HC Deb 12 April 1960 vol 621 cc1167-82

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Agricultural Lime (Amendment) Scheme, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 546), dated 21st March, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th March, be annulled. Unaccustomed as I am to so moving at this early hour, it nevertheless might meet the convenience of the House if I say at once that I have no intention of asking my hon. Friends to divide on the Motion. One of our difficulties is that we can only raise matters on such a Motion as this by praying.

The purpose of the Scheme, according to the Explanatory Note, is that The contributions payable under the Agricultural Lime Scheme, 1947, as amended, towards the cost of acquiring, transporting and spreading lime are by this Scheme increased from six tenths to thirteen twentieths of such cost in respect of lime delivered on or after the 1st April, 1960. In other words, this is increasing the contribution of the taxpayer to 65 per cent. of the price of the lime which is used by the farmer. As, however, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree, the matter is not quite as straightforward as that, because if we turn to the Price Review determination we find that it was there stated that the subsidy on lime was at the rate of 60 per cent. for most of the year with an increase to 70 per cent. for a period of seventeen weeks in the summer. The higher seasonal rate has now tended to concentrate too much demand in a limited period. Accordingly, the subsidy for 1960–61 will be at a flat rate of 65 per cent. throughout the year.

The first point I put is, what is actually the extent of the present increase? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has surely made that calculation. I raise this point particularly, because if we look at the figures for subsidies for this year we see that it is anticipated that the subsidy will fall from £11 million to £10 million.

I welcome the attendance of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). It is noteworthy that his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not with us. We are now discussing the expendi- ture of £10 million of the taxpayer's money, and I would have thought that would have attracted the hon. Member for Kidderminster's attention. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is not with us either. However, I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely agrees that we should consider this matter seriously, and that is why I welcome his attendance.

It would seem from the figures that I have given that the Government are anticipating a reduction in the consumption of lime this year. This is a matter of importance, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely will agree. The lime subsidy has served a very important purpose in the restoration and preservation of soil fertility. As the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows, I am always willing to make comparisons with other countries in order to check our farming policy, and in this regard, and, of course, partly because of the particular circumstances pertaining here, our use of lime bears favourable comparison with that of any other country.

I am therefore concerned about the rate of consumption. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will remember that we debated the lime subsidy last summer. He then estimated that the overall deficiency of lime was 30 million tons, and that the amount of lime required for maintenance was 4 million tons a year. As we narrow the overall deficiency, the greater is the requirement for maintenance. It was on the basis of those figures that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary then estimated that our requirement was 9 million tons for the next six years. It is important, therefore, to pay attention to the Government's estimate of consumption next year because we know that the present annual consumption falls far short of 9 million tons.

I often find it difficult to accept the estimates of the hon. Gentleman's Department. Last year we were discussing the extension of the lime scheme for a further five years. He then gave us his estimate that the requirement was 30 million tons, but we know that previous estimates have been made. In 1937 our use of lime was only 500,000 tons a year and the deficiency was 40 million tons. That, incidentally, is a dramatic indictment of Tory agricultural policy before the war.

There have been more recent estimates. It would certainly be very discouraging, if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was correct last year, to find that after twenty-one years and a considerable expenditure of public funds we had only reduced the deficiency by one-quarter. Many figures supplied by the hon. Gentleman's Department are suspect. In 1952 it was reliably estimated that the deficiency was 19 million tons. How did it rise to 30 million tons last year? I understand the difficulty of making these estimates, but we should try to get some consistent basis of estimating. We are trying to measure the effect of public finance supporting this industry.

We know that in 1958 it was estimated that the requirement was 7 million tons for seven years. I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realises that he is accountable to the House, and in a case like this we want a reliable estimate so that we can measure the contribution which we properly make to the industry. If we are concerned with that contribution, we are also concerned with the change which has been made this year —taking away the incentive for the increased use of lime during the summer.

I gather that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's argument is that so great has the demand become in summer that it is being increasingly difficult to meet it. The difficulty about the change which he has made is that if the rate of 70 per cent. was an effective incentive, is the reduction in rate of 10 per cent. this year going to be a very real disincentive?

