HC Deb 30 January 1958 vol 581 cc650-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,136,143, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Crofters Commission; for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; for certain payments in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with services to agriculture; including land drainage and flood services; purchase, improvement and management of land; land settlement; public works in the congested districts and roads in other livestock rearing areas; services in connection with livestock and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and labour schemes; control of pests; agricultural education, research and advisory services; marketing; and agricultural credits.

10.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)

I think that the Committee would want a very brief explanation of certain of the matters contained in this Estimate, and I will try to cover the ground as quickly as I can. The gross sum required, of course, to meet expenditure is £5,708,258. This is offset to the extent of £572,115 represented by savings under the various Subheads of the Department's affairs which appear in pages 17 and 18. The Supplementary Estimate, therefore, is for a net sum of £5,136,143.

The two largest items are for cereals at £3,451,000 and for milk at £1,197,000. The break-up of the cereal figure might be of interest, as I know it is to one hon. Member. It breaks up into wheat and rye, £382,000, barley £537,000, and oats £2,532,000, of which latter sum £800,000 is due to the Price Review. The rest, of course, is largely accounted for by the fall in world prices, and as this ground was very fully covered in an earlier debate today I do not propose to deal more with it now.

I shall therefore limit myself to giving a very brief résumé of the other Subheads of the Vote on which excesses arise. Under "Administration," Subheads A.1 and A.4, we anticipate a total increase of £92,028. This is almost entirely due to unforeseen pay increases for the staff of the Department, and for the Chairman, members and staff of the Crofters Commission. The small increase for telegraph and telephone services, £2,560, is wholly attributable to increased service charges by the Post Office.

Under the head of "Farming Grants and Subsidies" provision is made for an excess of £45,000 on Subhead B.1 for "Grants for Ploughing up of Grassland." Expenditure under this head is always difficult to estimate and, as it turns out, the weather has a considerable bearing on the outturn. The very favourable weather in the latter part of 1957 probably accounts for the greater acreage ploughed than was expected.

In the case of "Grants for the Improvement of Livestock Rearing Land," the value of work being carried out under approved schemes is increasing and claims for payment of grant are exceeding expectations. To meet these claims a further £65,000 on Subhead B.3 is required. There has been no marked falling off in the intake by way of new schemes during the current year and the upward trend in expenditure seems likely to be maintained, and that, considering the purposes for which it was intended, is not unsatisfactory.

For "Calf Subsidy" and "Subsidy Payments in respect of Hill Cattle," the additional sums required are £200,000 and £152,000, respectively. In these cases, again, the numbers of calves and cattle eligible for subsidy exceeded expectations. That is to some extent a matter for satisfaction inasmuch as there is now more concentration on beef which is what we are wanting to see. The increase of £7,000 on Subhead B.11 for "Grants for Producers in the Scottish Islands" is due largely to much heavier usage than was contemplated of lime and fertilisers in the islands.

The increased provision of £186,000 on Subhead D.2 for "Flood Emergency Services" is an unfortunate outcome of a second severe storm in the North-East of Scotland in August, 1957. Following severe flooding in that area in 1956, the Government undertook the restoration of the banks and channels of certain of the rivers in Moray, Nairn and adjacent areas. With work still incomplete, this second storm caused further damage to areas still awaiting attention and to restoration works already completed but not consolidated. There was no alternative but to accept responsibility for these additional commitments. On Subhead E.3, "Management and Farming Expenses," the increase of £65,160 is necessary to meet the cost of taking over sheep stocks on subjects acquired by the Forestry Commission. My Department had no information of the Commission's intention to acquire these subjects when its estimates were made. Recoveries will, however, accrue against this expenditure while the subjects are being managed by the Department and as and when the sheep stocks are sold.

There is a quite substantial increase of £151,000 on Subhead F.6, "Other Loans and Grants to Crofters." This is a new scheme, and the estimates were necessarily speculative. The present scheme replaces the old marginal agricultural production scheme. The response of the crofters has exceeded all expectations, particularly as regards cropping grants, and the additional provision is necessary to meet eligible claims.

The last four items for which extra provision is necessary are very minor ones, and I think they speak for themselves, but if there are any questions my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will certainly deal with them when he replies. I think I have covered the main points in the Estimate, and I hope that we shall get it through very shortly.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn

It is rather regrettable that this business has to come on at this late hour. I am not blaming our colleagues south of the Border, because they had some very important matters to discuss and it was perhaps right that they should discuss them, but I think that probably they did not realise that while they were not rationing themselves, they were definitely rationing the Scottish discussion of these matters so severely as practically to render it no discussion at all.

The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary has given us a brief sketch of what has occasioned this extra Estimate. It must come as a shock to the country, in spite of the fact that it carries out agreements concerning the last February Price Review. To see a total of £50 million at a time when even a Government was nearly broken by £50 million must strike the public as something quite drastic. I realise that this is not part of the subject that we can discuss tonight, but a very serious problem is raised when this amount which is so serious in the one case has to be passed, perhaps without proper discussion, in this case.

