify administration.

The second change relates to the qualifying date. The date in Part II for grass qualifying for the£12 per acre has been moved forward from 4th May, 1939, to 1st June, 1946. That will allow any difficult grassland, which was ploughed up during the war but which reverted to grass before June, 1946, to qualify for the higher rate of grant. It is estimated that about 12,000 or 13,000 acres in all are likely to be affected. The other changes are purely of a drafting nature, making the wording of the English and Scottish Schemes identical wherever possible. Otherwise, the Schemes continue in the same form as last year with the rates of grant of£7, and£12 for the more difficult land.

As this is a continuation of existing policy, and one which has, I think, commended itself to the House and to the agricultural community in the past, I do not think that there is any need for me further to elaborate the Scheme, but, naturally, I would welcome the opportunity of replying to any points that any hon. Member may have in mind.

10.3 p.m.

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

I should think any farmer looking at today's business in the House will be highly satisfied. It seems to be a case of agriculture, agriculture everywhere but not a grant too much. This would appear to be another grant for farmers being continued for an additional year, but we have no fault to find with this ploughing grant as the Minister has now produced it. It is true, of course, that when the Minister introduced his original Bill under which these Schemes are now made he told us that one of its purposes was to arrest the decline of the tillage acreage.

At that time, the Parliamentary Secretary, then a back bencher, said: This Bill, after all, is only a stimulant. It is a stimulant to try to restore the position as it was—two years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May 1953; Vol. 500, c. 458.] That was in relation to the decline of the tillage area.

Secondly, the Minister said that the job of the Bill was to provide means whereby we might replace imported feedingstuffs by home-grown coarse grains. And thirdly, he said that it was to ensure that the ploughing grant was made in such a way that it would only act in those cases where the land, after having been ploughed was sown with approved crops. What has happened as a result of the various grants that the former Parliamentary Secretary has introduced to the House from time to time since the Act of 1952? In the first place, the decline of the tillage acreage has not been arrested. Indeed, the tillage acreage was down by over half a million acres last year compared with 1953–54. What the Minister hoped to do in that connection has not been achieved by his grants.

The second point is that we have not replaced the imported feedingstuffs by home-grown feedingstuffs. It is true that during the period that I have just mentioned, barley is up by about 300,000 tons, but oats—still coarse grains—are down by 325,000 tons in the same period, so that there is an overall loss there of 25,000 tons. The import of concentrated feedingstuffs has increased over the years that I have mentioned by half a million tons a year, and I am glad that the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, has nodded his head, which makes me feel that my figure is right.

Another matter is that the by-products from imported grains and seeds are up over the same period by 400,000 tons. This, of course, has added a considerable charge upon our balance of trade payments and is a serious matter in this context. This is one of the things which caused the Minister to introduce the original Act, and is responsible for the various orders that we have had before us throughout the period.

The third point which the Minister made when he was introducing his Bill was that ploughing grants should be made only in cases where the land, after ploughing, has sown to an approved crop. That, too, has gone by the board. It seems to me that the three points which the Minister had in mind when introducing his Bill have all been dropped in the course of the years, or have not been attained.

We have discussed today at considerable length the conditions within the industry, with particular reference to milk and pigs. I think that the conditions which now obtain within the industry make it absolutely vital that the Minister should reconsider his whole policy—his policy, for example, in relation to these grants. Is he satisfied that he is achieving what he set out to achieve in 1952? I think it would be a good thing if we could guarantee that better grass would replace imported feedingstuffs. It would reduce costs, help with the balance of trade, and would be worth while. But nobody can feel completely happy about this, for it is not of much use encouraging more grass if it is not properly grazed and properly managed. Those two things must run together in that connection. Neither is it of much use if a flush of milk off grass or a seasonal supply of meat off grass cannot be sold or properly preserved for use in the off-peak periods.

If we are to get more and better grass, for Heaven's sake let us use the product from that grass in the way it should be used. I was delighted with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), that if we cannot use these things, then let the under-privileged and under-fed of the world use them for their advantage. It is said that two-thirds of the world's people do not know what it is to experience a full and satisfied belly. If we can do something to use our surplus product to that end, it would be well worth while. It is sometimes said—I have said it myself before—that when America finds that she has a surplus of wheat or whatever it may be, she might well distribute it to the starving world. If we ever reach the stage when we have a surplus or a considerable over-production of any of these commodities, then let this two-thirds of the world's population have some of the advantage. It would be well worth doing for more than one reason.

We must ensure that the meat we produce, when we produce it off grass, is properly marketed or, indeed, stored, for the period when it is required. The slaughter of cattle gives an indication of what I mean. Slaughtering goes on at the rate of about 60 to 70 per cent. of the year's average in the winter, spring and early summer, rising to 150 to 180 per cent. of the year's average in the late summer and early autumn. That is understandable; it comes off grass, off the cheapest feedingstuff we know, the production and quality of which this Scheme is designed to increase and improve.

We must ensure that there is reasonable marketing without gluts, and that the important end products of our grass are used at a time of the year when weather conditions are not favourable to their preservation or immediate use. These gluts should be catered for by additional storage facilities, etc. If the Minister has his way, he will be faced with an increasing problem, for there will be more and better grass, and better silage and better hay, with the means of conserving our grass when we have it, will be required.

We will, of course, give the Minister this Scheme, but he really must give the whole policy behind it—there must be a policy behind it as there was supposed to be a policy behind the original Bill—further consideration in the light of the complete failure up to now to achieve the objects of the original Act under which these Schemes are now produced.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

I intervene only because I understood that we were going to take both Schemes together, and I thought that if I did not rise now I might be too late. I did think the Parliamentary Secretary was going to say a word in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion).