Liming is vitally important to grassland. The Caine Committee supported the summer incentive. I want to be satisfied that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary does not think, or has good reason not to think, that this will not be a great disincentive to the use of lime at a very effective time of the year. Will he also consider whether we should really be satisfied, when we have production supported to the extent of 65 per cent. of the cost of transport and spreading, complacently to accept the argument that the industry cannot, in fact, meet the needs of farming? Is he absolutely satisfied that the industry has taken every step to ensure that the farmers receive the lime when it would be most effective, or has he just accepted, as his Department have often accepted, things as they are?

I know that this is a temporary subsidy, but it has already operated for twenty-one years and will operate for at least another five. In 1946–47, the subsidy was running at the rate of £2½ million a year. Last year, it was £11 million and this year, if the estimates are right—and I have no reason to suppose that they are —it will be £10 million.

When a subsidy like this is continued for so long, we should know far more about the industry. I have said that I much prefer the accountability in this case to that in the case of fertilisers. It is an absolute disgrace that with fertilisers there are no costings whatever. However, here we have costings and that is a valuable safeguard, including a safeguard to the industry. The industry is entitled to feel more secure against criticism if it is known—and it should be widely known—that there is a system of costing.

However, not long ago the Comptroller and Auditor-General expressed his dissatisfaction that there appeared to be no savings in production costs from improved efficiency and new techniques. Here we have a guaranteed market with a considerable subvention from the taxpayer to support that market now running at 65 per cent. of the price. Unless we have a vigorous and dynamic Ministry, this is not the sort of structure which will get improvements and new techniques which will help to offset cost increases and which one is entitled to expect from an industry which has this considerable security from a considerable subvention.

The Ministry is not able to deal with a problem like this, because it is not equipped to deal with it. That is something which we have to consider when we study generally the support which we are quite properly giving to agriculture. Here we need to have people with businesslike commercial experience to advise us, but the need was believed to be temporary when it was first introduced just before the war. As a result the Scheme was introduced in 1939 and has continued unchanged.

I think that I am right in saying that when we discussed this matter last summer, the Parliamentary Secretary promised us some sort of inquiry. It may be that I am misinformed, but I have not yet seen any results of that inquiry. We should have those results before deciding to take the steps which were taken in the Price Review.

This is a matter not only of public moneys but of moneys which come out of the Price Review, so that from both the taxpayers' point of view and the farmers' point of view we should be absolutely sure that there is proper accountability and should be satisfied that we have the most efficient way of using this subvention.

When we discussed the matter last year, I said that in a structure such as this there was obviously no drive for keen competitive prices. That is reflected in what the Parliamentary Secretary proposes in the present Scheme. There is the difficulty of meeting consumer demands, and we now get a disincentive to level off that demand. I should have liked to have heard what steps had been taken to meet that demand and whether the Ministry was equipped to consider such action and what action the Government had taken to see that we got keen competition in the industry.

I have no reason to criticise the industry, but on the other hand, I have no reason to feel satisfied. As we all have a considerable interest in the matter, I should be in a position to be satisfied. All I know is that, following the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General, some inquiry is being held, but I do not know by whom and I do not know whether we may expect to hear something later.

There is a further difficult problem demanding lively intelligence from the Government. With production for a guaranteed market in which one can sell all the lime produced and with subsidies supporting the price to the extent of 65 per cent., there is bound to be a great deal of marginal production, which we know is bound to lead to an extravagant cost formula. That may be unavoidable if we want full production, but it makes the cost formula difficult to operate and also means that there is no drive within the industry to take measures which might otherwise be taken to lower costs.