I gather that the Estimate shows that the policy of the Government of changing over more and more from the production of cereals for home consumption to the production of cereals for cattle feed, which the Minister mentioned in the earlier debate, has certainly been successful. As far as Scotland is concerned, we cannot object to that, because it is leading to the production of better cattle, and Scotland's prosperity depends on quality rather than quantity. During the war Scotland suffered from the other policy of producing meat without any distinction, whereas when we produce meat with distinction in quality Scotland rather comes into its own. On the whole, Scotland will welcome the evidence in the Estimate that this is taking place.

I should like to ask the Secretary of State what criteria govern these extras. Are they subject to the same scrutiny as is applied to other Estimates? For instance, if Estimates come forward from other Departments of State, I understand that they are subject to the most critical scrutiny. The pruning knife is out, and will be out in the future. Is this matter being treated more gently than, for instance, the social services? Are the offspring of cattle to be treated more leniently than offspring of human beings when it comes to education, school meals and matters of that kind?

When these proposals come along we shall make comparisons. While we are not grudging this if it is necessary, we do grudge it if it is not being dealt with in the most efficient manner and if some tenderness is being shown in this Estimate which is not being shown in other directions.

Mr. Maclay

This, of course, is a Supplementary Estimate, and, like everything else, it is scrutinised with the greatest possible care. The right hon. Gentleman will realise from what I said, and from the nature of the Estimate, that many of the demands are unavoidable, the result of weather and other natural processes.

Mr. Woodburn

Yes, but the growth of the Health Estimates is due to the fall in the value of money; the health services are becoming more efficient, but evidently they are still to be the subject of cuts. The question is, do the same criteria apply to the one as to the other?

Coming to the other side of this subject, that is, the increase to the crofters, the increase in connection with the developing cattle population, and the increase for lime in the Highlands, all those things are highly satisfactory. The use of lime in the Highlands is something we have been trying to encourage for years, in order to increase fertility and productivity in those areas. Therefore, the increased expenditure seems to promise improved agriculture. I am sure that these things come from a growth in well-being. I know houses which were considered slums when I was a boy, and now the increase in well-being among people in those slums is such that the families living there make those houses into homes, with electric light, beautiful furniture, and the rest, even though the buildings were nearly condemned about forty years ago. So also, where people are getting a little more money, they are buying machinery and they are beginning to use more lime on their land. It may be that, with this kind of encouragement, more will be done to rehabilitate the Highlands than is done by all the Special Commissions we set up.

The work of the Crofters Commission is already having results in the progress shown here. The fact that the crofters have been needing more in developing their agriculture and making permanent improvements shows that the whole process is being speeded up to an extent never expected even by the Government. This is not unwise expenditure; it is expenditure which will bear fruit in the future.

As regards cattle, the whole policy of the 1947 Act, for which, as regards Scotland, I was responsible in the House, was to lay down a programme so that, in a number of years, production from agriculture could be increased by 50 per cent. We have passed that figure now. In the Highlands of Scotland especially, progress towards increasing the numbers and improving the quality of cattle has been most satisfactory. Therefore, even now, when there are, perhaps, a few clouds on the farming horizon, the demand for grants and the opportunities for gaining them show that Scotland is returning to a progressive agricultural system. This state of affairs is peculiarly suitable for Scotland and it is good for the nation. It is a type of agriculture which enriches the soil, whereas continual draining of the soil by cropping sometimes impoverishes it. The production of cattle for meat in this way will make the soil richer and richer as times goes on; the Scottish farmer is very provident and prudent, keeping his asset going.

These things are the result of an investment by the nation in agriculture. Not only farmers but the nation too has, from 1947 onwards, invested considerable capital to assist farmers. That investment has shown results, and our agriculture today is not only stronger but is now producing a quantity of food the absence of which would have caused this country extreme embarrassment in our foreign exchange and balance of payments.

I should have liked to have heard more discussion of one item which the Minister treated as a rather small matter of £3,000 for experimental schemes of peat-cutting and surveys of peat bogs. This may be a small beginning, but it deals with a matter which could have important results. I hope that at some time the Secretary of State will take the opportunity of letting the Committee or the House know what is happening in this experiment. I have been looking forward to paying a visit to see what is going on but I have not yet been able to do so. I am sure that the House of Commons and the people of Scotland would be glad to have news of the experiment.

I will not take up the time of the Committee any longer. The timetable is one of the problems of the House of Commons. Very often Scottish Members are abused for keeping hon. Members in the Chamber late at night. I hope that our English and Welsh colleagues who have now departed to their rest will realise that it is they who have kept the Scots here late at night and that no blame attaches to the loquacity of the Scots, who are at this moment giving a commendable example to their colleagues. We support this Estimate because it is designed to carry out a pledge made to the farmers and is claimed to help a policy which will make for better progress in agriculture. At the same time, we feel that we must be careful to treat every citizen with equal justice and not show tenderness to a certain section and then approach with a ruthless pruning knife others who cannot defend themselves and who do not count for votes at election times.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,136,143, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Crofters Commission; for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; for certain payments in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for grants, grants in aid and expenses in connection with services to agriculture; including land drainage and flood services; purchase, improvement and management of land; land settlement; public works in the congested districts and roads in other livestock rearing areas; services in connection with livestock and compensation for slaughter of diseased animals; provision and operation of machinery; training and labour schemes; control of pests; agricultural education, research and advisory services; marketing; and agricultural credits.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.