Mr. Godber

I was proposing to do so, but I did not wish to stop you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in putting the Question; I have had a long session.

I appreciate the point which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has put forward, but there is, I think, a clear distinction which should be brought out. First of all, I will just thank him for the researches he has made into my own past remarks. I am very flattered, and I must say that, after this passage of time, I am very relieved to find they were no worse.

The point the hon. Gentleman was making in regard to tillage acreage being maintained is perfectly valid. It is, however, important to realise that at present we are thinking more in terms of arable acreage, which, of course, includes temporary grass, as well as crops and fallow. In fact, the arable acreage has been almost maintained. It is now at a figure of 17,610,000 acres compared with 17,998,000 in 1951. The figure, therefore, has been almost maintained during the passage of time when there has been a natural tendency for the land to go back to grass. Although we have not achieved any expansion, we have at least kept the level more or less even.

It is not unfair to point out that the grants are a valuable form of assistance to the small farmer in many ways. We are anxious to see that small farmers are assisted and this is one practical way in which we can do it. I was interested to find that the average acreage ploughed up by beneficiaries in the last year was eight acres. This shows clearly that small farmers have been making considerable use of the Scheme. It is a valuable one for them in particular because it injects money at a time when they most need it. We think it is valuable to continue it in this form for the maintenance of the arable acreage.

We are more anxious, as the hon. Member said, to put the emphasis on good grassland. We want to see the grassland improved and there is still a great deal of scope for improving it. There is plenty of room for the use of the grass when it has been produced. After all, our silo subsidy scheme is another way in which we encourage the utilisation of it.

We have a policy for grassland and this Scheme is one part of it. I do not wish to put it too high, but I believe that it is a useful Scheme and I am grateful to the hon. Member for saying that the Opposition will facilitate its passage.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)

I hope that some time—not at this hour of the night—we will have an opportunity of hearing the Government's justification for this subsidy nowadays. I make no bones of the fact that I have always regarded this as a bad subsidy. I have always said so. Had I remained silent tonight, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland might have assumed that I had changed my mind. I have not.

I have never believed that this subsidy was justified. I did not believe that it would have the effect of increasing our tillage acreage, as was claimed it would do when the Bill was introduced in 1952. I said at the time that I had no doubt that the tillage acreage would go up in the first year, but I anticipated that it would then decline, which is what it did.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) has said that from 1955 to 1956 the tillage acreage for the whole country went down by about 500,000 acres, which is a serious matter. From the Report of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I find that during the same period the tillage acreage in Scotland increased by 27,000 acres. In support of the Scottish Scheme, therefore, the Joint Under-Secretary can at least say that in the last year for which we have figures, the tillage acreage increased by 27,000 acres.

To get that 27,000 acres, however, if it was got by the ploughing grant subsidy, we had to pay the grant in respect of 362,000 acres and it cost us over£2½million to get those 27,000 acres. For the country as a whole, we spent, I suppose, six or seven times that amount and lost 500,000 acres in the process. That does not seem to me to be very clever. The Scheme does not seem to be yielding the results for which the Bill was introduced in 1952.

I wonder if the Joint Under-Secretary of State can tell us what has happened since the last year ending June, 1956, which was the first year of the increased subsidy? There was an increase in the tillage acreage with the increased subsidy. I wonder if he has information to give us about what has happened in the second year of the increased subsidy?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord John Hope)

I am afraid it is not possible to give the figures yet.

Mr. Fraser

Without that kind of information the House cannot be sure that it is justified in continuing the Scheme for yet another year. A year has passed since we approved the Scheme giving this grant, and now we have only figures for a year ago.

We are here removing a provision in the previous Scheme whereby the farmer had to have the direct approval of the Secretary of State or the Minister for reseeding of land. That provision has gone by the board. The Parliamentary Secretary said that was as well because 95 per cent. of the applications in any case were conceded. What did the applications amount to? How many acres of land were reseeded directly? This is important for the country as a whole and for Scotland in particular. Is there any reason to believe that land which is ploughed up with the aid of these grants is put back to grass immediately? How much has been put back to grass immediately? How much is it anticipated that, in consequence of this modification of the Scheme, will be put back immediately on being ploughed up?

I think that this is a foolish subsidy. One obvious reason why the House could not reject it is that it is part of a settlement which was arrived at in consequence of the Annual Review in February and March each year. The amount of money under this Scheme is part of a settlement which we normally approve some months earlier. However, this is a bad way to allocate the taxpayers' money to the farmers; a very bad way.

The Parliamentary Secretary said it helped small farmers. On the contrary, the people who get most of this money are not the small farmers but the big farmers. They are the farmers on good land who do the regular seven or eight year rotation of cropping, whose grass will be ploughed up as a matter of course after three years, because that is their normal system of husbandry. It is the self-same farmers who, to those of us who consult them, complain bitterly about the amount of tax they have to pay on these and other subsidies. The Joint Under-Secretary of State could say that a good bit of this money goes back to the Chancellor. If it does, is it not silly that we should give it in the way we do?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State has been sitting with us who represent Scotland in the Scottish Grand Committee upstairs discussing a Bill dealing with subsidies, and there the Secretary of State laid it down as a principle, in dealing with housing subsidies, that subsidy should not be given to any person who does not need subsidy. He lays that down as a principle in housing legislation, but he does not do so here. I am not asking him to apply that principle here. I am merely asking him to be consistent. We do not advocate the introduction of a means test for this subsidy. We merely say that it is equally inapplicable to the housing subsidies we have been discussing in Committee upstairs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

Draft Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1957 [copy laid before the House, 15th May], approved.—[Lord John Hope.]