These factors are the results of Government interference. This is an industry whose present shape and character are determined by the Government. Before we agree to a Scheme like this, we should be satisfied that the Government are alive to the resulting problems and that they can give us satisfactory information and satisfactory assurances, which they have not been able to give so far. In the summer, the Parliamentary Secretary was able to tell us that the price of lime had rather less than doubled over a period which bore satisfactory comparison with other commodities. However, we know that production is 14 times more than it was in 1937, so we come back to the issue raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General—are we satisfied that we have the benefits of this enormous increase in production and in assured markets? Of course, in part this is the same problem which we put to the Parliamentary Secretary the other day about fertilisers generally.

There is a complaint which I have no reason to support, but about which it is right and proper that we should receive an assurance. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in our debate last summer my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) and the then hon. Member for Leominster, Sir Archer Baldwin, whom we very much miss in our debates on agriculture, suggested that in some cases there were grounds for complaint about quality— they were concerned with ground limestone.

The Parliamentary Secretary assured us that there were frequent periodic samplings and that his information gave no ground for such complaints. I put the same question, not because I have any grounds for complaint but because when we are considering a commodity which the taxpayer subsidises to the extent of 65 per cent. we are entitled to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there is sufficient sampling and that we are getting value for money.

I realise that the problems I have raised are extremely difficult. We have the figures provided by O.E.E.C. Incidentally, I wish that O.E.E.C. would present figures in a more comparable form. I mention that because, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, there was some difficulty about the figures for fertilisers.

If we look at the O.E.E.C. figures, and any other figures that we can obtain, we see that we have a good record in the use of lime. However, what we are particularly concerned with is the effect of the subsidy. During the period with which we are concerned other countries have not adopted subsidies to the extent that we have. The Germans, for instance, have a 20 per cent. subsidy and if we look at the comparative figures there is not an absolute case made out for this subsidy at its present rate.

If we look at prices, it would appear, as would be suspected from some of the things that I have said, that there has been a sufficient elimination of competition to lead to an avoidance of the effect that such competition might have had on prices. Although since 1939 there has been a dramatic increase in the consumption of lime, nevertheless over the past few years annual consumption has fluctuated, and we now apparently have the situation where the Joint Parliamentary Secretary expects there to be a decline in its use this year.

Nevertheless, we regard this as probably one of the best production grants. We recognise what the lime industry has done to increase production to meet the enormously increased demand, but we must, however, satisfy ourselves that we are receiving value for money, both absolutely and relatively, because this is money within the Price Review determination, and if it is not used for this purpose it will be used for some other purpose.

I have already expressed the view that the Government have been carried away by production grants without having any clear policy. They have reached the stage where their manoeuvrability has become confined and where they are limited in what they can do about prices. Nevertheless, I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not for a moment think that we are being unduly hostile in raising these matters. They are fundamental matters to which a good deal of thought must be given. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will assure us that his Department is seized of these matters and is doing what it can—and I hope it will try to equip itself to do what it must—to see that these considerable subventions which affect not only the taxpayer but the farmer are used to the best purpose and that there is no avoidable waste. If there is avoidable waste, it is borne equally by the taxpayer and the farmer.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins (Brecon and Radnor)

I should like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary one or two questions about this subsidy, and to put forward a suggestion. As he knows, a Welsh Grand Committee has been set up. If I wanted to bring to the attention of the Welsh Grand Committee any problem in connection with lime I would not be able to do so because there is no reference to lime in Cmnd. 961, Wales and Monmouthshire, Report on Developments and Government Action, 1959. Will he consider including lime, the way that the silo subsidy is included?

I ask that because we are concerned in some parts of the country with the fallout of Strontium 90. Has the spreading of lime in areas of high milk production had any effect on the radioactive fall out? My information is that where rainfall is greater one gets a greater fall out of Strontium 90.

I was glad to find at the week end when the weather was dry that for a while there was a great deal of white cloud about. At first I thought there was a forest fire somewhere but I found out later that it was due to lime being spread

I am glad that the co-operative organisations in my part of the country produce lime. It is interesting to find that they have developed the limestone quarries to a considerable extent. Has the Joint Parliamentary-Secretary any information why there has been an increase in the production of lime by cooperative organisations? I am sorry that I was not able to give notice of these questions. The Welsh Agricultural Society would be glad if the co-operative societies in central Wales undertook to do this kind of work and produced lime at a cheaper rate.

I am sorry to have intervened without notice, but I am anxious that there should be a reference to the lime subsidy in the White Paper so that the Welsh Grand Committee can consider it.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

Because of certain proceedings in the House yesterday I wonder whether we can discuss what is before the Public Accounts Committee. As a member of that Committee I have to tread very warily. It is no secret that these subsidies have provided the Public Accounts Committee with food for thought for many years.

The Comptroller and Auditor General has often brought to our attention the considerable sums of money that are being spent, not so much by way of complaint, but to see whether we are getting a good return for the money we are spending. Who does the sampling of this lime? I know that this question has been raised on more than one occasion when dealing with fertilisers, and one school of thought considers that if it was the responsibility of the Department to take samples of these fertilisers it would be more readily able to correct any deficiencies.

Suppose under the present arrangements a sample were taken and it was found to be deficient in content. What come-back would the Ministry have to recoup from the supplier any money it might have spent on the sample which proved deficient?

Major H. Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

On a point of order. Is not the hon. Gentleman now raising the whole question of the composition of a compound fertiliser, which goes right outside this Order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. So far I have not felt that it was my duty to intervene.

Mr. Hoy

I am grateful for your support, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should have thought that instead of raising such a small point the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) would have been as interested as I am in ensuring that the farmer who orders the lime gets what he pays for. That is what I am asking, whether, when the samples are taken, the Ministry is able to assure the farmer that he is getting what he has paid for. If the Ministry is unable to give that guarantee, how can it recoup itself for any deficiency in the material that is supplied?

Secondly, I should like to direct a question to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whom we are glad to see with us. This Scheme covers the whole country. I should like to know what was the estimated amount of lime needed in Scotland, how it is being met today and what proportion of this expenditure will be devoted to agriculture in Scotland. These are a few simple, but I suggest, important questions. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to provide answers to them.

7.51 p.m.

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

I am grateful to hon. Members for the points they have raised on this Prayer. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for having made clear that he does not propose to divide the House on this issue. I am also grateful for having been given adequate time to reply on this occasion, which I do not always have.

The hon. Member, in moving the Prayer, reminded us of the fact that in the White Paper we made it quite clear that we were proposing to even out the rate over the year, and therefore, although the Scheme is in the form of providing for 65 per cent. as opposed to 60 per cent., this is not a question of an increase, but of spreading the subsidy over the year. We shall be paying a uniform rate throughout the whole year. The effect of this change on the amount of subsidy will be quite small. On the basis of the tonnage used in the current financial year, about 7,150,000 tons, it would mean an estimated reduction of about £113,000 on the total subsidy bill.

The hon. Member has taken the point that in the estimates from which he quoted we estimated £10 million instead of £11 million, but it is difficult to know exactly what the application of lime will be. Last year we had a very favourable season and were pleased to see a larger amount of lime applied. It was higher than in previous years, but for this year we have estimated at a lower figure. If the same quantity was put on, there would be a reduction of about £113,000 on the total subsidy bill.

We have increased the basic rate to enable the summer subsidy to be withdrawn without affecting the total lime subsidy more than we can help. The higher rate of subsidy for summer liming has been going on for seven years and has recently been at the rate of 10 per cent. on the basic rate, and has lasted for seventeen weeks each year. It was introduced to encourage liming of grassland and hill land and land inaccessible at other times of the year. The previous pattern of liming activity had been of sharp peaks in the spring and autumn but the continuation of an extra summer subsidy has had a marked effect on the pattern. In 1953, 38 per cent. of the uptake of lime was delivered at the highest summer rate. In 1958 that had risen to 57 per cent. For the financial year just ended the percentage delivered at the summer rate will be just over 60 per cent. That is a steadily rising trend.

If the trend over the last few years should continue this year we would have about two-thirds of the total lime used delivered in the seventeen weeks of the summer period. It is clear that the extra subsidy is not only achieving the object of getting the lime on the land in the summer, but is, we think, tending to make the pendulum swing a little too far in that direction. The advantage of summer liming has been demonstrated and the practice seems to be established so that in the coming season we have decided that there should be no additional subsidy in the summer. I hope we shall not lose some of the advantages which have been achieved over past years, but that we shall avoid some of the difficulties which have been produced, in the last year or two particularly, by this increasing concentration of liming in a short period of the year.

This concentration has resulted in some unemployment both of men and specialised vehicles, and spreading machines, in periods outside the summer. We had the peak period in the summer and this had a disadvantageous effect in other periods. Over-concentration like this which was being built up could become more and more wasteful. The return to a flat rate should secure the economic advantages of a more even level of activity spread over a greater part of the year. As the hon. Member will be aware, following the comments of the Public Accounts Committee last year, we have appointed public accountants to investigate lime costs and this survey is proceeding.

This survey is being undertaken by a very well known firm of accountants and it will soon be completed. We hope it will not take very long. We think most of the costings work is complete and the firm will need time to collate the results. I am glad to give the assurance that this work has been undertaken and the comments of the Public Accounts Committee have been very much borne in mind.

At the same time, the fact that the basic lime subsidy has been increased from 60 per cent. to 65 per cent. will demonstrate to the House that the Government are anxious to encourage farmers to maintain their liming activities. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North gave some figures which reminded us of something I said a year ago. On that occasion I think I said the need was still for 30 million tons. I can only repeat that the best estimate we have is still very similar. The hon. Member was somewhat scathing about some of our figures and estimates, but I ask him to be generous in this matter. It is very difficult to get precise figures in relation to a matter of this sort. Although we naturally take note of his strictures and always endeavour to do better, it is very difficult to get precise figures. The figure I gave last year was a very general one and I cannot change very much from it.

The hon. Member reminded us that on that occasion I said we would need 9 million tons of lime a year for six years to restore the position. I did not indicate that we hoped to get that and we have never reached that figure, but last year, which was a very good year, we got just over 7 million tons. The operation was quite an achievement. I would not vary very much from the figure of 30 million tons as being what is still required, in addition to an annual loss from leaching of about 3½ million tons of calcium carbonate. If we are to replace our annual lime loss and make some headway in reducing overall deficiency, We have to continue at the present rate of 6 million or 7 million tons each year for a considerable number of years.

As I have indicated, I do not think it is practicable to think in terms very much higher, although we are anxious to stimulate as great a quantity as it is reasonably possible to do. As I have said, in the last year we had over 7 million tons, which we think was a very good figure. Undoubtedly the fine weather helped a great deal in that regard. Undoubtedly, too, it has shown that the farmers realise very much the value of constant liming to maintain improved fertility. If the weather is reasonably favourable this year, we might reach the same figure as in 1959.

I assure the House that we shall watch very closely the effect of withdrawing the summer subsidy. We think the pattern has been established and that many farmers whose land is particularly suitable for summer liming will have recognised the value and will continue the practice. There may be some reduction and that we would welcome to get a more even spread, but, if there were any likelihood of slipping back to the position in which deliveries were concentrated in the spring and autumn, we would certainly look at the matter again. This is a matter in which we have to feel our way and watch very carefully the effect of the subsidies we are operating. We are trying to get the best level. After having given the stimulus, we are making this readjustment.

The hon. Member also asked me if we were thinking of this in terms of a disincentive. My answer is that we are trying to get the same incentive, but to spread it more evenly over the year, and I think that that is probably the best way in which we can help in this regard.

As regards the industry which is supplying this lime, the hon. Member had some comments to make. I have already referred to the costing survey, and to the fact that we hope to get a report on it before very long. As regards the question of the quality of the lime, we have regular testings carried out by our own officials, and, in reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), if there is any fault found, we can reduce the price on which we pay a subsidy, and the farmer has redress. If he is unfairly treated, he can take the matter to court, where he will have the advantage of the reports which we make, so that there is a fairly adequate safeguard here. I would add that suppliers realise that there is an obligation on them, and know that tests are being carried out all the time. By and large, we have a pretty good story to tell in regard to safeguards for the farmer and the public purse, and I am very happy to give that assurance.

I was glad to note that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North made it quite clear that his party approves in general the policy of this lime subsidy, and that hon. Members opposite approve and welcome the need to stimulate the use of lime to at least the present extent. From the figures which I have given, it is clear that any increase that could be brought about with the present facilities and resources we have would certainly be welcomed by all, and I think that is the view of both sides of the House. I am very glad to know this, because I am quite sure that this is a very important part of our agricultural production grants.

The hon. Member for Sunderland, North also made the point that, as he thought, our production grants are at a high percentage, and he seemed to think that this was unplanned. I assure him that we go into these things very carefully indeed in order to help the farmer in every way and we believe that these production grants are a very great help to the farmers. This is not something which has happened by chance, but something which we think is to the general advantage, and it is part of our general farming policy. I am happy to think that this lime subsidy, at any rate, is not a controversial point of our policy, and that it is welcomed on both sides of the House.

Mr. Hoy

May I have a reply to the Scottish questions?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn)

I am very happy to respond to the request of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy). Perhaps it would be helpful if I tried to put the Scottish position in perspective. The difficulties created by the summer subsidy have not risen quite so acutely in Scotland as in the rest of the country. Spring liming is extensively practised in Scotland, and the incidence of the consumption in March and April has the effect of extending the period of heavy demand to six months. Nevertheless, it is estimated that in 1958–59, some 47 per cent. of Scotland's annual consumption was delivered in the four-month period—the 17-week period of the summer subsidy.

The hon. Member for Leith asked a specific question as to what proportion of the money value went to Scotland, and the figures for 1958–59 were £9,227,000 for the United Kingdom and £2,314,000 for Scotland. I hope that the hon. Member will feel that that answer is satisfactory.

Mr. Willey

rose—

Mr. Godber

Before the hon. Member rises again, may I apologise because I inadvertently failed to reply to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). I apologise; it was quite an oversight. The hon. Member asked me a question about the Welsh Grand Committee. I am looking forward myself to having an opportunity on some occasion of meeting this very important body, and I have certainly noted the points that he raised with regard to it. I shall welcome the advice that undoubtedly I shall get on the occasion when I dare show myself there.

The hon. Member referred to Strontium 90, and asked whether liming is reducing the intake of Strontium 90. This is a point on which it is very difficult to have precise views, because scientific advice is not wholly unanimous on this point. Undoubtedly, Strontium can take the place of calcium, and we are told by some scientists that calcium is more welcome and more readily absorbed than Strontium 90, but whether additional liming will in fact reduce the intake of Strontium, is a point on which we cannot be absolutely certain. I am grateful to the hon. Member for posing the question, and if I can get anything further on that point, I will let him know. I am not a scientist myself, and it was a rather tricky point with which to deal.

As regards the production of lime by co-operative bodies, I am told that such co-operative lime quarries as are operating have shared in the increased consumption of lime over recent years. In so far as they are competitive, I am sure that they will continue to do so.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Willey

I am sure that we were delighted to hear the Scottish Minister justify his attendance. With regard to the speech of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, one seizes with alacrity any assurance that he will try to do better. Personally, I am much heartened to feel that the Public Accounts Committee is behind me. I was also very satisfied to get an assurance from the hon. Gentleman on the testing of lime for quality. I think it is proper, both in the interests of the farmers and of the industry, that such an assurance should be given. I am very pleased also to hear that an inquiry is proceeding into costing, and I hope that our debate will be of value in expediting the consideration.

I was rather disturbed to ascertain that the Ministry, apparently, now has a weather man, and that his prognostications have to be brought into these calculations. I sincerely hope that he is wrong, because I gather from what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he is anticipating that we will not have as favourable a summer as last year. I hope, at any rate, that his advice was wrong, and that the pendulum-swinging observer happens to be right. We have no wish to oppose this Scheme; we support this action and we are satisfied with the reply which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given. I, therefore, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.